Random Achaea Thoughts

2456714

Comments

  • HerenicusHerenicus The Western Front
    Kuy said:
    Herenicus said:
    Do you still have to chase balance on the way from point a to point z?
    If you're using all the tools at your disposal, chasing balance isn't a relevant term anymore.
    And there goes the human element of combat for me, at least; I find these tools make for a mechanical and sterile experience. 
  • Kuy said:
    Sarapis said:
    Kuy said:
    This isn't really a good metaphor for those of us who taught ourselves how to code, though. A sport related metaphor for those folks would be someone who trained harder than others to reach a level they haven't quite reached themselves.

    I'm rather proud of myself for learning how to make my own aff tracker, even more proud of my logic for herb stacks, and even more proud of my anti-illusion checks. Is any of it perfect? Absolutely not. Is it still my brain-baby? Yup.
    A better metaphor, then, is writing a chess program that plays chess better than you do and then claiming victory at chess when the program wins a chess game. What you're good at in that case isn't playing chess. What you're good at is writing a program to play chess instead of you. They aren't the same thing at all.
    That's way more than what offense-related scripting does when it's successful. It doesn't fight for you. It doesn't kill for you. It doesn't play the game for you. It's a tool that you use, not something you just turn on. It doesn't save you from staying too long against an occultist, take defense measures for you when a serpent snaps, or properly defend your vitals when a BM double breaks you. Even offensively, it doesn't adapt to every possible situation, the changing prios of a smart opponent, or can it ever be truly illusion proof.

    Every argument against a script-infused offensive seems to assume assume it's "set and forget." That assumption is wrong.
    What you're describing is the precise equivalent of an aimbot in an FPS game (ie a bot that aims for you) or a computer program that pulls up a library of positions and the best moves out of those positions for you to examine while playing chess or a spitball in baseball.
  • Some people improve their combat edge by scripting things, some people do it by buying artefacts. I'm not really sure why you could condemn one group but not the other.

    If you say that buying artefacts are like buying professional equipment as opposed to just using amateur equipment... you can say that about most scripts too!
  • Sarapis said:
    Kuy said:
    Sarapis said:
    Kuy said:
    This isn't really a good metaphor for those of us who taught ourselves how to code, though. A sport related metaphor for those folks would be someone who trained harder than others to reach a level they haven't quite reached themselves.

    I'm rather proud of myself for learning how to make my own aff tracker, even more proud of my logic for herb stacks, and even more proud of my anti-illusion checks. Is any of it perfect? Absolutely not. Is it still my brain-baby? Yup.
    A better metaphor, then, is writing a chess program that plays chess better than you do and then claiming victory at chess when the program wins a chess game. What you're good at in that case isn't playing chess. What you're good at is writing a program to play chess instead of you. They aren't the same thing at all.
    That's way more than what offense-related scripting does when it's successful. It doesn't fight for you. It doesn't kill for you. It doesn't play the game for you. It's a tool that you use, not something you just turn on. It doesn't save you from staying too long against an occultist, take defense measures for you when a serpent snaps, or properly defend your vitals when a BM double breaks you. Even offensively, it doesn't adapt to every possible situation, the changing prios of a smart opponent, or can it ever be truly illusion proof.

    Every argument against a script-infused offensive seems to assume assume it's "set and forget." That assumption is wrong.
    What you're describing is the precise equivalent of an aimbot in an FPS game (ie a bot that aims for you) or a computer program that pulls up a library of positions and the best moves out of those positions for you to examine while playing chess or a spitball in baseball.
    Why do we draw the line at player-written scripts for offense, though? Why do we (we as in the playerbase - your thoughts on this are different judging by your posts on the subject) not draw that line at defensive scripts? Why not at multi-line aliases? Why not at writhe triggers for impale? Why not at echoes that suggest your next course of action when a serpent snaps or a tarot user flings aeon?

    It's simply the evolution of the PK meta. Classleads assume perfect execution because we CAN augment our actions with scripts. It's much like when queuing and server side aliases came to the forefront of PK. Queuing is only meant to queue one action at a time, but because we can command stack serverside aliases, we can circumvent that limitation.

