Save the Raft from... Min-Maxing?!

[MechWarden]

While the term Min-Maxing[tvtropes.org] is usually in reference to role-playing characters, this pattern of human behavior isn't isolated to just role-playing games. Anyone that has played games long enough know that odd and seemingly illogical quirks come about in pursuit of squeezing more performance out of artificial game mechanics.

This came to mind when I saw a recent explanation as to why we don't have rudders for the raft.

Originally posted by Quire:

The main reason is that back in the days when we did have a rudder, everyone had a 50x2 raft with item nets, and just turned their raft at will to collect as much debris as possible. All rafts looked the same and it just wasn't fun. We're looking into how we can add a rudder, but make sure the above won't happen again. :)

This makes sense to me, but I've played videogames and done role-playing games for years. To be honest, I'd be tempted to do the same thing, on top of having a 10 story-tall roof ramps, and other craziness that can be done in-game.

So the question isn't "Why can't we simply have rudders?" or other relatively basic requests, but more like, "What can we put in to keep functional raft builds from stagnating?" I mean, having a garbage skimmer could be fun for awhile?, I guess... but having only one optimal way to play is a good way to kill the replay value.

I'm asking players, since any changes will be what affects them (us), and I'm asking here rather than the Suggestions forum for more exposure. It would be nice if this thread stayed here for awhile before maybe being moved to the other forum. But I'm sure the Dev team would love to know of some way to fix this Min-Maxing issue without ticking off too much of the playerbase.

[Operation40]

wondering who made the determination that a 50x2 raft is less fun than a 25x4 or 10x10? is there some kind of math behind that?
f(un) = L*W^2 - (L-W^2)

[Jynn]

I think a rudder could be used without going into that mentioned scenario if it wasn't a instant thing. If you adjusted the rudder and your boat slowly turns, you can keep the 'front' of your boat pointing forwards but it isn't exactly going to be useful for spinning around swiftly to gather debris in a large area

maybe?

[MechWarden]

Originally posted by Jynn:

I think a rudder could be used without going into that mentioned scenario if it wasn't a instant thing. If you adjusted the rudder and your boat slowly turns, you can keep the 'front' of your boat pointing forwards but it isn't exactly going to be useful for spinning around swiftly to gather debris in a large area

maybe?

Given how long most trips are, even some form of slow turning would be all that's needed to maintain which way you are facing, and could recreate the issue that's stated.

Originally posted by Operation40:

wondering who made the determination that a 50x2 raft is less fun than a 25x4 or 10x10? is there some kind of math behind that?
f(un) = L*W^2 - (L-W^2)

lol. I get what you mean.
Any one of them is fun on their own, but when hit with "what gives the most gains", the ridiculously narrow flotsam skimmer will be the go-to design in the current build of the game.

The point isn't so much that the ridiculous design is unfun. It is quite fun, especially for someone that figures it out on their own for the first time. After that, if there isn't any other viable design to test out against something, the fun has played out. If a person is one that have been told what the 'Raft Strats' are, there is some fun reproducing it on their own game, but after knowing the answer, the fun is played out before they realized it.

Having a way to have different optimal designs, or even many 'good enough' design options, in a building game is what helps it stay engaging. Extreme examples of this are Factorio and Minecraft, where people can be wrapped in playing for hours on end doing some kind of creative project; but yet aspects of them are simple enough to get by with most anything that's halfway cobbled together properly.

Right now, without a rudder, the optimal design of raft is more varied than it would be if there was a rudder. It is a bit of a stop gap message to keep the game interesting, at the cost of being annoying, but it is there nonetheless.

[BokuDesuNe]

First, the argument against rudders is specious because of this thing called the shark. If you make a 50x2 raft then you may not even be able to hear the shark attack one end of the raft if you are at the other. There is no way to reinforce catchnets [correction from @MechWarden, you can armor nets], and they have the same durability as standard platforms. Let people play that way if they want to. It gets annoying fast. Moreover, the argument against long rafts because they are trite is myopic! How boring is my super-symmetric square raft with symmetric towers and surrounding ramparts, an unavoidable design constraint because I need to be ready to hit an island from any angle.

Second, just don't legislate how people play. Best not to take away features to restore balance; rather, modify or add additional features to create more robust balance and oportunity. One option that comes to mind that is absent from Raft is bulk durability. Waves create more bending stress on longer boats than shorter skiffs: at some point a pencil-thin design should snap. Which side will the player try to salvage? Also, a trade-off between weight and buoyancy could be implemented as well. The raft could list or be capable of capsizing during a storm if it is unbalanced, and if you essentially build yourself a log-ride, get ready to roll and lose your cargo.

There just is no reasonable basis for pulling an already-developed feature when there is sufficient balance and plenty of future balance opportunities to pursue. @Quire, tell your devs to bring back the friggin' rudder.

[DominantEye]

@BokuDesuNe: agree!

Let people play the way they want. If something is out of balance, add to the game to rebalance it.

