Can "Time" be "Removed" from "Efficiency"

[Colonel M]

Hmm? I'm insinuateing that each person has a set time. No one can speed up or slow down. It's fixed.

*Insinuating.

All three would still be of the same level of efficiency if it was fixed. I was speaking IF there was a scenario that B and C got their 25% survival increase at a faster point (in other words my argument was not banking on the latter). Once again, the # of bridges is irrelevant to the equation here.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Colonel M

[Dr. Tarrasque]

I'm more surprised that people are choosing to take the option that requires more time, yet gives a better result, something that seems to be counter-intuitive of the drabble people are spouting off elsewhere.

I believe the culprit is the example itself. With the example you've given, it's only natural for people to desire a "100% survival rate". Face it, who the fuck would go with -50% survival rate just to finish things 5 minutes faster when there's no other detail present like, death happening within the amount of time you can finish this bridge.

With FE, this is probably not the case since the established goal for efficiency tier lists appears to be just beating the game and the 0% growth runs pretty much prove that you don't really need to stop and spread EXP around to accomplish that.

[Phoenix Wright]

Well, the first 10-12 chapters show that. The rest is up for grabs. That is unless, someone else besides Dondon beat the challenge without warpskipping half the game (not criticizing you Dondon). If Dondon would have had people killed on accident, he would have been criticized. I don't think the one and only goal is to just beat the game as fast as possible. I agree, EXP isn't all that necessary when shown those examples, but there are plenty of other factors arguably more important than EXP.

Fire Emblem and Shining Force and things like it are too complex to debate with simple definitions. As we have seen, some people would rather be fast and reckless while others would rather be a little slower but safer. On two opposite opinions, the word "efficiency" is distorted to fit whoever's using the word. On one hand, person A is too reckless and therefore inefficient, on the other, Person B is too slow and therefore inefficient.

For the sake of the topic, I think we can all agree the guy you are arguing with Colonel M, is wrong.

Edited June 27, 2010 by MGS: Metal Gear Solid

[Narga_Rocks]

I value success highly. I also value speed, though, so if method A is 8 turns with a 99% chance of success and method B is 10 turns with 100%, I'd say A is more efficient. And if there exists a C that is 6 turns but only has a 70% chance of success (failure resulting in death causing reset), I'd still say that the most efficient of the three is A. If the failure of C merely results in a safe 8 turn, then C would of course be > A.

Edited June 27, 2010 by Narga_Rocks

[Esau of Isaac]

Again, with the bridge thing, A can not speed up his bridge any faster. He's going to take a flat 10 minutes. So wait 10 minutes, and A has 1 bridge, B has 2 bridges, and C has 4.

No, they probably won't. A is guaranteed to have 1 in ten minutes, but B and C are not. Both B and C will probably get 1, but probably not beyond that. C has about a 60% chance of getting at least one bridge done, but why the hell would anyone go for such a silly means when they're assured victory in just a bit longer? The other two have no safe assurance whatsoever. It's way too risky.

I value success highly. I also value speed, though, so if method A is 8 turns with a 99% chance of success and method B is 10 turns with 100%, I'd say A is more efficient. And if there exists a C that is 6 turns but only has a 70% chance of success (failure resulting in death causing reset), I'd still say that the most efficient of the three is A. If the failure of C merely results in a safe 8 turn, then C would of course be > A.

Yeah, because the chance of failure is only one in a hundred, and not one in two.

Efficiency is of course going to be measured by the possibility of failure and the effects of failure. If every time you tapped your fingers together you had a 1% chance to make a $100 dollar bill pop up out of nowhere, would you take that or a 50% chance, but if you fail you lose a limb?

Of course it's going to be the first. Tapping your fingers together a hundred times takes like a half a minute. The less time for greater accuracy doesn't matter compared to the risk taken.

Edited June 27, 2010 by Esau of Isaac

[Narga_Rocks]

No, they probably won't. A is guaranteed to have 1 in ten minutes, but B and C are not. Both B and C will probably get 1, but probably not beyond that. C has about a 60% chance of getting at least one bridge done, but why the hell would anyone go for such a silly means when they're assured victory in just a bit longer? The other two have no safe assurance whatsoever. It's way too risky.

Yeah, because the chance of failure is only one in a hundred, and not one in two.

Efficiency is of course going to be measured by the possibility of failure and the effects of failure. If every time you tapped your fingers together you had a 1% chance to make a $100 dollar bill pop up out of nowhere, would you take that or a 50% chance, but if you fail you lose a limb?

