Probability: Elennsar MUST Read

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:50 pm

it's just psychology

No, its just "We refuse to accept that any answer that doesn't give us exactly what we want is no answer at all, whether or not the person giving it thinks it is as much of an answer as they can give at this time or not."

You post a reply, which does not answer my question

I feel that my question has been ignored

I ask the question again.

Because you are incapable of accepting "It depends on what you do." as an answer, when that is the answer - now, if you said "What if I do something like (example from something else that I may or may not have something like)" in reply, you can actually get an answer. If you repeat the question, you will get the answered repeated...because you're not reading it.

So either deal with the fact I don't have "10%!" or even "less than 30%!" as an answer right away but do know that it is influenced by your actions - some of which are pretty damn safe, some of which aren't , or stop asking.

I don't see you saying "Do you have a 10% chance? What percent do you have?" to Frank's thread. I don't see people doing that to your thread. Or any of the other creating a game threads.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:57 pm

Elennsar wrote:And you do realize that the solution to "I can't think of it" is not "ANSWER ANSWER ANSWER ANSWER ANSWER ANSWER ANSWER ANSWER!!!!!"

I would prefer to answer what I can as soon as I can, and the answer is that I don't -know- and am open to reasonable suggestions and things to think on.

The problem is that you don't seem like someone contemplating ideas. You in fact object to other people's ideas because apparently they don't coincide with yours and then when asked about your own ideas, you say "I don't know."

How can you disagree with someone else when you don't even know what you want?

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:02 am

How can you disagree with someone else when you don't even know what you want?

I know that I don't want steam ships.

I'm not sure whether or not I want ships to be a big part of this at all.

Example of how I don't know what I want to include, but I do know some of what I want to avoid including.

norms29 · Post by **norms29** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:39 am

Elennsar wrote: ...now, if you said "What if I do something like (example from something else that I may or may not have something like)" in reply, you can actually get an answer. .

I call bullshit on that

becuase I posted this two and a half weeks ago and you ignored it

norms29, 17 days ago wrote: if players of identical skill and identical characters encounter enemies of similar power level (similar to the other enemy, not to the PCs) what are the mechanical differences if one enemy is a berserker and the other is a coward? (is it viable to convince the coward not to fight at all? are the mechanics such that one ore the other is an indisputably superior fighting style with regards to acheiving the NPCs goals?)

how big a difference do we want there to be in the odds of survival, or the odds of victory, between an skilled/talented player and a mediocore or novice player? (what is the theoretical maximum improvement? how much worse then this theoretical perfection is our assumed average for player skill?)

EDIT: I wanted to work another giant Frog joke into this post, but I'm coming up dry., sorry everyone

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:53 am

becuase I posted this two and a half weeks ago and you ignored it

Because it is all pester and bother. Its not making suggestions, its not offering assistance, its just saying "more situations, more, more, more give us answers!"

But let's see here:

if players of identical skill and identical characters encounter enemies of similar power level (similar to the other enemy, not to the PCs) what are the mechanical differences if one enemy is a berserker and the other is a coward? (is it viable to convince the coward not to fight at all? are the mechanics such that one ore the other is an indisputably superior fighting style with regards to acheiving the NPCs goals?)

Berserker: I'm not sure - I know that it is better offensively, but I don't know what (there are several elements that make up "berserker", I don't know which ones.)

Is it viable to convince the coward not to fight at all? What are you trying to do to convince him?

Are the mechanics such as to make one an indisputably superior fighting style? Um, what is "coward" here? No, really. I can guess with something vaguely akin to accuracy what a "berserker" is, but coward can go anywhere from "guy who attacks from ambush" to "standard style, but timid".

Can't answer without having some idea what it is.

EDIT: I wanted to work another giant Frog joke into this post, but I'm coming up dry., sorry everyone

I'd like to see you spend half as much effort actually assisting this, if you actually intend to, as you did on the giant frogs. Because you're not offering to help come up with ideas and solutions, you're, at best, just asking questions.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:36 am

Elennsar, next time someone asks you a question using a hypothtical, I have a suggestion.

Instead of saying, "you didn't give me data X Y and Z, so I can't answer"

say

"You didn't give me data X Y Z. Assuming A B and C for those parameters, the answer should look like this:"

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:41 am

I have a better suggestion.

Next time you ask a question, recognize that I don't know what parameters are reasonable, and answering simply to get something on paper is a waste of time.