    Combat is evolving, and the landscape of the game is evolving because of it. Achaea's combat is more complex than ever, but still has a solid core baseline that anyone that learn. There is no denying that the evolution of current mechanics has at least something to do with PK scripting (both defensive and offensive). For all the nay-saying of it, no one ever looks at the fact that it's had at least a minor cause many imbalanced mechanics to be fixed, new mechanics to be born, and a hearty list of varying combat styles. For instance, within each class, many people are adapting new and exciting strategies at least in part to the collective increase in scripting knowledge. I know that teaching myself how to use tables alone changed the way fight, as well as the way I display vital information on my screen.

    Just to be clear, I'm not trying to condone the stance of "all 'automation' is evil." I just have trouble understanding why anyone who truly enjoys the complexities of Achaean combat could grow so stale in their mindset while the combat scene evolves by leaps and bounds.
    [2:41:24 AM] Kenway: I bet you smell like evergreen trees and you could wrestle boreal mammals but they'd rather just cuddle you
  • Banning automation is a ballsy movie, but I cam't think of many other options to solve the issues you describe. It'd be an interesting experiment at the least. Any ideas on how you would even enforce that?
  • Sarapis said:
    Nim said:
    Some people improve their combat edge by scripting things, some people do it by buying artefacts. I'm not really sure why you could condemn one group but not the other.

    If you say that buying artefacts are like buying professional equipment as opposed to just using amateur equipment... you can say that about most scripts too!
    For the exact same reason that steroids are illegal in cycling but buying a better bike isn't, or why having a faster computer is not considered cheating in an FPS but running an aimbot is. 

    There's only one reason that offensive automation isn't 100% against the rules, and that's because we've not been thrilled at the idea of trying to catch people doing it. Maybe it's reached a point where we will just outlaw it though. Then there's no comparison at all: Artefacts aren't against the rules of the game, whereas offensive automation would be. 



    Herenicus said:
    Offensive scripts are just boring to lose to, like playing a minmax'd chess program. At least with a human opponent, you feel like they had to do more than tap a couple keys and yawn their way to victory. Balance chasing meant an active, engaged human from start to finish.
    @Herenicus You're still assuming that there are people who are pressing a button and watching as their target dies. There is not a single effective combatant that does, or even CAN do that against someone who is fighting back.

    @Sarapis: I still don't see how you could ever enforce that rule. It's completely possible for someone to emulate script-enhanced offense totally manually. Rules that cannot be enforced are meaningless.

    [2:41:24 AM] Kenway: I bet you smell like evergreen trees and you could wrestle boreal mammals but they'd rather just cuddle you
  • Kuy said:
    Sarapis said:
    Kuy said:
    Sarapis said:
    Kuy said:
    This isn't really a good metaphor for those of us who taught ourselves how to code, though. A sport related metaphor for those folks would be someone who trained harder than others to reach a level they haven't quite reached themselves.

    I'm rather proud of myself for learning how to make my own aff tracker, even more proud of my logic for herb stacks, and even more proud of my anti-illusion checks. Is any of it perfect? Absolutely not. Is it still my brain-baby? Yup.
    A better metaphor, then, is writing a chess program that plays chess better than you do and then claiming victory at chess when the program wins a chess game. What you're good at in that case isn't playing chess. What you're good at is writing a program to play chess instead of you. They aren't the same thing at all.
    That's way more than what offense-related scripting does when it's successful. It doesn't fight for you. It doesn't kill for you. It doesn't play the game for you. It's a tool that you use, not something you just turn on. It doesn't save you from staying too long against an occultist, take defense measures for you when a serpent snaps, or properly defend your vitals when a BM double breaks you. Even offensively, it doesn't adapt to every possible situation, the changing prios of a smart opponent, or can it ever be truly illusion proof.

    Every argument against a script-infused offensive seems to assume assume it's "set and forget." That assumption is wrong.
    What you're describing is the precise equivalent of an aimbot in an FPS game (ie a bot that aims for you) or a computer program that pulls up a library of positions and the best moves out of those positions for you to examine while playing chess or a spitball in baseball.
    Why do we draw the line at player-written scripts for offense, though? Why do we (we as in the playerbase - your thoughts on this are different judging by your posts on the subject) not draw that line at defensive scripts? Why not at multi-line aliases? Why not at writhe triggers for impale? Why not at echoes that suggest your next course of action when a serpent snaps or a tarot user flings aeon?

