The automated walkthrough system chooses options based on a scoring algorithm that looks for certain patterns in each choice. Choosing the "light path" is still valid, but the system is designed to optimize for the highest calculated score, not a specific narrative.
How it works:
For each choice, the system calculates a score using configurable weights. For example, if a choice increases a stat (e.g., += 5), it gets a higher score than one that increases it by a smaller amount. If a choice sets path = True or relation = True, it receives additional points based on the current strategy (balanced, aggressive, or conservative). The walkthrough system also considers past outcomes and can adapt its behavior over time. When both choices are similar (e.g., both have +=), it will pick the one with the higher value or the one that matches more of the weighted criteria. This sometimes results in the system consistently picking the "dark path" or the top option, simply because it matches the scoring logic better. The current framework is not hardcoded to always pick a specific narrative path; it’s designed to maximize the calculated score. If you want it to behave differently (for example, always pick the "light path" or prioritize certain outcomes), the scoring weights and logic can be adjusted.
Since I receive very little user feedback about how the automated system should behave, it’s hard to know what to improve or change. If users provide more feedback about what kind of choices or playstyle they want the automation to prioritize (for example, always picking the light path, or focusing on certain stats), I can adjust the logic and scoring to better match those preferences.