I can answer "How likely are you to block with a shield?" as "Pretty likely."

I can't answer "how likely are you to defend against an equally skilled opponent" other than as "depends on what you do" kind of answering.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:04 am

I'd be happy to accept any of the following answers:

Assuming you and your opponent choose options at random, X%

Assuming you're defending against that attack with the optimal defense, X%

I don't know; the chance of serious injury should be X%, but I'm not sure whether I want defense or soak to be more important.

A range from X-Y%, depending on who has surprise, the particular attack/defense matchup, and other factors

Heath Robinson · Post by **Heath Robinson** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:15 am

Elennsar,
Unless you put yourself behind some random numbers you won't be able to figure out what they end up doing and how the results shift as they change. Without that information you cannot make the right choice.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:22 am

I'd be happy to accept any of the following answers:

All of which insist on having numbers.

Elennsar,
Unless you put yourself behind some random numbers you won't be able to figure out what they end up doing and how the results shift as they change. Without that information you cannot make the right choice.

Until you accept that I don't know what precise results I want to aim for, you won't understand why I don't see the point - seeing that if I have "13%" it winds up as say, 40%, doesn't do any good until I know whether 40% is good or not.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:27 am

Elennsar wrote:Example of how I don't know what I want to include, but I do know some of what I want to avoid including.

This is just a bad policy to have in your life - it doesn't matter whether you're dealing with making a roleplaying game, contemplating your dinner menu, or trying to find the light of your life.

Knowing what you don't want doesn't ever point you in the direction of what you do want, which just ensures that you'll be perpetually stuck in some limbo where you're trying to keep away from what you don't want, but you have no escape route because you don't know where you're going.

As pertains to an RPG: Find your focus before you even start the discussion. Otherwise, you're wasting your own time, not to mention the time of the people who are attempting to help you. And from the copious quantities of posts you make, that would seriously save you one hell of a lot of time that you could be spending figuring out what you actually want and working towards actually getting there.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 3:34 am

I know what I want enough to start a discussion if anyone is actually interested in discussing, I don't know enough to say "I can answer that right away, let me check where I jotted my notes down." (or post that I'll check and edit the post or just not reply until I check).

So if you want to help with design, then deal with the fact there are design decisions in need of being made. If you only want to weigh numbers after all the decisions are made, please stop pestering me for them until they are, in fact, decided.

And actually, knowing what I don't want does help point me (it may or may not point you, but it helps me) in a direction - knowing I don't want steam ships is part of wanting a low technology setting, and also part of a general "long distance travel is not just "and you get there X days later".

norms29 · Post by **norms29** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:01 am

as any engineer will tell you, you can't make design decisions if you don't know what you're designing.

currently, we are prevented from contributing by the simple fact that there is nothing to contribute to. you don't know what the goal is. you don't know what the starting point will be. you don't know the middle parts either. not only for the system as a whole, but of ANY of the indiviual parts.

the reason everyone keeps harping on the numbers is that they are focusing on the only articulated goal, a (relativly) high lethality rate. things flew off the rails completly when they pointed out the potential problems this brings to the game (namely that the strong possibily of death means more characters die), instead of declaring yourself to be at peace with them, you denied that they were the case. now everyone is, the best word is probably offended, by your rejection of a basic tautology. and then at some point you backed away from the "high lethality" stance by some degree you refuse to specify.

if you want us to focus on something else, give us something else to focus on. because other then "death will probably happen" and "[unknown function] of [Unknown variable]= [I don't know this one either]"

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:09 am

I do know what I'm designing to some extent. The fact that you don't know is a sign that you're not listening to what I've said I want to have besides having an actual chance of death to face.

What I refuse to accept is that a real chance of characters actually dying (which is my position, not a "high chance" - a real, actual, not so small that it won't happen short of colossal bad luck and bad decisions and not so large that it happens every second fight) means that the PCs in any given group inevitably will die.

norms29 · Post by **norms29** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:41 am

which takes us back to your offensive rejection of reality. it is very simple mathamatical fact that any chance of death, not just a real chance, but even the most laughably small chance, will mean the PCs will die eventually, the only thing which can prevent that is if the campaign ends before that happens.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:49 am

it is very simple mathamatical fact that any chance of death, not just a real chance, but even the most laughably small chance, will mean the PCs will die eventually, the only thing which can prevent that is if the campaign ends before that happens.