    It's simply the evolution of the PK meta. Classleads assume perfect execution because we CAN augment our actions with scripts. It's much like when queuing and server side aliases came to the forefront of PK. Queuing is only meant to queue one action at a time, but because we can command stack serverside aliases, we can circumvent that limitation.

    Combat is evolving, and the landscape of the game is evolving because of it. Achaea's combat is more complex than ever, but still has a solid core baseline that anyone that learn. There is no denying that the evolution of current mechanics has at least something to do with PK scripting (both defensive and offensive). For all the nay-saying of it, no one ever looks at the fact that it's had at least a minor cause many imbalanced mechanics to be fixed, new mechanics to be born, and a hearty list of varying combat styles. For instance, within each class, many people are adapting new and exciting strategies at least in part to the collective increase in scripting knowledge. I know that teaching myself how to use tables alone changed the way fight, as well as the way I display vital information on my screen.

    Just to be clear, I'm not trying to condone the stance of "all 'automation' is evil." I just have trouble understanding why anyone who truly enjoys the complexities of Achaean combat could grow so stale in their mindset while the combat scene evolves by leaps and bounds.
    Oh, to be clear, I am not a fan of ANY automation. As far as I'm concerned, if you can't fight manually, you're not a good combatant any more than you're a good chess player if you can't play well without a chess computer helping you out. I suck at FPS games (except for Plants vs. Zombies: Garden Warfare, which I'm oddly good at) but I'd never consider using an aimbot just so people think I'm better than I actually am. 

    It's just that the boat long ago sailed on defensive automation to the point where we had to implement server-side curing. If we had an effective way to simply blanket ban all automation, I'd pull the trigger (heh) on that instantly, believe me. 
  • Yeah banning automation at this point would be a terrible move. I'd just leave. One of Achaea's main draw for a lot of pkers is the importance of scripting being able to give you an edge. It's a unique feature of Achaea that simply isn't seen elsewhere, and should be embraced instead of shunned.
  • CaladbolgCaladbolg Campbell County TN
    Sarapis said:
    Kuy said:
    Sarapis said:
    Kuy said:
    Sarapis said:
    Kuy said:
    This isn't really a good metaphor for those of us who taught ourselves how to code, though. A sport related metaphor for those folks would be someone who trained harder than others to reach a level they haven't quite reached themselves.

    I'm rather proud of myself for learning how to make my own aff tracker, even more proud of my logic for herb stacks, and even more proud of my anti-illusion checks. Is any of it perfect? Absolutely not. Is it still my brain-baby? Yup.
    A better metaphor, then, is writing a chess program that plays chess better than you do and then claiming victory at chess when the program wins a chess game. What you're good at in that case isn't playing chess. What you're good at is writing a program to play chess instead of you. They aren't the same thing at all.
    That's way more than what offense-related scripting does when it's successful. It doesn't fight for you. It doesn't kill for you. It doesn't play the game for you. It's a tool that you use, not something you just turn on. It doesn't save you from staying too long against an occultist, take defense measures for you when a serpent snaps, or properly defend your vitals when a BM double breaks you. Even offensively, it doesn't adapt to every possible situation, the changing prios of a smart opponent, or can it ever be truly illusion proof.

    Every argument against a script-infused offensive seems to assume assume it's "set and forget." That assumption is wrong.
    What you're describing is the precise equivalent of an aimbot in an FPS game (ie a bot that aims for you) or a computer program that pulls up a library of positions and the best moves out of those positions for you to examine while playing chess or a spitball in baseball.
    Why do we draw the line at player-written scripts for offense, though? Why do we (we as in the playerbase - your thoughts on this are different judging by your posts on the subject) not draw that line at defensive scripts? Why not at multi-line aliases? Why not at writhe triggers for impale? Why not at echoes that suggest your next course of action when a serpent snaps or a tarot user flings aeon?

