57 lines
5 KiB
Markdown
57 lines
5 KiB
Markdown
# Experiment 005 Preliminary Analysis — Session 69cdaf46
|
||
|
||
Status: telemetry and player report analyzed.
|
||
|
||
Source: `JSONL/sanctuary-wake-69cdaf46-11e4-498f-abe0-ee791a81fad4.jsonl`
|
||
|
||
## Session Summary
|
||
|
||
- 1,019 saved events over 245 seconds of wall time.
|
||
- The measured shift ran to its automatic end at 180.0 simulation seconds.
|
||
- The player saved about three seconds after the summary appeared and did not enter overtime.
|
||
- Final state: 6 pods rescued, 18 lost, 17 raiders broken, no breaches, 41% sanctuary integrity.
|
||
- 289 movement key-down events and 289 matching releases indicate continuous active piloting rather than waiting out the timer.
|
||
- 89 field sessions: 60 pull and 29 push, totaling 59.4 active seconds.
|
||
- 53/89 field sessions ended through charge depletion rather than release.
|
||
- 43 keeper impacts occurred.
|
||
|
||
## Time Course
|
||
|
||
- First keeper/wreckage impact: 3.0 s.
|
||
- First rescue: 28.8 s.
|
||
- First pod loss: 32.8 s.
|
||
- First raider destruction: two simultaneous breaks at 47.8 s.
|
||
- Sanctuary remained at 100% until 150 s, then took six impacts during the final 30 seconds and ended at 41%.
|
||
- No emergency breach occurred, so the intended recoverable-failure event was never directly tested.
|
||
|
||
The player used pull and push in every 30-second interval, but pull increasingly dominated. Field time stayed near 9–11 seconds per interval even as session count increased; depletion endings rose from none in the first 30 seconds to 13/16 in the final interval. A plausible interpretation is that later use became repeated short attempts constrained by an often-empty charge meter rather than deliberation about when to stop. The player report must distinguish intentional rationing, confusing responsiveness, and simple input frustration.
|
||
|
||
Seventeen wreckage/raider kills prove the advertised collision interaction occurred. Five happened while a field was actively logged; the remainder happened under residual momentum or without immediate field input. Telemetry cannot determine which, if any, were deliberately set up by the player.
|
||
|
||
## Competing Explanations
|
||
|
||
1. The core activity—radially shepherding multiple autonomous bodies—was intrinsically unpleasant or illegible.
|
||
2. Pull/push created outcomes, but clutter and shared influence prevented intentional multi-object decisions.
|
||
3. The charge meter interrupted actions without creating a worthwhile resource decision.
|
||
4. Rescue stakes were too abstract to create care; losses became noise rather than emotionally meaningful failures.
|
||
5. The player was actively solving conventional pressure but continued only because a three-minute timer defined completion.
|
||
6. Interesting recoveries never emerged: pods disappeared on contact and sanctuary damage arrived late, leaving little reversible intermediate failure.
|
||
7. Some wreckage kills were intentional and locally satisfying, but the surrounding activity overwhelmed that positive moment.
|
||
|
||
## Player Report
|
||
|
||
The player wanted to stop almost immediately. They understood the instructions, but the activity did not seem interesting. Later wreckage accumulation made the situation feel impossible.
|
||
|
||
A few wreckage kills were deliberate. Once the field filled, however, nearly any intervention risked pushing pods into raiders or wreckage into the sanctuary. Attacking a raider felt inseparable from harming the player's own objective. Charge was an annoyance that made an already impossible situation harder, not a meaningful resource decision.
|
||
|
||
Controls were fine and the chaos was readable. The player did not care what happened. The decisive complaint was not perceptual overload but **unmanageable state**: consequences were visible, yet the available actions no longer offered credible improvement.
|
||
|
||
## Final Interpretation
|
||
|
||
Experiment 005 did not create recoverable chaos. It created accumulating contamination. Pods were removed instantly when caught, wreckage persisted, and the indiscriminate radial field increasingly coupled every local intervention to collateral damage. A recoverable failure should generate a new tractable problem; here failures reduced the future action space.
|
||
|
||
This distinction matters. Reducing spawn rates or increasing charge would make the activity easier, but would not address the player's immediate lack of interest or indifference to rescue outcomes. Controls, feedback, and collision readability are specifically exonerated as primary causes.
|
||
|
||
The experiment weakens the idea that pressure, systemic coupling, or a nominal protect/rescue objective can supply motivation. Coupling is useful only while the player can isolate leverage within it. “Everything affects everything” becomes paralysis rather than emergence when tools cannot select, sequence, or bound consequences.
|
||
|
||
The next probe should not be another custodial field-management game. A higher-information contrast is **assertive, selective agency**: direct movement and targeted verbs in a compact combat or traversal activity where the player creates outcomes rather than babysitting an accumulating state. Keep failure local and resettable. Do not add upgrades until the base actions demonstrate value.
|