Well, since the PCs are mortal anyway, there's also that.

Point being that unless there's an actual chance of dying or being gravely wounded in campaign, there's no meaningful risk in regards to life and limb by definition.

Its not merely "too small to happen in play", its not -possible- in play.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 6:17 am

norms29 wrote:I'm not sure if your serious, or if you're being sarcastic because you think my giant frog accusations are being too harsh.

I was mostly referring to some other more recent de-lurks. Giant Frog is far less harsh than deserved but still not friendly.

Its a declarative btw, its a meme I picked up over on Blizzard's WoW forum.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 6:29 am

angelfromanotherpin wrote:So yeah, Elennsar basically fails the Turing test.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 6:36 am

FrankTrollman wrote:Pretty much. I gave him an ultimatum to accept a tautology or get put on ignore back on page 1 of this charming discussion. He refused, I don't make idle threats, and I honestly don't understand why this topic is still going on.

I think it quite obvious. This thread had no value from the moment Elennsar flat out denied simple probability. The thread is therefore a perfect place to complain about said fact without wrecking a thread that is worth anything.

[Edit]Tags[/Edit]

Quantumboost · Post by **Quantumboost** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:01 am

sigma999 wrote:
angelfromanotherpin wrote:So yeah, Elennsar basically fails the Turing test.
*snip*

The "Turing Test" is a test for artificial intelligence devised by Alan Turing (who is pretty awesome for other reasons as well). Basically, you have a person interview an AI over some communication channel that doesn't make it obvious that they're a Dell instead of a person, and with a testing environment that isn't crap (control groups of actual people, etc.).

If the interviewer can't tell the difference between the AI and a human, the computer passes the Test.

Basically the Pin Angel just said that he can't tell the difference between E and a fairly advanced English-capable forum bot.

Murtak · Post by **Murtak** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:21 am

Elennsar wrote:
How can you disagree with someone else when you don't even know what you want?
I know that I don't want steam ships.

I'm not sure whether or not I want ships to be a big part of this at all.

You know, all I have seen so far from you is a whole lot of ... nothing. You post some very vague ideas and anytime somebody else comments on them or questions you you answer with "it depends". By now I'm not even sure if you like deadly games, which is where that whole mess started if I remember correctly.

As far as I can tell you don't know what you want, don't know how to get it and don't want to talk about it. You are however annoyed every time people insist you answer a question they feel sure you must have the answer to. Try putting yourselves into their shoes. Someone posts, say, a general campaign idea. He won't answer questions about it, what ideas he eventually posts on his own clearly contradict each other and he is not interested in a discussion at all. Wouldn't you be pissed off at that guy?

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:23 am

.. that's not what I'm shocked by (seriously, I hoped you would recognize at least a modicum of education on my part)

It's the fact that someone actually mentioned it.

I had entertained the idea, but thought no, who would run a complex AI bot on some random gaming forum?

Quantumboost · Post by **Quantumboost** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:58 am

sigma999 wrote:.. that's not what I'm shocked by (seriously, I hoped you would recognize at least a modicum of education on my part)

It's the fact that someone actually mentioned it.

I had entertained the idea, but thought no, who would run a complex AI bot on some random gaming forum?

1: Not everyone who's educated has necessarily come across Turing-related subjects... and my sample pool consists mostly of "people who were actually required to take some CompSci to graduate" and "nongeeks", so the intersection of not-those is not very well fit in my brainware. Sorry if I offended unintentionally. D:

2: I think it's mentioned a couple times in the Ends of the Matrix, though since it's explicitly talking about actual AIs there...

3: They did it for the lulz. It's the best reason for everything ever.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:32 am

Quantumboost wrote:
The "Turing Test" is a test for artificial intelligence devised by Alan Turing (who is pretty awesome for other reasons as well).

Turing is pretty awesome only for other reasons. The Turing test is pretty dumb, It assumes that genuine artificial intelligence would be mistake for human, and there is no reason at all to suspect that that would be true.

MartinHarper · Post by **MartinHarper** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:35 am

Boolean wrote:You post a reply, which does not answer my question.

Specifically, he posts a question, which contains the same first two words as your question, that is completely unrelated to your question.

Example:
Denizen: Where did the bad man touch you?
Ellensar: Where did you get that great hat?

I'm sure there is a name for this rhetorical technique. It feels like something the Greeks would think is cool.