Lurker > Lopen

Zack
Goffard
Red
Vanille

Zidane - 1
He is a bit obnoxious throughout the game and his "you're not alone!" arc feels like a sad attempt to add some Cloud/Squall brooding main character appeal onto him which just comes across as extremely forced. If I was Roba I could try to justify my rating by calling him a creep towards Garnet too since he's easily more creepy than Edge.

Rikku - 9.5
A 10 with just FFX considered. I don't hate X2 Rikku but it dumbs her down in a bad way (though it doesn't feel as disasterrific on her as it does on Yuna) and I can't completely ignore it.

Garland - 5.5
The memes aside I think the FF1 plot involving Garland is actually sneaky good. If Dissidia actually made him interesting instead of bland bad dude he had potential but as it is you can only get so far with just scant FF1 plot to drive you.

Vader
Noctis

colliding posted...

I'm not saying anyone is wrong for voting this way

As a 10/10 Algus voter I am

Car

I think "enjoying the taste of children/fear" is a pretty evil driving force personally. It is part of his nature but it is an evil nature

My feeling is like

10^0 - Use super effective moves, recover PP/HP (one point per HP recovered, 10 per PP)
10^1 - Win Battles, Find New Screens, Catch new pokemon, level up Pokemon
10^2 - Win Trainer Battles, Teach HM move to Pokemon, Use HM move from distinct square
10^5 - Storyline one time stuff such as beating a gym leader etc
10^8 - Beat game

Giving all the one time storyline stuff significantly higher point value than everything else even if it gives linear points rather than exponential means the AI SHOULD attempt to speedrun the game once it figures out how to achieve each objective especially if you train the AI with a variety of time limits. The rest are just weighted to encourage good play with the more spammy stuff having less value so the AI doesn't overdo them.

But again I'm pretty casual with my AI experience so I may be missing something.

Squall
Estinien
Dark Nation
Laguna

Yeah HMs were my concern. It seems difficult to randomly stumble into how they work. I suppose you could give the AI points for learning HMs and then also for successfully using HM moves from distinct squares?

I think tiering the points too hard is bad though. You would push the AI away from generally good play by mistake.

So beating gym leaders and achieving one time goals would be the higher point stuff. You can't value teaching cut higher than defeating Brock otherwise it gets HM and learns to get Pokmon, teach them cut, then release them for many points and win the game by repeatedly catching nidorans and teaching them cut. Teaching cut can have a small incentive and the AI will probably do it, but it can't be so great to learn cut that it doesn't want to defeat the next gym leader.

Also technically even if it is visual you need to just specifically capture the "you defeated brock" screen as the +1000 or whatever.

Steiner posted...

maybe i missed something saying otherwise but i'm under the impression this was all driven by visuals and not accessing actual data

I think visual was just for exploration. I think it specifically referenced accessing non-visual data with the Bill's PC problem and fix but maybe I'm mistaken.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

So it would be like the Pokecenter PC Trauma, but in reverse? Where eventually it would stumble into a relatively massive reward and then assign a ridiculously priority to those tasks after it "finds" them?

I wonder if it would create a situation where it happens to defeat Misty, only to start to beeline towards Misty before it's strong enough to win chasing that prior high.

I think that's OK because beelining towards Misty won't work generally and on a successful run it will get a winning strategy. It will get a bad habit and then correct it because eventually it'll fluke into a way to beat her at low level or fluke into accidentally grinding and realizing that beats her more reliably. Also if you keep incentive of fighting trainers relatively high vs super effective hits/killing wild pokemon it may continue to use those to level.

Yeah.

My thinking is you'd have to weigh things on orders of magnitudes to better weigh game objectives to prevent grinding super effectives from being a way to maximize score.

Beating Brock should be worth like 1000 points cause you need to do it to beat the game. Getting super effective in a fight would be worth like 1 point. Winning a fight would be 10, winning a trainer fight is worth 100. This is super dumbed down but I would think you could train based on getting items like badges and stuff since in theory that's memory space that can be accessed.

You could also have scores within categories kinda capped as a percentage. Like say the AI has a "combat" score worth 10 points that can go up or down based on what percentage of "effective" moves it uses

I dunno how exactly the algorithm works though even though he explained it pretty well. I've never used machine learning for anything near that complicated so yeah I'm kinda just guessing on what you can implement or whether that's a different algorithm entirely.

It's definitely cool to think about though. Would watch more videos by this guy for sure.

Yeah that was hilarious

It's like "this is how to make your Pokmon Trainer become an NPC"

Pretty interesting video. I feel like there might be other ways to train it to make it actually understand combat in ways that aren't randomly stumbling on the right solution like rewarding it more for combats won with fewer attacks but not something I'd ever want to delve into.

Pennywise

Tend to agree Dracula arguably shouldn't even be in this contest.