Of course it's going to be the first. Tapping your fingers together a hundred times takes like a half a minute. The less time for greater accuracy doesn't matter compared to the risk taken.

...

I was never against choosing bridge builder A.

Plus, my interpretation of the bridges is, well, the bridge IS put up "successfully". It's just, if B built it then any time anyone drives across it they have a 50% chance of not reaching the other side. If C built it, then any time anyone drives across it they only have a 25% chance of making to the other side.

When I applied it to FE, that no longer applied and so they are all equal on average. But for actual bridges, you have to go with A. The consequences of the example are much higher than merely "you have to build another bridge since the first collapsed".

If we switch it to "50% chance of successfully making the bridge" then A is again the winner assuming the material costs of all attempts are the same (and why wouldn't they be?). B and C will rack up the costs as they are failing at making bridges (and paying for cleaning up the failed bridges).

[Phoenix Wright]

He was replying to Psychout about the issue of bridges, Narga. He didn't say anything to you about bridges...

[Esau of Isaac]

...

I was never against choosing bridge builder A.

Plus, my interpretation of the bridges is, well, the bridge IS put up "successfully". It's just, if B built it then any time anyone drives across it they have a 50% chance of not reaching the other side. If C built it, then any time anyone drives across it they only have a 25% chance of making to the other side.

When I applied it to FE, that no longer applied and so they are all equal on average. But for actual bridges, you have to go with A. The consequences of the example are much higher than merely "you have to build another bridge since the first collapsed".

If we switch it to "50% chance of successfully making the bridge" then A is again the winner assuming the material costs of all attempts are the same (and why wouldn't they be?). B and C will rack up the costs as they are failing at making bridges (and paying for cleaning up the failed bridges).

I was kinda using you as a platform.

My bad. >__>

[Narga_Rocks]

I was kinda using you as a platform.

My bad. >__>

He was replying to Psychout about the issue of bridges, Narga. He didn't say anything to you about bridges...

Esau understands.

(did you notice the second quote in his post was one of mine even though the first wasn't?)

[Phoenix Wright]

Yeah, I noticed, which is why I said that. I still don't understand. :/

[Narga_Rocks]

Yeah, I noticed, which is why I said that. I still don't understand. :/

since he quoted me, it was reasonable to assume he was responding to me.

It turns out he wasn't, so I was wrong, but Esau appears to understand why I would think what I thought.

[Phoenix Wright]

Oh OK. I got it now. Thanks. :D

Edited June 27, 2010 by MGS: Metal Gear Solid

[Colonel M]

I think that, despite being slower in turn count, you can theoretically be more efficient so long as your strategy includes:

- guaranteed survival

- guaranteed 100% success rate

So the question is this: "How to explain the 'efficient' concept, without straw manning, without bolstering his argument, and perhaps proving my point as to why you cannot remove time from efficiency except under rare circumstances".

[Renall]

I think that, despite being slower in turn count, you can theoretically be more efficient so long as your strategy includes:

- guaranteed survival

- guaranteed 100% success rate

So the question is this: "How to explain the 'efficient' concept, without straw manning, without bolstering his argument, and perhaps proving my point as to why you cannot remove time from efficiency except under rare circumstances".

What would an example of this be? A Shadow Dragon strategy not dependent on a certain degree of luck on any map (if there would exist even a marginal risk, it avoids it in favor of survival and success, unless the goal is to sacrifice a unit), but which is slightly slower than the usual Warpskip/Efficiency playthrough?

[bunny: spider bitten]

The issue(at least, the one seemingly made against you), as it stands, is he's already using time efficiently as he'd like, playing a video game.

Ultimately, this game isn't a task or chore, it's something you chose to do. Short of a game like SRW, where certain missions require certain turn counts(And provide advantages upon completion), you'll lose nothing by getting through the game in 10 hours or 100 hours, as long as you want to play it for 100 hours(and even then, it's arguable)

His examples are terrible because if you're asked to do the first, someone expects it done. You can't just take 75 shiny things 80 days later and expect to be congratulated. Suddenly, efficiency matters to you. At least, as I can't imagine a demand being so open ended.

The second isn't a complete example - Gas costs on a trip to Wal-mart could kill any advantage, for example. And even if this is the flat out rate, any difference in time could potentially give the other option an edge to you. Not to mention most would consider other words for it anyway.

The third example may not penalize you for time took, but I'm sure you'll hate yourself if it takes 10 times longer than it should.