XSM's Journal
[Most Recent Entries]
[Calendar View]
[Friends]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
XSM's LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
| Saturday, August 6th, 2011 | | 2:24 pm |
The Problem of Consent
Consider the following hypothetical implementation of a MU csys: Using Revive, a KOd character can be returned to a low level of health. Revive requires the consent of all enemies. Naively, this might seem like a generally good idea. It allows someone who gets knocked out of a fight to continue participating in the scene if they so desire, discourages enemies from focus-firing a weak link, and since enemy consent is required, if anyone doesn't like it they can simply veto it. Is that a good idea? Perhaps consider the following spectrum instead: Using StealStatus, a positive effect can be taken from the target for the user. StealStatus requires the consent of the target. Using Revive, a KOd character can be returned to a low level of health. Revive requires the consent of all enemies. Using 1HKO, a character has a probability to be KOd in one move regardless of health. 1HKO requires the consent of the target. Using PlayerKill, a character will be forced to be dropped if they lose the current battle. PlayerKill requires the consent of the target. Does consent really help fix something some people might find objectionable at all? When something requires consent, what tends to happen is one of two things. Sometimes consent is almost never given so it becomes something you don't actually do unless the recipient requests it to begin with (e.g. PlayerKill). On the other hand, in the case of something like Revive, you might get a place where consent is generally given. What happens then is that whenever someone DOESN'T consent, they do so with liability of being labelled a buzzkill, lawyer, or only out to win. Technically, the power to veto whatever requires consent remains, but never (as the designing admin probably intended) as a matter of personal choice without consequence - taking the option to no-consent becomes itself a breach of etiquette. Is there any way, then, to achieve what the designing admin intends in this hypothetical scenario, or is it impossible under practical social situations? I'd be particularly interested what ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=88.8) litagemini and/or Leo have to say, since they studied this sort of thing. | | Friday, October 22nd, 2010 | | 9:28 pm |
R.I.P...?
In a much older post, I listed some reasons the Robot Masters would never die. But when I log on these days, I rarely see them doing much, and rarely see the RM population be an appreciable fraction of either hero faction. So ladies and gentlemen on my friends list (do I still have friends on this? I didn't bother checking), without further speculation or biasing, I put to you a question: Has M3 at long last succeeded in its efforts to accomplish what was once upon a time unimaginable? Have they, in fact, killed or rendered irrelevant the Robot Masters - or is this just another temporary slow period? | | Thursday, June 24th, 2010 | | 1:55 pm |
On Psychopathy
So I've been reading 'How We Decide' which is a pretty great book, and after reading some of the On Morality part, an interesting realization occurs: The way I've played Shadow Man in the past has been an accurate portrayal of a psychopath, while most violent, evil characters are sadists, not psychopaths. To explain: We often think of morality as part of the rational domain, but actually the evidence from neuroscience and psychology is entirely the opposite. Moral decisions are made entirely emotionally, and justified rationally after the fact (an important distinction to make here - moral decisions are made in real-time about a specific situation at hand. Guiding moral frameworks, which influence what we see as right and wrong, are something different and probably more subject to rational examination and refinement). In fiction, we like our most despicable of villains to enjoy inflicting pain and suffering. It gives him an emotional rush. In the real world, the worst monsters who most offend our moral sensibilities aren't sadists but psychopaths, like John Wayne Gacy. A psychopath doesn't enjoy inflicting pain and suffering. Actually, a psychopath's emotional response to the pain of others is absent - a normal person sees a fearful expression and relates it to the feeling of fear, sees others suffer and relates it to what suffering feels like. A psychopath doesn't make that connection. The psychopath doesn't enjoy inflicting pain and suffering on others, but also isn't emotionally offended by it. It just doesn't register. Without that emotionally guided moral instict, the rational brain is left to justify whatever we want to do, which it's very good at. Psychopaths don't enjoy killing, but in the course of getting whatever they want - sex, money, power, or in Shadow Man's case, achieving Dr. Wily's objectives - murder is not particularly more objectionable to the psyche than walking down the street. Gemma once described the way Shadow Man kills as 'like a shark' - without pleasure, remorse, or forced detachment, but as a natural instinct in the course of achieving another goal. I find it strangely gratifying to learn that this take is actually quite accurate to the thought process of real killers, if not as narratively entertaining as grinning sadists. Probably my favorite factoid from the chapter: Those criminals who are psychopaths, the most violent minority, actually experience a /decrease/ in blood pressure and pulse rate when they become violent. They are also immune to lie detector tests because lying doesn't feel wrong (nothing does) and therefor doesn't cause a physiological response. | | Saturday, January 9th, 2010 | | 11:33 am |
XSM Solves All M3's Problems
As litagemini points out in another thread, games will tend to revolve largely around what you codify. Therefore, since I think most people would agree that M3 should be about having fun, we should codify having fun. You're welcome. | | Friday, January 8th, 2010 | | 5:52 pm |
| | Tuesday, December 15th, 2009 | | 1:06 am |
Need to talk about C8 less (i.e. not at all) but it keeps coming up! Gonna stay off <Alt>, <Public>, and <Guest> for a while. | | Sunday, December 13th, 2009 | | 11:40 pm |
Enker Icon does not take your crap lightly | | Friday, December 11th, 2009 | | 5:39 pm |
Let us consider that people hold opinions in at least two characteristically different ways: "I believe X, and am sure of it." "I believe X, but I could be wrong." Is it possible to convince someone who holds an opinion of the first type to change their mind through peaceful rational discussion? If so, what kind of approaches work and what don't? My opinion is that no one holding an opinion of the first sort can ever be convinced to change their mind through reason, even if X is factually incorrect or logically inconsistant with other things that person believs, therefore the second question is inapplicable. What do you think, dear net-friend? P.S. I need a new icon | | Tuesday, November 24th, 2009 | | 8:47 am |
The problem with Agility.
