Whilst you could make an AI which is designed to be more vindictive than a human, that same AI would not also be able to do more considerate decisions, because of the way AI works. Until AGI is a thing, you aren't going to have a computer making as naunced decisions as a human is. Whilst it is nice to make arguments in an idealized world where time doesn't exist and we have super intelligent AIs, its not the world we live in so we might as well stick to the real world constraints.
Citations desperately needed. You slip verbiage into your arguments all the time without thinking about it or how its relevant to the discussion you're having. When did nuance become a concern? What makes you think AGI is necessary for a deep learnt model to emulate human behavior? We get more effective results from deep learning than your average player is capable of across a number of games, and games are just sets of behaviors approaching a manufactured goal.
The number and type of tangents you spin off into makes it seem like you have a potentially exceptional amount of raw intelligence, but you really, really need to pursue a fitting education or its wasted on total nonsense statements like this.
Yes, I did mean the number of quality game states would be reduced
Then you have to grapple with the intervention additive balance has on your argument.
EX: I add a suit to solitaire in the interest of further obfuscating player means. I have increased the number of game states in the interest of balance.
I can walk you through a formal presentation of this argument, including explicit premises, if that would be helpful in cultivating more logically sound strategies for countering arguments.
I just drew distinctions between different kinds of balance and said that I care more about one than another. System balance is in my opinion important, where the system as a whole is seen as balanced, while individual class vs class balance is not something I am particularly interested in. So long as classes have their niches and there isn't 1 class which is ideal for every single situation, I see it as more or less ok outcome. Actually, it makes for a far more interesting game when classes have different strengths and weaknesses
Difference is an object of balance, not contrary to it. Balance becomes meaningless if all game states are identical. System balance formally contains class balance, classes are inextricably embedded in the system you're talking about.
