34 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
34 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
# Experiment 002 Hypothesis
|
|
|
|
## Primary hypothesis
|
|
|
|
Direct control plus practical stakes will turn systems knowledge from implementation work into personal agency. The player will care about understanding because it produces survival, power, improvisation, or recoverable chaos.
|
|
|
|
## Controlled comparison
|
|
|
|
- **Calm:** constructs have the same properties and physics but do not pursue or damage the player.
|
|
- **Breach:** constructs pursue, collide with, and damage the player; waves continue.
|
|
|
|
## Competing explanations
|
|
|
|
1. Direct systemic manipulation is interesting in both modes; pressure changes pacing but is not necessary.
|
|
2. The system becomes meaningful only under pressure.
|
|
3. Pressure interrupts experimentation; calm is more promising.
|
|
4. Action feedback is momentarily stimulating but the laws remain shallow.
|
|
5. The mechanics feel like ordinary combat abilities rather than magical engineering.
|
|
|
|
## Strong evidence
|
|
|
|
- A discovery produces a second voluntary test.
|
|
- The player deliberately engineers a state before acting: brittle, unstable, massive, aligned, or grouped.
|
|
- A chosen calibration supports a self-selected tactic.
|
|
- The player recovers from a bad state using the system rather than merely kiting.
|
|
- The calm/breach preference has a clear reason tied to reasoning or emotional stakes.
|
|
|
|
## Weak or negative evidence
|
|
|
|
- The player spams one verb without tracking properties.
|
|
- Conventional movement and aiming do all the enjoyable work.
|
|
- Temperature states are merely status effects with obvious prescribed combos.
|
|
- Calibration is generic numerical progression without changing decisions.
|
|
|