Welcome to the Achaea Forums! Please be sure to read the Forum Rules.

Is automation good or bad for combat in Achaea?

12346»

Comments

  • KietKiet Member Posts: 3,103 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Xinna said:
    You can fight top tier without arties in Achaea, but you have to choose your class accordingly. Not every class can do it.

    To me, the biggest draw of arties was group combat. I always felt competitive in 1v1 without arties, but could never rock Twins or be a group combat god. Sure, in 1v1 you have to do more to win, but it's been done (as long as you're an appropriate class).
    Yeah I got owned in twins because of meager hp pool :( Though to be fair it was a pretty tough matchup anyway, but at least I'd have lasted more than 5 seconds in theory.
  • CaliraCalira Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 531 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    edited December 2015
    I don't often look at the forums, so I apologize if this is a finished thread.

    I think that most people would agree that some forms of automation (cure systems, auto walkers, etc.) are not only beneficial to the game, but necessary to their personal enjoyment of it. From hereon out, I will only be referring to automation related to mounting an offence.

    I don't personally think that automation is an evil by necessity. It's a helpful tool that can makes certain forms of combat more accessible, which is a good thing in moderation. What makes automation start to become a problem is when it competes at a level that humans cannot. This manifests obviously in afflictions; it's hard for a human to track every cure and do the logic behind them, so a human has to rely on some really basic heuristics to keep pace with cure speeds, whereas it's trivial for a script to see and consider every cure.

    The important question is, what can be done to mitigate the advantage that scripts have over humans? Some people have suggested that we should limit or obfuscate information. This is a terrible solution; it's an example of something that is trivial for a script to work around, but could serve to undermine a human, who benefit much more from having easily-parsed information. Instead of focusing on making automation harder - a tactic doomed to failure - it would help to focus on helping humans to do the things that scripts already excel it. For example:

    -Avoiding combat mechanics that are innately complex. Instead, have mechanics that are innately simple, and complexity that comes from counter-play. Limb damage is a good example; the limb damage/health formulas are terribly arcane; the lack of break messages means that failure can easily go unnoticed by a human; and the various factors that can invalidate a hit (rebounding, parry, miss, clumsiness) may go unnoticed by a human and ruin their count. These factors make it a practical necessity for some classes to have a limb tracking script, but limb damage can easily be done by a human for those classes that have a set number of hits to break.
    -Scripts can troll WHO B to find out the location of everyone on thirdeye instantly. Adding a small balance here would make sense, and allowing people to filter the WHO results by doing WHO ENEMIES, WHO ALLIES or WHO <person> would even the playing field between coders and everyone else.
    -Auto-follow scripts were mentioned earlier. Unless you overhaul how movement works, scripts will always be way better at that than humans are, even without balanceless WHO <dir> and SQUINT to rely on. Instead, why not allow anyone to WALK TO someone that they've had in-room hostilities with in the last 10 seconds? Like the previous example, this reduces the advantage of scripting by giving that functionality to everyone.

    These are just a few examples to highlight the type of philosophy that I hope to encourage, even if you disagree with them individually.
    ShirszaeKlendathuTvistorMami
  • AstrikaAstrika Member Posts: 16 ✭✭ - Stalwart
    Calira said:
    I don't often look at the forums, so I apologize if this is a finished thread.

    I think that most people would agree that some forms of automation (cure systems, auto walkers, etc.) are not only beneficial to the game, but necessary to their personal enjoyment of it. From hereon out, I will only be referring to automation related to mounting an offence.

    I don't personally think that automation is an evil by necessity. It's a helpful tool that can makes certain forms of combat more accessible, which is a good thing in moderation. What makes automation start to become a problem is when it competes at a level that humans cannot. This manifests obviously in afflictions; it's hard for a human to track every cure and do the logic behind them, so a human has to rely on some really basic heuristics to keep pace with cure speeds, whereas it's trivial for a script to see and consider every cure.

    The important question is, what can be done to mitigate the advantage that scripts have over humans? Some people have suggested that we should limit or obfuscate information. This is a terrible solution; it's an example of something that is trivial for a script to work around, but could serve to undermine a human, who benefit much more from having easily-parsed information. Instead of focusing on making automation harder - a tactic doomed to failure - it would help to focus on helping humans to do the things that scripts already excel it. For example:

    -Avoiding combat mechanics that are innately complex. Instead, have mechanics that are innately simple, and complexity that comes from counter-play. Limb damage is a good example; the limb damage/health formulas are terribly arcane; the lack of break messages means that failure can easily go unnoticed by a human; and the various factors that can invalidate a hit (rebounding, parry, miss, clumsiness) may go unnoticed by a human and ruin their count. These factors make it a practical necessity for some classes to have a limb tracking script, but limb damage can easily be done by a human for those classes that have a set number of hits to break.
    -Scripts can troll WHO B to find out the location of everyone on thirdeye instantly. Adding a small balance here would make sense, and allowing people to filter the WHO results by doing WHO ENEMIES, WHO ALLIES or WHO <person> would even the playing field between coders and everyone else.
    -Auto-follow scripts were mentioned earlier. Unless you overhaul how movement works, scripts will always be way better at that than humans are, even without balanceless WHO <dir> and SQUINT to rely on. Instead, why not allow anyone to WALK TO someone that they've had in-room hostilities with in the last 10 seconds? Like the previous example, this reduces the advantage of scripting by giving that functionality to everyone.

