Would you be against or for rewarding good performance in parties?

[Lynart]

Players commendations don't do jack. I get them all the time just because I'm tank lol

And for the DPS standing in fire arguments: deduct points for standing in fire. Done.

[Kleeya]

And for the DPS standing in fire arguments: deduct points for standing in fire. Done.

But what if the aoe doesn't hit that hard, and that i know i can survive it and be healed right away ? Isn't that playing bad to avoid it, stopping your cast time or going too far away for a melee dps, thus making your dps go down and the run longer ? At which point should we set the requirement to know if an aoe must be avoided or not ?

[Teryaani]

But what if the aoe doesn't hit that hard, and that i know i can survive it and be healed right away ? Isn't that playing bad to avoid it, stopping your cast time or going too far away for a melee dps, thus making your dps go down and the run longer ? At which point should we set the requirement to know if an aoe must be avoided or not ?

You get the fun of trying to decide "Is the loss of dps worse on my magic reward score than the penalty for standing in the fire?" Thus making your healer work that much harder. Also, what if then your healer gets a better score for more healing? Would that encourage friends of the healers who can handle it to stand in more things?

So many questions

[SendohJin]

Players commendations don't do jack. I get them all the time just because I'm tank lol

And for the DPS standing in fire arguments: deduct points for standing in fire. Done.

that's why this never works. it's not done. what if the AOE was put there by the tank and he clips you. what if the AOE is weak and you already have regen on you or nobody has taken damage and you know the fairy will heal you back up.

the amount of time it takes to program in this point system for everything they design is insane.

if the tank spins the mob and the DPS misses their positional whose fault is it? if the tank doesn't spin the mob and gets hit by an AOE whose fault is it?

[TaleraRistain]

that's why this never works. it's not done. what if the AOE was put there by the tank and he clips you. what if the AOE is weak and you already have regen on you or nobody has taken damage and you know the fairy will heal you back up.

the amount of time it takes to program in this point system for everything they design is insane.

if the tank spins the mob and the DPS misses their positional whose fault is it? if the tank doesn't spin the mob and gets hit by an AOE whose fault is it?

Or Keeper of the Lake. I tell my party if they are in the middle of the fire AoE to just let me heal through it. Only try to escape if you're on the edge. Any kind of automated system would not be aware that standing in the fire is going to cause less harm to the party because it can only use binary rules.

[Lynart]

Or Keeper of the Lake. I tell my party if they are in the middle of the fire AoE to just let me heal through it. Only try to escape if you're on the edge. Any kind of automated system would not be aware that standing in the fire is going to cause less harm to the party because it can only use binary rules.

You are thinking too simple, linear, and restricted.

The requirements for each dungeon can be based on an abstraction, maybe even an interface. It can then be implemented on a per dungeon basis.

This is why I didn't want to get into specifics as to how to implement the system. Very few players are software developers, and among those that are software developers, even fewer are game developers (again, I am not). None of us are qualified to design or implement such a system.

[TaleraRistain]

You are thinking too simple, linear, and restricted.

The requirements for each dungeon can be based on an abstraction, maybe even an interface. It can then be implemented on a per dungeon basis.

This is why I didn't want to get into specifics as to how to implement the system. Very few players are software developers, and among those that are software developers, even fewer are game developers (again, I am not). None of us are qualified to design or implement such a system.

I *am* a software developer. I do not claim to be a game developer. But the whole thing with code is that you have to train it. It's not smart. It works based on rules that are fed to it. You can make it seem smart if you are clever in how you write those rules. I am not thinking too simple, linear, or restricted. I am stating how logic in programming works.

[Lynart]

I *am* a software developer. I do not claim to be a game developer. But the whole thing with code is that you have to train it. It's not smart. It works based on rules that are fed to it. You can make it seem smart if you are clever in how you write those rules. I am not thinking too simple, linear, or restricted. I am stating how logic in programming works.

.....if you're a software developer, why did you automatically assume the implementation of a complex system would have static rules that apply to both a dynamic number of variables and the variables themselves.....?

[TaleraRistain]

.....if you're a software developer, why did you automatically assume the implementation of a complex system would have static rules that apply to both a dynamic number of variables and the variables themselves.....?

Because what you're asking for is a virtual intelligence or artificial intelligence and that's going way beyond the bounds of a video game. Any sort of rules system is going to have static rules. Like I said, you can make them *look* clever. But when you get down into the code, they are following sets of 1's and 0's.

[SendohJin]

.....if you're a software developer, why did you automatically assume the implementation of a complex system would have static rules that apply to both a dynamic number of variables and the variables themselves.....?

No, I wasn't referring to anything close to the complexity of machine learning, or artificial intelligence with either my initial post or the high level discussion of interfaces or abstractions. Please explain how you came to that conclusion.

you literally just said not to assume the rules are static. what's the opposite of static rules?