My current raft is about 7x8. I put the nets on which ever side is the front and still scoop more junk than I need.

I think better physics would balance out any issues with having a rudder.

[BigGreen21]

I just make an X and line it with nets. What ever way I end up facing I'm good. Also once you have a paddle and sail you can use the islands to spin yourself.

[MechWarden]

I don't know about you guys, but I was able to put armor on my netting blocks. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1413143758 If you look closely, you can see it right in the middle block of my raft. And that is an old picture too.

Also, they didn't say it was a fantastic decision. If you have the choice between 'crap option #1' and 'crappier option #2', you'd pick the option that was the best; even though in the end, they are both crap. Either go with a known result of long and thin skimmer rafts (as seen in many Itch.io play throughs), or experiment a bit and leave out a feature and hope it corrects something. I'd hope that a Development team isn't too scared to test things out.

As I said, this isn't about 'long rafts = bad'. To paraphrase someone's words, that kind of thinking is short sighted. The issue is the impulse to Min-Max the fun out of the game after a point. And as the game is, that is very easy to do! I hope that changes in the future, because having limited play styles just not too engaging. Heck, I'd say the lack of a rudder made me think a bit more on how to play the game, than if I had it.

It is kind of funny how in one argument there is an outrage in being limited in action by not having a feature put in, but then the same person suggests features that would further limit build designs even more than what they are mad about. Pick one or the other! Are you ticked off for being limited, or not having enough detail?!

Ranting aside, I would agree that some form of structural considerations in the game would liven things up some. Waves coming in, hitting things too hard, etc would make it feel less toy-like and more real.

[BokuDesuNe]

@MechWarden: Cool that you can armor nets. Even more cool that you may have invoked von Neumann's Minimax theorem (it's not just a role-playing game term, or even a gaming term, it is the fundamental theorem of game theory). You used it in an interesting way (usually it involves two players rather than two features of a game) to solve the optimization problem of how some players pick complementary features to maximize their position in the game. Kudos for a great thread idea!

However, I think if you use the full Minimax idea, where the devs and gamers are the two players, you will find that our armored net, rudder, etc. examples actually prove my position rather than yours.

Let's take the feature of armored blocks (foundations, nets, etc) for example. Using armor you can protect the edge from sharks and build larger and more varied geometries to suit your needs and interests. You also can choose not to use armor, and try to find interesting and optimal solutions without it. The same goes for the rudder, the alternate uses of which promote either long-skinny or square/spherical designs, and as you said, make you think in different ways. And while it is true that my example of including raft physics and structural mechanics may inhibit some designs, it encourages other designs. I think it would be a mistake to forget that the physics engine itself is a feature and it can interact with other features such as armor, rudders, etc. to encourage even more creativity. But only if those features are there to begin with.

The point is, the more options/features you have, the better you can maximize the value of the game. And here is where the devs come in. As one of the players, they get to pick a strategy comprised of the number, type, interaction, and relative importance of features. As the other player, the gamer gets to choose which features to use and how to use them to maximize the value of the game. And here is where von Neuman's theorem comes in. If at any point the gamer discovers two ways of combining features that both maximize the value of the game, they have actually proven that there are infinite ways of maximizing the value of the game (going back to gaming terms, this would correspond to infinite replay value).

I think you would agree that the consequence of infinite replay value is desirable. For developers to give themselves and their customers the best chance of getting there, they need to get over their misgivings and put more features in, and make mistakes and fix them by tweaking and adding more features along the way. As long as a feature does not break the game (and a few popular cigar boats are not game breaking), keep them in until reevaluation at the end. And then keep them anyway as mods. Just look at the amazing progress the modding community already has made and how much value it has added! I think this is why some developers frustratingly emphasize feature development first before addressing the bulk of the bugs they cause. Their interest is enabling the possibility of infinite replay value as early as possible.

(Unfortunately, @MechWarden, here I have to deliver my only real criticism: please directly address other contributors with their handles when you talk about them or their ideas in posts, like I did with you and @Quire. Not doing so is passive-agressive and rude. Nonetheless, IMO, great thread!)

[MechWarden]

Thanks for the compliment on the thread. My main regret is being dyslexic and not really having much of any desire to read up on any formalize information about interesting topics, like game theory, due to how painfully slow reading can be. I find it a miracle in of it self that I type with any proficiency online, mostly from learning first hand on how best to communicate; unfortunately through bad internet arguments. But I guess a person has to start somewhere...

In regards to the critism, it is either a so-called 'passive aggressive' reference to someone that is making very annoying mistakes, or calling some one out directly, which may or may not involve ad hominem attacks; which leads quicker to the Blowback Effect (or sometimes called the Backfire Effect [rationalwiki.org]) where the other person will stick with their side of the argument, and not want to budge because of their ego demands they should win the debate. I still don't know why I keep trying to find away to get around that, but the fact you are now referencing names and theorems, and typing more in one paragraph than the average forum user would care to even read, shows that you really want to win this debate and falling into the no-win 'Internet Argument' pattern. Also, let's not forget that the mix of compliments and criticism can easily turn any kind words into something negative to some readers.