    These are just a few examples to highlight the type of philosophy that I hope to encourage, even if you disagree with them individually.

    Hope y'all don't mind me jumping in and addressing a couple of points here from the experience of someone who went to the top tier in an IRE game where the environment required the automation of offensive abilities to succeed.

    The first two points here is what caught my eye, because I've seen these played out by administration's execution: making information more available and combat mechanics more simple actually contribute to the issue. The simpler the mechanic, the easier it is to code - and I say this as a system builder. This is one of those things that makes sense on paper but is the inverse in practice. The human brain is designed to make intuitive leaps in complex decision-making on the fly. Coding all of that requires exceptions to exceptions and all kinds of things.

    The same goes for information being readily available.

    I can tell you in my brief time here (a couple of hours of research and chatting with some PK folk) that the inaccessibility of information and the amount of work required to quantify EVERYTHING actually makes it MORE difficult to code and MORE fun/accessible to manual. In a world where I don't know every detail, I can't code for it all ahead of time. I can, however, research what MY class can do and figure out routes based on what I think is happening. From here, I'll have to practice, tweak, practice, tweak, experiment, practice, tweak, et cetera. It's really. Really really really fun.

    It's a chicken and the egg question. Did automation suddenly become do-able because combat is more accessible, making it more accessible to simple machines, AI, and finite state machines? I think so. Does that dismiss the question of making combat more available? Absolutely not. Combat should be accessible to everyone at any skill/commitment tier.

    For what it's worth, Achaea has one of the most accessible PK scenes of IRE that I've seen, and it's really cool. I can jump out and fight people of all kinds of different skill, character level and artifact investment levels and it makes me really, really excited to start exploring.
    (Party): Kondar says, "Anyone else a little terrified of Astrika right now?"
    (Party): Volan says, "No groin strikes please."

    Ryldagh falls in a blaze of silver to Astrika, Acolyte of Cruelty's sword, Dark Gorillas.
    (Cyrene): Ahmet says, "Buahahaha."
    (Cyrene): Jayden says, "Hehehehe."
    (Cyrene): Ahmet says, "I am the evil Astrika, warrior of Mhaldor! Bow to my vicious blade, Dark Gorillas!"
  • JinsunJinsun TN, USAMember Posts: 2,907 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Personally I love it when people automate or rely on a substandard knowledge to try and fight high mid tier or top tier because they're super easy to abuse. 

    I think intricate knowledge of your class and other classes is what makes combat in Achaea fun. Most people aren't even paying enough attention to tumble on death tarot.  Then there's the people who have tumble triggered to death tarot. I could see automation getting to a point where maybe those gimmicks wouldn't work but I don't think it's gotten even close yet. I went from very pour automation to full manual with no aff tracking, and I still occasionally have people accuse me of having a one key offense. 

    Some of my aliases:

    r- command sycophant 
    il- instill lethargy (all in stills have bloodleech queued as well.
    ise- instill sensitivity 
    ic- instill clumsiness
    id- instill darkshade
    ih- instill haemophilia
    ihe-instill healthleech
    cad- command bubonis/ fling moon
    us/uv- unnamable speak/ visions
    f3 -crone madness
    f4-madness humbug
    mo- moon bloodleech 
    rd- rub death
    fd- fling death
    fd1 fake death (will make 90%achaea run)
    fr- fake rub 

    thats like 70% of my offense. There's a lot of people who think that occultist just flattens them. Most of these people don't work on their curing or class knowledge. Like monks that don't have kaideaf on keep up. Why wouldn't you make me burn every sensitivity balance?! Or anyone who doesn't diagnose unnamable. Server side won't do it for you. I stacked five mentals and got crone on someone once without a physical aff because they didn't auto diagnose. I can see how automation obliterates people in lowbie range. But you can really show a scrub when you trip up automation.

    image
    XinnaDriden
  • XinnaXinna Member Posts: 691 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    I don't care whether people automate or not, but I agree wholeheartedly that automation alone won't get anyone to the top. Some people thought I automated bard because I was so good at it, but in actuality, I was better than the other bards because I -didn't- automate. I predicted. Stock automation seems awful to me for bard - too many things that are easy to account for in your head but hard to code, most notably when you are going to recover bal/voice which should influence what afflictions you choose next.

    There are -some- things that are really convenient to automate though. It's just a matter of ensuring you still have control and -you- make the complex decisions that you're better at anyway!
    AtalkezPieraKasa
12346»
Sign In to Comment.