Can Time Be Removed From Efficiency

[vonFiedler]

Ya...I wasn't putting words in your mouth dude, you said it lol.

No, you are, and your bolded statement is a very poor justification for it. The friend is generally right, in that time CAN be taken out of efficiency.

It seems to me like his friend just enjoys grinding is trying to justify it using all the wrong methods anyway (I know a guy like that).

No, time can not be removed from efficiency. Efficiency by definition is how much you can accomplish in as little time as possible.

No it isn't. Several have already posted the definition of efficiency and without taking it out of context, efficiency is not defined by time but by variables one of which could include time.

 

[Phizzlax]

Efficiency is not defined by time but by variables one of which could include time.

This.

The confusion probably stems from just how often time is included as a variable. Any resource can fill that void though.

 

[MrIndigo]

Selectively defining efficiency is the problem the OP has.

While certainly one of the more common examples of the concept of efficiency is that of "outcome versus time", it's not the only definition. The more general definition of efficiency is any expression of "output vs input". "Efficiency" is a contextual shorthand for "How much For instance, you could have a square box into which you are to pack as many oranges as possible. The most efficient arrangement is the HCP structure, because it fits the most spheres into the smallest area.

In short, everything the OP quoted from this other guy is correct. Every example he provided is an example of a type of efficiency. Sometimes, you can get complicated situations where there are more than one input. For example, you might be trying to pack as much weight of oranges into a box while also trying to maximise the number of oranges per box. Using bigger, heavier oranges might give you more weight per box, but it may mean that you can fit less in. In these situations, the optimal efficiency is usually some in-between point (i.e. rather than using all big heavy oranges or all small light oranges, you use a combination of the two in a certain ratio and packing regime.

 

[lilyhollow]

In these situations, the optimal efficiency is usually some in-between point (i.e. rather than using all big heavy oranges or all small light oranges, you use a combination of the two in a certain ratio and packing regime.

I would argue that it is foolish to try and fill the box with larger oranges, because "also try to maximize weight" is not part of the objective. Maybe the oranges are being used for some avant garde art project and heavier oranges would threaten the stability of the piece. In this case, you're being anything but efficient by performing your job according to some unrelated, made-up objective. Everything is dependent on what the given objectives are. You can't just go around saying that "heavier oranges are even more efficient," or "wow you did that fast, how efficient!" when heaviness or speed are not relevant goals, even if it makes some intuitive sense to do so.

The only reason that people are so caught up in "time" is that it just so happens to be a really popular relevant resource. People love it when you finish stuff faster. It's also really obvious when it happens; you don't have to check the quality of the product, or go back and confirm what methods were used, or whatever. It's also a really safe "non-relevant" objective to try and fulfill. I pointed out earlier that trying to make the box of oranges as heavy as possible could easily backfire, but who really cares if you collect the same oranges you would have before, just faster? All of this comes together to not only make speed a really popular explicit or implicit objective for a boss to assign tasks, but a really popular non-relevant, made-up objective for workers to adhere to in a sneaky attempt at looking "more efficient," even though there are probably hundreds of other equally non-relevant, equally made-up objectives that they neglected in their rush to fulfill it.


edit: Objection brought it to my attention that I may have (read: "almost definitely") misunderstood your post MrIndigo. I guess you were simply establishing another, separate scenario in which more than one objective/"input" is given? This doesn't really invalidate any of the points that I made because I feel like a lot of people would take the route of saying "hey, I was told to fit as many oranges in a box as possible, but why not try to maximize weight, too? That's totally more efficient." If you're not one of those people, my bad, but hopefully I'm right and this does apply to other people.

 

[Colonel M]

It seems to me like his friend just enjoys grinding is trying to justify it using all the wrong methods anyway (I know a guy like that).