To simplify things and be honest, both of our sides can be seen as being very rude. And I'm sorry for my half of the mess. You want the game developer to (somehow) get smart and do what you think is painfully obviously, based on your limited understanding of game development, and that irks me because what little I know about game development says it is way more involved than that and people should be more respectful towards a passionate development team, especially ones that where ridiculously lucky with their first game.
(which of course I tell you in an unrespectful way... ironic?)

Look, all of this debate is a secondary problem that was generated while attempting to solve the primary problem, and that doesn't need to happen. Keep thinging short, keep things to the point, realize egos will clash, understand ideas will be short down, and realize this is taking place in a simple game forum. This isn't politics, nor religion; and people shouldn't be at eachother's throats as if it was either of those two topics. While we have an equally passionate mod community tacked on to this community, the conflict that has come about by people getting took caught up in secondary problems has resulted in two waves of bans since I've been here. And that's pretty embarrassing for both sides.

Ugh... back to the topic.
Look, I've spent way too much space on the above, and I should just keep this part simple.
(and looking back, I think I failed)

The game, as it stands, is basic. Sure, there are near infinite ways to do some things, but humans are really good at pattern finding, loss avoidance, and maximizing efforts (when motivated). The example of a 50 × 2 trash skimmer raft was talking about an undesirable First Order Optimal Strategy players were using. Once found, the player got a ton of resources and with very little effort. Woo, for innate human ingenuity, but now the game's resource balance is shot, on top of killing any desire to explore further functional designs.

A stop-gap measure to make that First Order Optimal Strategy (FOOS?) hard to do by not having a rudder function and make the trash skimmer strategy awkward, and hopefully push people to do something less ridiculous and more in line with what a raft is supposed to look like. Is it ideal? No. Is it preferred? Hell no. Is it going to annoye players? It greatly annoyes some people.

I'm still glad Quire said what the reason was for not having rudder (currently) in the game, and now I want to find a way to fix it. Was it the best reason why there are no rudders? Maybe not, but it might have been the best option at the time, and we won't know until they tell us. What I'm not happy about is the backlash of people thinking they know more than the Dev team on certain topics, and that's pretty much a good example of the Dunning–Kruger Effect[en.wikipedia.org] right there.

I could have said people are just talking out of their @#$, and don't know anything, but I'm 'people' too, and I'd rather not directly insult myself like that. Nor does it really solve the problem saying, directly or indirectly, someone doesn't know what they are doing. Of course the Dev team, in some aspects, doesn't exactly know what to do. If they knew exactly what to do, the game would have been in full release by now! As well as being some very inhuman and insightful people.

To err is human.
to really @#$& up, requires a computer

[BokuDesuNe]

@MechWarden: Discussion norms are reasonable. Directly addressing people is a courtesy in or outside of a discussion forum. Long posts are fine if the point takes time to make. I have no problem reading yours or typing a response, considering your ideas and their merits, and learning some interesting things along the way. My post had exactly one procedural criticism: the way you disrespect the posters whose ideas you reference. Pushing that down to a parenthetical note at the end is the opposite of the ad hominem falacy. I wanted yours and my arguments and facts to take center stage, and marginalize what truely was a nudge to be more respectful.

Back to the topic, I think Dunning-Kruger risks dramatically selling the player base short, and its use in this case is a FOOS (literally and pun intended) attempt to understand them. Take a look at the screenshots posted now. They aren't designing for "optimal strategy," they are designing for style, because the most fleshed out features governing design right now are cosmetic. The Minimax theorem actually explains why this is the greatest source of value in the game right now: a critical mass of features has been reached in that area. It's not the part of the game I am interested in, so I likely won't pick up this game again until the new endgame content comes out. Whether I get back to that endgame with a 2x50 cigar boat or a simple I-frame (the equally minimalist optimal solution to the dev's no-rudder knee-jerk reaction), it does not matter. What actually might unite the cigar boat designers and I is the simple desire to see what this game has to offer in early access and move on. And in point of fact: those large, impressive, faux-boat monoliths that might make a satisfying screenshot would be more enticing builds if they actually functioned like a boat with a rudder to steer. Honestly, while your ideas are interesting, the rudeness has reached the point of offense, so I'll end it here and recommend the moderator shut down the thread after your response.

[MechWarden]

Look, I said I was sorry for being rude, and you are still dwelling on the issue of me being rude; on top of being pretentious. I admit that I step on people's toes at times, but you are still doing the same things I called you out on earlier, which was for being disrespectful to the development team; among other things.

I even suggested how to best make posts for viewers in general, and you now seem to be going out of your want to make even more painfully technical posts no one is really going to read.

Yeah, the thread is going to be locked, because you wall of text bombed it with overly high minded arguments that really serve no purpose to the original idea you say you admire. You make so many painfully bad observations that most people would call you out for being a troll.