Re: ARENA: More ideas

From: gunzler@netcom.com (Mitch Gunzler)

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 15:49:18 +0000

In article <bonderCDH24F.4BH@netcom.com> bonder@netcom.com (Bruce W. Onder) writes:
>
>A couple points:
>
>1.  Since these are "attributes" that improve, and not true learning, then I
>don't see any problem.  If I don't win in the arena, then it's doubtful that
>I'm getting stronger, faster, or smarter.

Even within the Arena framework, I doubt warriors seriously believe that
the winner is the one whose worked out hardest over the last week, rather
than the one whose strategy (and overall talents/abilities acquired over
years) won out.

I like the idea of letting the loser develop, too, but it would excacerbate
the internet-junkie v.s. human-being dichotomy.  If we can think of a decent
algorithm, how about *specializing* over time; you threw a lot of attacks?
Fair enough, you improve your attack percentage (slowly), but your other
skills will (slowly) degrade.  You danced away for the first three minutes?
Don't expect to do *that* for fifty fights and then perform a great Wasp.

>2.  "Stupid" is just a bit harsh.  Scott took the time to develop Arena so we
>could enjoy it.  I don't think he deserves to be called stupid for his efforts.

Couldn't agree more on this point.

Mitch

References

Re: ARENA: More ideas
jacobus@rock-opera.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
Thu, 16 Sep 1993 20:10:16 +0000
Re: ARENA: More ideas
bonder@netcom.com (Bruce W. Onder)
Fri, 17 Sep 1993 00:17:02 +0000

Referenced By

Re: ARENA: More ideas
jacobus@rock-opera.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
Thu, 16 Sep 1993 20:10:16 +0000
Re: ARENA: More ideas
bonder@netcom.com (Bruce W. Onder)
Fri, 17 Sep 1993 00:17:02 +0000