This. See, I know that time is a "loose" factor in efficiency in other examples. Go back when I broadened Blame Game's example of the cookies. The person going faster isn't always more efficient. Accuracy can also be a constant (taste in that scenario). Super's example with EXP gains in the same # of turns can still be more efficient as well, since the player is still fuliflling his or her task within the certain time but not going over. In PoR, for example, I could mash "End Turn" with Ike on Defend maps, but that isn't exactly more efficient. Also, not always is the 2 liters more efficent either. What if you hate pop, or it cost you more in gas to get those 2 liters? Super also covered my biggest issue with his SMW2 example. The bars are also vague until he stated that second example, but if I have unlimited time, I'm just going to shine 100/100 bars since the example's vagueness also does not state how many bars are needed, etc. The pop example seems to be the only one, IMO, that actually follows efficiency down to the wire, and it still is rather vague by explaination.

The problem is the person (no, this "biggot" shall we say is not my friend) is trying to justify grinding as an efficient task. As minimal resources are also taken into the account of efficiency as well as time, both constants are being broken. So, in this case, what exactly is he being efficient in his task? That's what I'm outlining. As this is a SRPG, finding other constants to define "efficiency" aren't AS easy, per say, to find when it isn't time nor resources.
[Quote[No it isn't. Several have already posted the definition of efficiency and without taking it out of context, efficiency is not defined by time but by variables one of which could include time.[/QUOTE]
Yes, and of course I do understand there are other variables to the equation. An example another person stated was you have two options: snap your fingers and 1/100 times you'll get a 100 dollar bill vs. The option of winning 1000 dollars but 50% of the time you lose a limb. Option #1 is the safer alternative here than #2 despite #2 POSSIBLY yielding faster results. Much like, say, I can beat a chapter in a turn and have a 20% chance to beat it and every turn it increases by 10%. With restarts considered, I could take advantage of the 20% and beat it in a turn. If, however, restarts weren't allowed in the equation, I would wait the turns out until the factors become more in my favor.

 

[Earthworm]

Blame Game's posts have made the most sense to me in this thread. The way it makes sense to me in my head (and I'm hoping it can be applied to anything) is:

For some goal, resources and desired outputs are defined and given values per unit, then efficiency is whatever produces the lowest score for the best output.

If time is given a value of 0 then no matter how much time is used the efficiency rating is unaffected. Resource and output values are entirely goal-based. So in the case of you and your acquaintance, if he defines the goal as dividing experience evenly between units and gaining as much experience as possible or whatever and you have some other goal, then his efficiency should be judged totally differently from whatever goal you are trying to achieve.

If I interpreted it correctly, in Blame Game's cookie example the only thing that matters is the number of cookies produced, and that is the only thing that would affect the efficiency of the task. It doesn't matter if one of them bakes the same number of cookies but faster, because they are due at the exact time two hours from when the task started and nobody cares how long they are done before then.

There is also efficiency within the task like how long it takes to bake a single cookie, but in that case the goal is to produce a cookie in as little time as possible, which is separate from the main goal (which has a set time period) and should therefore have its efficiency judged separately.

So by my understanding, while you can always apply time efficiency to any goal, if it is doesn't matter for that goal then time can be removed from an efficiency equation.

 

[Colonel M]

Think further here. What I'm arguing is that time is not the only "constant" to an efficient style. If time were the only constant to efficiency, why would I care if the cookies taste like crap? Even in the 2 hour constraint, the more I cook within that timeframe, the greater the chances are that I win.

My position stands more of, say, a "maximum efficient" concept. Consider the definition of efficency. As the constant can be variable, if you are attempting to maximize efficiency, you are likely taking ALL variables into account. Not just time, but accuracy, resources, etc taken into account. The thing is time is a major variable under max efficiency: the more time given, the more flexibility that is given. A person that takes 3 turns but 6 deaths, another takes 4 turns but 1 death, and another with 6 turns and no deaths, the problem is that since deaths are not really deaths (as in you can revive other units), the constant loses much of its value, so Persons 1 and 2 were still more efficient. If, however, Person #2's death was on his or her last turn, than it is possible to be more efficient than Person #1.

...I don't know. I have a headache atm.