Many people tend to suppose that a high base hitrate 'makes Agility suck' and a low base hitrate 'makes Agility awesome'. This popular belief is in fact entirely wrong and actually the opposite of the real problem with agility and base hitrates. The problem with agility, and why 50% is a particularly easy hitrate to work with, is not that higher hitrates make Agility suck. In order for agility to be worthwhile it is only necessary that X Agl reduce the damage one expects to take by the same amount as X Armor, which is easy to do; if I normally get hit 50% of the time and X Agl should make me live twice as long, then I get hit 25% of the time. If I normally get hit 80% of the time and X Agl should make me live twice as long, then I get hit 40% of the time. Intuitively it seems like agility is 'not working as well' in the second case, since you don't dodge as much, but actually in terms of advantage to you it works exactly as well. The reason why it's tricky to balance high hitrates comes from the fact that it's trivial to make more Agility more valuable, but it's difficult to make less Agility less valuable. If I expect to get hit 80% of the time with an 'average' agility, the worst I can possibly do by having no Agility at all is get 100% of the time, which makes me take 25% more damage (100/80) on average. By contrast, if I were to have very low Armor (say 10 instead of 65), I would expect to take much more than 25% extra damage. Therefor, with noextra penalty for very low Agility, it is always to my advantage to dump Agility rather than Armor if I want to dump something, and usually I can gain a significant performance advantage simply by moving points over from Agility to Armor. For the same reason, high base hitrates tend to make Dexterity suck. If I hit 80% of the time with 65 Dex, the most I can possibly gain from any amount of Dex is an extra 25% (100/80) damage. In contrast, if I had double the average Firepower, I would probably expect to get a lot more than 25% extra damage. Conceptually, the low value of high Dexterity is probably not as grevious to a game as the high value of low Agility, because players are always loathe to dump Dexterity to matter how much it may be in their interest to do so, and FCs stuck with high Dex can still get the full benefit of it so long as they fight targets with similar or higher Agl, or, if low Agl has some extra penalty associated with it in order to compensate for the issue mentioned above. Just as a side note, it's very true that Agility is OP in the current revision of Combat 8, but that isn't because the base hitrate is low. It should be plain to see that if one wants to make agility OP, one can do so very easily regardless of base hitrate, because one can arbitrarily scale how much X Agility draws one's chances to be hit towards 0 (total invulnerability). | | Tuesday, July 21st, 2009 | | 10:48 pm |
Moar Documentary Reviews
Maxed Out: Meh. Some use of anecdotal, transparent appeal to emotion. Big American Corporation is naturally vilified, and perhaps rightly so, but no counterpoints (such as personal responsability) are ever even mentioned. Too much axegrinding and not enough entertainment or artistry. King Corn: Nearly the opposite of the former. Good presentation, with a quiet humility that would probably make Michael Moore or Penn & Teller's heads explode; interesting information, little to no soapboxing, vilifying, or axegrinding. Recommended to any would-be modern media artists for the value of documentary storytelling alone even if one has no particular interest in the subject. | | 12:51 pm |
| | 12:47 pm |
Microreview: Bullshit!