    It's simply the evolution of the PK meta. Classleads assume perfect execution because we CAN augment our actions with scripts. It's much like when queuing and server side aliases came to the forefront of PK. Queuing is only meant to queue one action at a time, but because we can command stack serverside aliases, we can circumvent that limitation.

    Combat is evolving, and the landscape of the game is evolving because of it. Achaea's combat is more complex than ever, but still has a solid core baseline that anyone that learn. There is no denying that the evolution of current mechanics has at least something to do with PK scripting (both defensive and offensive). For all the nay-saying of it, no one ever looks at the fact that it's had at least a minor cause many imbalanced mechanics to be fixed, new mechanics to be born, and a hearty list of varying combat styles. For instance, within each class, many people are adapting new and exciting strategies at least in part to the collective increase in scripting knowledge. I know that teaching myself how to use tables alone changed the way fight, as well as the way I display vital information on my screen.

    Just to be clear, I'm not trying to condone the stance of "all 'automation' is evil." I just have trouble understanding why anyone who truly enjoys the complexities of Achaean combat could grow so stale in their mindset while the combat scene evolves by leaps and bounds.
    Oh, to be clear, I am not a fan of ANY automation. As far as I'm concerned, if you can't fight manually, you're not a good combatant any more than you're a good chess player if you can't play well without a chess computer helping you out. I suck at FPS games (except for Plants vs. Zombies: Garden Warfare, which I'm oddly good at) but I'd never consider using an aimbot just so people think I'm better than I actually am. 

    It's just that the boat long ago sailed on defensive automation to the point where we had to implement server-side curing. If we had an effective way to simply blanket ban all automation, I'd pull the trigger (heh) on that instantly, believe me. 
    And you'd lose 90% of your player base.


    To be fair, manualing vs automation in Achaea at this point is the difference between being used to your aliases and setting up a system to handle it better.

    Personally my alias list for bm is.. ^(1)(r|e|w|ws|a|as|s|ss|d|ds|sw|zs|z|xs|x|q|1)(s|w|r|e|n|q|p|k|ey|h|t|f|c|g|1|a|d|u)$

    Now the difference between automation and the above? Pretty much that I have to hit 2-3 less buttons to do exactly what I was going to do to start with.

    And as far as aim bot vs achaea. Aim bot requires moving and adjusting your view. While Achaea is pure entering commands to do different things.


    For the record I don't really like Automation, but it makes the game a hell of alot easier than trying to remember the 25 different alias's I have for venoms alone.


  • Jovolo said:
    Banning automation is a ballsy movie, but I cam't think of many other options to solve the issues you describe. It'd be an interesting experiment at the least. Any ideas on how you would even enforce that?
    Well, we already ban automation in gold generation, kind of, so it's not as if there isn't a precedent there. Enforcing it is the only reason combat automation isn't banned. The occasional high-profile perma-shrubbing would certainly put a damper on peoples' willingness to do things like try to automate group affliction tracking though. We'd never get rid of it entirely, just like PC FPS games can't get rid of aimbots permanently, but they can certainly ban people when they catch them using them. In fact, aimbot developers actually make their aimbots sub-optimal so as to make being caught less likely for the user - if you just got headshots every time someone was in view, you'd be caught too easily.

    And of course, we could also legally go after people distributing combat systems for money (not much we could do about people giving them away) if using them was against our rules. See this victorious suit by Jagex (Runescape's developer) against bot developers, winning on all counts. http://mmofallout.com/jagex-wins-lawsuit-against-bot-makers/
    Or this one by Blizzard, who won a $7 million judgment against bot makers for WoW. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/blizzard-wins-7-million-in-bot-company-lawsuit/1100-6415695/



  • It's just that the boat long ago sailed on defensive automation to the point where we had to implement server-side curing. If we had an effective way to simply blanket ban all automation, I'd pull the trigger (heh) on that instantly, believe me. 
    I remember how excited I was to get a small "sip health at below X health" script.

    Way long time ago.

    Now I use Svo for curing (and still die).

    And a few combo aliases I wrote (some with help, some without help) for trying to kill (and mostly failing).

    That really is more pure to me.