 

[cayr]

in rpg it depends...
for shining force, you could use your low level units as fodder and your main high level guy for the goal, making it faster, but on the later levels it'll be hard as your army would consist of basically one guy, but on fire emblem it is a more important part because it is not that easy because of permanent death... so it's just more used in the equation for fire emblem, or just bigger part, whatever im just talking about rpg

 

[MrIndigo]

I would argue that it is foolish to try and fill the box with larger oranges, because "also try to maximize weight" is not part of the objective. Maybe the oranges are being used for some avant garde art project and heavier oranges would threaten the stability of the piece. In this case, you're being anything but efficient by performing your job according to some unrelated, made-up objective. Everything is dependent on what the given objectives are. You can't just go around saying that "heavier oranges are even more efficient," or "wow you did that fast, how efficient!" when heaviness or speed are not relevant goals, even if it makes some intuitive sense to do so.

Why the maximum weight in the box is desired isn't really relevant; if it's the task you're given, the efficiency incorporates that as an outcome. I was just trying to modify the original example rather than create an entirely new one so the comparison is clearer.

What efficiency is measuring is defined with reference with the task you're completing.

The only reason that people are so caught up in "time" is that it just so happens to be a really popular relevant resource. People love it when you finish stuff faster. It's also really obvious when it happens; you don't have to check the quality of the product, or go back and confirm what methods were used, or whatever. It's also a really safe "non-relevant" objective to try and fulfill. I pointed out earlier that trying to make the box of oranges as heavy as possible could easily backfire, but who really cares if you collect the same oranges you would have before, just faster? All of this comes together to not only make speed a really popular explicit or implicit objective for a boss to assign tasks, but a really popular non-relevant, made-up objective for workers to adhere to in a sneaky attempt at looking "more efficient," even though there are probably hundreds of other equally non-relevant, equally made-up objectives that they neglected in their rush to fulfill it.


edit: Objection brought it to my attention that I may have (read: "almost definitely") misunderstood your post MrIndigo. I guess you were simply establishing another, separate scenario in which more than one objective/"input" is given? This doesn't really invalidate any of the points that I made because I feel like a lot of people would take the route of saying "hey, I was told to fit as many oranges in a box as possible, but why not try to maximize weight, too? That's totally more efficient." If you're not one of those people, my bad, but hopefully I'm right and this does apply to other people.

Yeah, that was what I was trying to do. I agree with all of the points you raised, as they are still correct despite the misunderstanding.

 

[Super]

While it is true that there could be costs other than time in efficency, everyone who's saying the guy is right needs to take a closer look at his examples. I only skimmed (I have a poor attention span) over the examples the first time, so I only caught the Super Mario World example, but almost all of his examples have nothing to do with efficiency and are instead completion ratings. The Super Mario World example is in my previous post.

"I mean, take another example: you have 100 rusty things and have been instructed to turn them into as many shiny things no matter how long it takes. Your efficiency is judged by how many of those 100 rusty things are now shiny things."

This is a completion rating. Without a loss this can't be about efficiency. If the loss is the amount of rusty things you worked on, your efficiency would always be 1/1.

"Apparently fictitious examples don't work with you, so lets use a real world example... Let's say I go to a convenience store at a gas station. They're having a sale on 20-ounce bottles of soda, 2 for $2.22. Now let's say I go down to the local Wal Mart. 2-litre bottles of the exact same soda are 88 cents (2-litres being a little over 67 ounces). Which is the more efficient purchase? The 2 20-ounce bottles or the 2-litre bottles?"

I don't know if this is actually a proper example of efficiency because no goods are being produced here (been so long since I've taken economics), but if purchasing counts then this is that guy's only proper example. You are gaining a certain amount of soda at the cost of a certain amount of money.

"consider the idea that any rusty thing you fail to shine is destroyed. Your efficiency is judged (yes judged, as in reviewed and determined independently) by how many out of the rusty things you managed to turn into shiny things. If you managed to make 82 of the 100 rusty things shiny (destroying the other 18), your efficiency rating would be 82/100, or 82%."

This is also a completion rating. Efficiency isn't about what you could have had and lost, but rather what you had that you lost in order to get those shiny things.

