›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Choose Your Weapon

AprecheApreche
edited July 2012 in Video Games
«13

Comments

  • RymRym
    Are there any effects of "hits" other than hit point reduction? E.g., stun, pushback, etc...?
  • ChurbaChurba
    edited July 2012
    I take the first sword, then rob you with it, taking the second. Two swords, aw yeah.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • AprecheApreche
    The real question is how many hit points the enemy has. If they have a very low number you want the first sword. If they have a higher number, the second sword may possibly end up killing them faster if you are lucky, or more slowly if you are unlucky.
  • johndisjohndis
    Ill take the black line looking staff in the middle.
  • AprecheApreche
    Ill take the black line looking staff in the middle.
    Extended range! Good choice.
  • 2bfree2bfree
    edited July 2012
    *** Choose your Weapon:

    1) The ability to "push" an opinion/thought into someone's mind, but takes a year off your life every time you use it.

    2) The ability to know the truth behind anyone's lie you happen to hear, but each lie takes an hour off your life.

    Choosing "None of the Above" is NOT an option.
    Post edited by 2bfree on
  • AprecheApreche
    2 since it only takes hours off your life and is equally powerful.
  • 2bfree2bfree
    2 since it only takes hours off your life and is equally powerful.
    You may be underestimating how often people causally lie.
  • Linkigi(Link-ee-jee)Linkigi(Link-ee-jee)
    Depending on how 1) works, it could actually be worth it.
  • 2bfree2bfree
    Depending on how 1) works, it could actually be worth it.
    I suppose it would depend on your level of self control. Power is addicting.
  • RailithRailith
    You take sword one because it is guaranteed damage.
  • ApsupApsup
    Is the lie-to-truth ability passive, taking hour from my life every time someone lies around me? If it is so, I take the first power and don't use it.
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited July 2012
    You take sword 1) if your enemies are weaker than you, and sword 2) if they're stronger than you.

    Why? In simple terms, if your enemy is stronger and there is no randomness, you have 0% chance of winning, but if you introduce variance you can have a chance of winning. It's the same thing in reverse if your enemy is weaker.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited July 2012
    *** Choose your Weapon:

    1) The ability to "push" an opinion/thought into someone's mind, but takes a year off your life every time you use it.

    2) The ability to know the truth behind anyone's lie you happen to hear, but each lie takes an hour off your life.

    Choosing "None of the Above" is NOT an option.
    if #2 is passive I take #1, otherwise I take #2.
    Also, by "know the truth" in #2, does that mean you get to know what they know, or the actual truth even if no one knew up until now? I guess it's the former, since the latter is eqivalent to omniscience.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • RymRym
    Yes, the specifics of the latter are too important, and have to be detailed or this discussion is silly. Otherwise, I have you say "The Higgs Boson has properties X, Y, and Z" and now know the mysteries of physics.
  • 2bfree2bfree
    Number 2 is passive "you happen to hear". You would know what the liar really believed to be true.
  • RymRym
    Then 2 is stupid. You could never watch a political debate again, let alone have a conversation with most people, without aging to death.
  • AprecheApreche
    Then 2 is stupid. You could never watch a political debate again, let alone have a conversation with most people, without aging to death.
    Yeah, 2 is extremely stupid in this case. If I can't use it selectively, then it's a useless power where I will die before being able to gain any advantage from it whatsoever.
  • Anthony HemanAnthony Heman
    People already hit on most of the reasons to pick one "sword" over the other. Knowing nothing else, I'd pick the static damage as I dislike failing/winning due to "luck". That said, in a lot of games the random "burst" could be more valuable, or simply having a higher attack speed could be a trait you want. There's also the situation where killing something after 0.25 seconds rather than having to wait for 0.5 seconds could matter ever so slightly, but that's an incredibly specific thing.

    Actually, thinking on it... all the situations that "can" be solved by (1) "can" also be solved by (2). You just sometimes fail miserably some of the time. So supposing you can always try again and the loss is relatively low value, (2) may always be the "best" choice because it can solve all the problems (1) does some of the time, plus some additional problems that (1) can never solve.
  • 2bfree2bfree
    At what point would it become tempting? 10 minutes per lie? You would have to control your exposure to others but I think it would be more powerful than #1 if used correctly.
  • Anthony HemanAnthony Heman
    #2 just sounds like a pain in the ass unless you get to choose when to use it. A huge amount of things said are "slightly different" from what the person "Truely believes".
  • AprecheApreche
    At what point would it become tempting? 10 minutes per lie? You would have to control your exposure to others but I think it would be more powerful than #1 if used correctly.
    If it is passive it doesn't matter how much the time is reduced unless it's like a nanosecond.
  • 2bfree2bfree
    At what point would it become tempting? 10 minutes per lie? You would have to control your exposure to others but I think it would be more powerful than #1 if used correctly.
    If it is passive it doesn't matter how much the time is reduced unless it's like a nanosecond.
    The whole point would be trading power for life. It can't be free.
  • AprecheApreche
    At what point would it become tempting? 10 minutes per lie? You would have to control your exposure to others but I think it would be more powerful than #1 if used correctly.
    If it is passive it doesn't matter how much the time is reduced unless it's like a nanosecond.
    The whole point would be trading power for life. It can't be free.
    Yes, we get the point. The problem is the two options you gave aren't even remotely close. In option 1 you can have a huge effect on the world and only lose a year of life by using the power sparingly and wisely. Option 2 you have no choice and you just die very quickly. It's no contest.

  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited July 2012
    At what point would it become tempting? 10 minutes per lie? You would have to control your exposure to others but I think it would be more powerful than #1 if used correctly.
    If it is passive it doesn't matter how much the time is reduced unless it's like a nanosecond.
    The whole point would be trading power for life. It can't be free.
    In principle it could, if, for example, the ability to see through lies could allow you to make a significant contribution to life extension technologies that counterbalanced your losses.

    However, at the time scale of one month per lie, you'd pretty much just be screwed over.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • open_sketchbookopen_sketchbook
    Unless you could literately see the objective truth when somebody lies, it wouldn't be worth it. If you could, however, you could go live in isolation and have people tell you lies in order to generate truth.
  • AprecheApreche
    Unless you could literately see the objective truth when somebody lies, it wouldn't be worth it. If you could, however, you could go live in isolation and have people tell you lies in order to generate truth.
    Also depends on what counts as lying, and how much truth you get. Does it count as lying if I say something that is false even though I believe it to be true? If someone says the entire universe is made of shit, do I get the entire truth of the universe in response?
  • RymRym
    'd pick the static damage as I dislike failing/winning due to "luck".
    All games that aren't deterministic or random are "solved" solely by managing "luck."

  • Anthony HemanAnthony Heman
    'd pick the static damage as I dislike failing/winning due to "luck".
    All games that aren't deterministic or random are "solved" solely by managing "luck."

    Sure. But going into any dice game and rolling "worst possible roll" a couple times in a row is still very disappointing.

  • RymRym
    Thus, once I solve the basic optimization strategy for a dice game, or at least come close enough to a solution, I lose all interest.

    Hence, I haven't played Yahtzee (or any of its recent successors) in recent memory. ;^)
Sign In or Register to comment.