    Yes, knowing what to do with the information is a large part of how I hope / assume people are using the trackers - but it is more realistic for me to flail and try to figure things out on the fly. 

    It is better RP, frankly.

    If I wanted a game where it was only about who could kill how many people the fastest, I would not be playing Achaea.

    Yet, I have watched Achaea morph away from an environment rich in many different ways to play into something akin to a FPS except it is a Team FPS.

    I don't like it, but have not gotten caught up in it. Have refused to, in fact.

    Thankfully, I think Achaea is still the closest thing to a varied and open RP environment, where, for the most part, people can choose their own path to personal goals.

    I'll still be Prythe. I'll still RP. Even though I am being cockblocked seven ways to Sunday right now to actually be able to play and enjoy the fruits of my labors and hard earned (and spent) gold and greenbacks.

    I won't change class just 'cause the cool kids do not grok what RP is or means or why 110% lockstep would be a very bad thing for the game, for IRE, and for Matt's pocketbook.

    I won't create/play an alias and abandon my character like so many others because it is easier to do things that way....

    Who started this thread? ;)





    - To love another person is to see the face of G/d
    - Let me get my hat and my knife
    - It's your apple, take a bite
    - Don't dream it ... be it


  • But what happens if that high-profile shrub was on someone who was just really skilled? You can't afk combat like you can afk generate gold or experience.

    I have high faith that you would never cross that line just to make a point, @Sarapis
    [2:41:24 AM] Kenway: I bet you smell like evergreen trees and you could wrestle boreal mammals but they'd rather just cuddle you
  • Kuy said:

    @Sarapis: I still don't see how you could ever enforce that rule. It's completely possible for someone to emulate script-enhanced offense totally manually. Rules that cannot be enforced are meaningless.

    It's not impossible. The proof is in the fact that nobody at the top level fights fully manually. Therefore, there are patterns of behavior there that give away the automation. There's all sorts of statistical analysis we could do to identify who is almost certain automating a large portion of their combat. It would not be a small amount of work on our end though. It'd be substantial and then it's basically a perpetual arms race between detection and detection avoidance.

    Significantly though, it would potentially force scripters to run sub-optimal bots, which would lower the gap between people fighting without substantial assistance and those fighting with it.
  • I'm curious to where this train of thought leads, @Sarapis -- I ask with candid curiosity,

    What is the definition of 'Automated'?

    Is it mashing one button over and over to kill someone?

    Is it pre-envenoming in a specific order?

    Is it choosing which venoms to add to your weapons based off of a pre-generated list that you've made?

    I'm 100% curious at where the line is drawn, as most everyone at a mid-tier and above have aliases/macros that do a number of things at once.

    Hell, my lunge macro does: 

    send("clearqueue all")

    send("queue add eqbal stand")

    send("queue add eqbal lunge " ..target)

    send("queue add eq engage " ..target)


    I'm just curious as to where the line is drawn between the two, because the reality of it today is pretty candid: Understanding what to do is the first step. Scripting it to do exactly what you want it to is the second.

    The problem is that people can bypass step 1 and just buy someone else's script/code, and it works the same. They might not understand why, but it does.

    On the flipside to that, however, is what if they do understand it, and wrote a script that does exactly what they want it to? Is it automation because they're not hitting 12 macros, and instead hitting one? How about two?



    Genuinely curious!

    "You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else."

     -Albert Einstein

  • Sarapis said:
    Kuy said:

    @Sarapis: I still don't see how you could ever enforce that rule. It's completely possible for someone to emulate script-enhanced offense totally manually. Rules that cannot be enforced are meaningless.

    It's not impossible. The proof is in the fact that nobody at the top level fights fully manually. Therefore, there are patterns of behavior there that give away the automation. There's all sorts of statistical analysis we could do to identify who is almost certain automating a large portion of their combat. It would not be a small amount of work on our end though. It'd be substantial and then it's basically a perpetual arms race between detection and detection avoidance.

    Significantly though, it would potentially force scripters to run sub-optimal bots, which would lower the gap between people fighting without substantial assistance and those fighting with it.
    But that's where this "fully automated" assumption fails again, though. High-tier combatants don't, in fact, automate significant portions of their offense. They use script solely to supplement what they are doing, not control it.