Its as Deck Knight said, he's changing the objective from experience per second to experience per level. However, the problem with experience per level is that on its own its simply a ratio and not an efficiency score. If you were only able to play through a level once and only once, then experience per level could be an efficiency score but not in any way comparable to experience per second. They'd be different standards to judge grinding.

Basically, yes, time can be taken out of efficiency, but that guy has the wrong idea on how it can be taken out.

 

[Colonel M]

Okay, so to clear myself up: I don't argue time as the only constant. Though, hopefully I cleared that up with the later posts, and I should've done so in my earlier posts. Merely, time is just a constant that is easier to measure, in most cases, than others. Yet, the major thing when measuring efficiency is that it can have more than one concept, correct? "Goal" is perhaps the better terminology here, but rightfully so. I'm just arguing that, with the case of Strategy RPGs, while time itself does not "exist" in this game, you are not spending forever in the game. Eventually, you are to finish the game. Fairly simple. While it's true that it is justification of one play style vs. another, my point is that player #2 (the one with grinding) has no real goal within his play through. Thus, it becomes difficult to justify characters and their usefulness, etc. Basically, while it is true you are playing the game merely from a fun stand point, attempting to give advice is rather difficult. Though, as I've said many times; I have no problem with his play style. It is the justification that he calls it an "efficient" play style. Yes, you're right that time can be a concept that can be removed, though the question that remains unanswered is how is it being efficient?

Let me show you some videos to compare. Since I do not have the exact videos uploaded within my Youtube profile atm, I can't really give you a good comparison. So, to play it out; this battle was done in less than 10 minutes of the video stretching from the beginning to the end (5 turns, shall we say). You could say that I was efficient, and within my time frame of 5 turns I attempted to maximize it by allowing my other units to obtain the EXP from the other monsters as safely as possible. However, what I'm talking about is how is this exactly "efficient":

http://www.youtube.com/user/MaxKnight1010101#p/c/8893ACFFB349D2B5/38/s620n9J4Wmg
http://www.youtube.com/user/MaxKnight1010101#p/c/8893ACFFB349D2B5/39/M7ppMobORAc
http://www.youtube.com/user/MaxKnight1010101#p/c/8893ACFFB349D2B5/40/kJRL7vPsc8w
http://www.youtube.com/user/MaxKnight1010101#p/c/8893ACFFB349D2B5/41/KfhxgjWyCNg

That's what I mean.

I don't know if this is actually a proper example of efficiency because no goods are being produced here (been so long since I've taken economics), but if purchasing counts then this is that guy's only proper example. You are gaining a certain amount of soda at the cost of a certain amount of money.

Yeah, this is the one example I agree is close, yet it is still vague within its own right.

If you need a video of me playing the battle, by the way, I can show it. Though, I think what Super said is what I'm really looking for, or at least close to it.

 

[MrIndigo]

Its as Deck Knight said, he's changing the objective from experience per second to experience per level. However, the problem with experience per level is that on its own its simply a ratio and not an efficiency score. If you were only able to play through a level once and only once, then experience per level could be an efficiency score but not in any way comparable to experience per second. They'd be different standards to judge grinding.

Basically, yes, time can be taken out of efficiency, but that guy has the wrong idea on how it can be taken out.

I'm not familiar with the games in question, but I assumed you could only do each level once. Consequently, if the goal is to get as many of those things as you can by the end of the game, then completion rates for each level IS a measurement of efficiency.

Another common video game example that I sometimes think about is "Experience/Item" or "Money/Item", that is, how much experience or money I can get from killing enemies for each healing item I need to use.

 

[Colonel M]

I'm not familiar with the games in question, but I assumed you could only do each level once.

The rather grave unfortunate scenario is that you can actually repeat levels. It's not like Fire Emblem in a sense. You are allowed two options:

- You are allowed to Egress from a map, though the consequence is that you have to start the battle all over (after reviving / etc). You keep all the EXP and items gained and lost in the map (of course you can't really lose EXP).
- Some battles are "replayable".