Truth or Consequences

(How to spot a New Mexico resident)

6.5 is probably an average FF character for me as I tend to like them more often than not. But 5 is my neutral. I have only been doing multiples of .5 for my ratings cause I don't want to overthink but here's where I'd be putting stuff

9.5 - 10 All time great character in general. I'd possibly buy a game or read a book entirely because it's based on that character if they made a spinoff based on it.
8.5 - 9 Great FF character and a key draw to playing their game.
7.5 - 8 Very good FF character but if you replaced them the game is probably OK. I would say characters at this level or higher tend to be the only ones I use in my party unless there is some pressing need to use others.
6.5 - 7 Good FF character but something about it doesn't quite click with me or there is an irritating flaw.
5.5 - 6 Mostly neutral but there is something I like about the character's gameplay or design or whatever.
5 Completely neutral feeling basically. I don't have a lot of characters I'd rate a straight 5.
4 - 4.5 I don't hate these but they are likely bland or lacking something to make them appealing. This is my "meh" zone just nothing to be excited about but could be worse.
3 - 3.5 Characters that are somewhat annoying or aggressively bland but are not so bad that they are dragging the game down.
2 - 2.5 Very bad characters. They never enter my party if I can avoid it even if it actively hinders me to leave them out. Games they're in would be better if they were removed.
1 - 1.5.Some of the worst characters of all time, FF or otherwise.

Yuffie - 10
Shadow - 7
Edge - 7

Forge being killmongerable and falconable and pullable with shanna makes this arguably a buff

Definitely has some interesting applications he didn't have before in any case. Also being 1 cheaper is nice in general obviously

Got today's in 2 after starting with clean was pretty happy with that felt like a solve more than luck.

Cloud
Seymour
Ariana
Adelle

CATS
Hayabusa

https://youtu.be/FfpV5JVv9AY?si=V4SyuqSLi73o8KUo

Fired

Ashe - 7.5

Lenna - 5.5

Would have been better as a stand alone film with no attempted Batman tie in

Unaware of what the controversy even was

Yes

Very slight one

KamikazePotato posted...

Do they?

I've read articles and posts back in the day decrying the translation for making the story more light and "ruining" Kefka

Not as much nowadays but

Samus
Ryu

Leonhart4 posted...

Moon

But then I realized that was Goodnight, Moon, and then I couldn't think of anything else.

This

Lmao I can't believe I wasn't the only one

When you reach later collector levels you start getting caches that will be guaranteed in a set of 4 to have

1 new card
2 known predetermined S4/S5 cards (2 s5 if new card is s4, else 1 s4 1 s5)
1 random s4/s5 card

(example currently it is Man Thing as new s4, Lady Deathstrike and Silver Samurai as returning s5)

If the card is owned you get a special exclusive variant for it instead

But they only appear every 100 or so levels so you need to be frugal with them and time them for new releases you want. (If you use 4 on the same set you will get the new card guaranteed)

Golbez - 6.5
Actively hurt by the Zemus reveal. Top tier character without it.

Meliadoul - 3.5
Aggressively bland and the lamest subsection of the swordskills. Hurt by being later in the game less time put into any characterization whatsoever.

Luneth - 5.5
I honestly kinda like him. He's like a less emo/obnoxious Zidane. Just an upbeat dude.

Layle
Doomtrain
Sazh
Apollo

People sing the praises of the original ff6 script but woosley much improved that kinda stuff

Im calling pedo Edgar non Canon

Try whatever deck you've been having success with and dump Shadow King in the last spot. Counters the Elsa gimmicks pretty hard.

George
Bub

Wesker seems to lack a key "cruelty" component in his evil that I think the other guy may have from the writeups so I'm leaning the other guy atm

I actually wouldn't rate them vastly differently based on 2 hours vs the whole game tbh

I still think Season 1 Seinfeld characters are at least good though

It's just weird that all the ARR characters aside from like Foulkes are super bland and then get super good later apparently, and knowing how MMOs are I'm not sure how much salt I need when considering these super high ratings they seem to get.

Vivi
Ghido
Irvine
Edge

colliding posted...

all FFXIV characters are getting 5's from me I think. I only played ARR so I feel kind of bad but I also think ARR is like... a hundred hours so it should be allowed

I've been on the fence on whether I should rate being in a similar boat (played a little past that but not far enough to see why people actually like these characters for non meme reasons)

I may retroactively rank them at some point because yeah if you're still bland after 100 hours it's fair imo. Also wondering how much of the love for them is people rationalizing the time they sunk in the game lol.

Mamma Jamma

Irvine - 5
Sazh - 8.5

Burger

Blame the last topic. Did not think of it last time

Edgar - 9
Basch - 7
Agrias - 9

skullbone posted...

They just need to make it 8 cubes

Yeah

Arguably Silver should be 8 as well.

I consider myself a force of good on the proving grounds tbh. I think if everyone had that etiquette (minus playing agatha that's just my way to minimize effort) it'd be a better place

I exclusively play Agatha on proving grounds and always snap turn 1. I also always forfeit if I lose a double snap game.

If my opponent does not forfeit on losing a double snap game I spam "I don't believe you" and take as much time as possible with every turn.

Kefka

-- for brief pause
... for longer pause

Any other thing you can use a period. No need to be splicing commas