    For example, my own aff tracking simply tracks what affs I've given and what cures they've eaten. I can then either use an alias to modify my aff selection when it's critical to land a particular aff at a time when I'm ready for it or continue to assume things with the information the script tracks and I've witnessed.

    I have no doubts that the highest profile players do something similar using a tool they've created themselves.
    [2:41:24 AM] Kenway: I bet you smell like evergreen trees and you could wrestle boreal mammals but they'd rather just cuddle you
  • Herenicus said:
    There are many of us who would be more interested in combat if it was less scripted. As it stands, I think the more evolved combat gets, the less relevant it will be to players who aren't already invested in its evolution. And when that group gets smaller and smaller, we won't have to wonder why.

    Yep, spot on. The number of people who have been hooked by the scripting-heavy environment is so much smaller than the number of people who just think, "Why the hell would I want to play a game that's dominated by people using the equivalent of aimbots....and I have to actually learn to script to make use of those aimbots." It's ridiculously unfriendly. We could make combat so much more accessible it if weren't for automation.
  • AustereAustere Tennessee
    All this talk about scripts limiting the ease at which one enters combat and that you need a coding background to write them.  Honestly,  I don't code for a living.  I don't even know how to install lua.  I know how to read instructions, which proved to be enough. I found one patient person that didn't care to point out my errors.  

    Also,  anyone remember trying to teach old serpent to a novice?  Yeah,  good luck.  The difficulty and skill required caused those who could,  to adopt other manners of combating the problem.  Evolution at its finest

    As for outlawing offense tracking,  I don't see it doing much.  Proving it would be ridiculously difficult. I am definitely not opposed to it, though. Good luck. Though I definitely get a lot of satisfaction out of coding.  I feel like my efforts are better served contributing something useful to Achaea as a whole. If you outlaw it,  it will be turned into a blackmarket item by those unwilling to follow the rules in place.  Like I said, if the admin take a strong stance on offense tracking, mine will no longer be hosted or updated.  The damage of offense tracking was done the second one began being sold openly and no one stepped in saying,  "No, you can't do that. " It's a bit late to curb it, in my opinion,  but if you choose to, I will do everything I can to help. 
  • Kuy said:
    But what happens if that high-profile shrub was on someone who was just really skilled? You can't afk combat like you can afk generate gold or experience.

    I have high faith that you would never cross that line just to make a point, @Sarapis
    That's the beauty of large-scale statistical analysis. We could develop a tracking system to be quite sure that someone is automating, or at least, to be quite sure that someone performing at X level or above is automating.
  • If your character does anything without you writing the command, it's automated. 

    That is why it is called "manual". You need to use your hands.
    image
  • What if I use the up arrow to autofill my command line with a previously used command?
    image
  • CaladbolgCaladbolg Campbell County TN
    Orzaansyn said:
    If your character does anything without you writing the command, it's automated. 

    That is why it is called "manual". You need to use your hands.
    The entire point of what everyone is talking about is still "manual" you still have to hit an alias for the attack to go through however.. The system picks the afflictions from a list that you have pre-setup to choose the best one.

  • Random thought: People shouldn't target AFK novices during a raid. Especially if they were trying to get some pepsi and come back to your computer saying you should <EMBRACE DEATH> >.>

    Not complaining though. That death felt nice........ (Well, that's what Aerosi would say <.>)
    ''Dude, I want a horse so bad.....''
    ''Mhaldorians don't say 'dude'.''
    ''Oh.... I still want that horse.''
  • Santar said:
    And the above bolded section just isn't true. I don't use automation in my fighting for either of the two classes I fight as, and I'm easily a top 3 overall fighter at worst.
    No curing system? No alias? You type every word of every commands?
    image
  • edited April 2015
    @Sarapis if you really wanted to, couldn't you exclusively allow connection to Achaea through the use of a client that allows for only aliases (and delete queueing)? I'm sure exceedingly tech-savvy people could get around that, but I don't think automation would be as wide-spread.

    This would certainly upset a lot of people, though.

     i'm a rebel

Sign In or Register to comment.