Silly Penn & Teller, not all arguments can be solved with tits. ...OR CAN THEY!? 4.5 / 5 Completely Irrelevant Topless Shots | | Sunday, July 19th, 2009 | | 12:58 am |
Petition Box
(Copied without permission from kainrocket) I shoot my mouth off a lot. I'm opinionated and while I try to not to be a jackass about it, I'm unashamedly loud about them. So now I open myself up to your inquiry, your feedback, and your bitching. If you've EVER had something you've wanted to say to me, ask me, or yell at me about unload. I'll accept all takers, and answer all questions honestly and return them with at least the courtesy with which you deliver them. | | Wednesday, July 15th, 2009 | | 12:32 am |
Because people may not read the log linked by wittyljtitle due to long, a particular interesting quote I found. I realize this won't happen, but that's a shame, 'cause it's a cool idea. Psychogenesis says, "And it was actually something Alpha said that made me think of this.. I totally agree that I dislike just about every TP that goes on here. Mostly because, yep, it's focused on pre-built scripts that were established for either FCs or TP Characters.. that's al fine and good, and is not the primary part of my concern. I can play the peon that does as he's told and whatnot.. and what's to come is more of a suggestion, I guess, than a gripe.. As it is, I'm the XO of Intel Gathering for the Mavericks.. Well.. because I'm the only active player in my squad... don't make fun of me. >_< In any case, since Interception is basically useless now, it would be /NICE/ if the Intel Divisions of the factions could, oh, you know, actually GET some INTEL once in a while.. And no, you don't get it through RP.. because people are tightlipped and know not to reveal secret plans or whatever because of ICA=ICC.. And sure, maybe a random Madlib I get to put together on the radio will reveal something, but half the time.. it doesn't. Or, even further, if a faction is planning something, it stays on the board and radio silence about it is commanded. So, at that point, there is no way for me to get IC information about it. Why can't we have random NPC informants or something? Some chance that some /GOOD/ /LEGIT/ information be passed to Intel? Because, as it is, Maverick Intel = Useless.. Everybody can plot against us and we'll mostly rely on hoping we can muster up defenses for it.. don't expect us to be expecting it... save OOCly. Which isn't ICly.. which is the point of what I'm saying.. know what I'm saying? o_O" | | Sunday, July 12th, 2009 | | 9:11 pm |
When it comes to entering a scene, having happened to be in the area for no good reason is a respectable, time-honored way to get involved, despite the ridiculously small realistic chance of this happening, excluding specific PC-frequented hangouts like the Reploid Room, Captain's Table, Catacombs, or Tetsuo's. This is acceptable because it allows you to be at a scene you might otherwise have no reason to being at - belief is suspended for this purpose. However, when you have a very clear and present reason to be there - for example, because your faction just mobilized to raid or defend it - being oblivious to this mobilization and yet still at exactly the right little spot on routine patrol (which is not part of your routine) or to pick flowers or some such nonsense is ridiculous and, having no good reason to suspend disbelief, annoying. In my opinion (which is always right). And yet there's always someone doing it, just to be different I guess? | | Friday, July 10th, 2009 | | 9:20 am |
Full Metal Alchemist: Brotherhood
Watched the first four episodes of Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood so far. Not bad persay, but clearly inferior compared to the first FMA anime; I'd say Brotherhood is of no interest to someone who saw the first series until it gets to the second half, where the plots diverge, except possibly as an example of how to tell the same series of events with and without a certain dramatic artistry, respectively. Although a fair amount of that is probably the fact that Brotherhood is using one episode each to tell stories that, if I remember right, FMA told across two or more. They may also simply be conceeding the futility of 'surprising' an audience which has almost certainly either already read the manga or seen the first anime. I'm definitely a proponent of Funimation subbing their own anime within short order of the Japanese release and releasing it online themselves (with brief commercials), though. It's about time anime producers / license holders figured out that this is the way to go. | | Friday, July 3rd, 2009 | | 11:35 pm |
People on M3 sure can make me feel inferior as a writer. Good thing I'm not one, wot eh. P.S. hyperlinking is not an acceptable literary device and never will be. Write that down, offenders; you know who you are. | | Sunday, June 28th, 2009 | | 1:21 am |
So tryin' to get back into M3 again; except right now there are [and for the last couple hours have been] five dudes on just hanging around OOC who are supposed to scene with me "at some point" and none of them will scene. Same ol' M3. Siiigh. | | Sunday, May 3rd, 2009 | | 8:06 pm |
| | Thursday, March 5th, 2009 | | 12:54 am |
Regarding Facebook
Screw Facebook! In fact, screw Web 2.0 in general! You can take your social networking and SHOVE IT. |
[ << Previous 20 ]
|
