Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.

From: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)

Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1993 22:46:51 +0000

In article <21hqlb$241@tang.ccr-p.ida.org> desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
   Carl Edman <cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu> writes:
   > Absolutely.  The rewards for players who play skillfully for a long
   > time are both superior positions and superior knowledge of the game.
   > Under no circumstances should beginners be given those same
   > advantages.

I just don't get this at all.  This player, who plays skillfully for a
   long time, expects the reward for that play to be the enjoyment of each
   and every turn played, and no more.

Yes, that's true, but the enjoyment which every turn brings is very
heavily dependant on how far it succeeds at increasing the power of a
position.  At least I enjoy declaring empire and making it stick a
whole lot more than being wiped out, but then that's just me.

It's not like a superior position is a thing to be valued in and of
   itself.  I can make up my own game and make myself God.  I can edit my
   computer game and give myself 999 in every ability.  What does this
   prove?  Why would I value it?

Of course you wouldn't.  Neither would I.  But that's because all
power is measured relative to other players.  In games which at least
to some extent reflect the skill of the player (like all games
reasonable people above the age of five would want to play) a powerful
position is an indication that the player has been skillful in the
past which is nice for that player.  But even more importantly a
powerful positon allows the player to have a larger impact on how the
world itself changes and affects dozens or hundreds of other people.
That's also nice.

I hate to say it, because I've had some very friendly discussions with
   Carl, but this is the first thing I've read in this group in a long time
   (except for some personal slanders) which really makes me angry.  If
   strong positions offer extra enjoyment over other kinds of positions,
   why are they "earned" through skillful play?  Why don't less skillful
   players deserve to have just as much fun as the more skillful?  Why
   would anyone design a game with this attitude toward the new players
   that they are presumably hoping to attract?

Sorry to have upset you.  I certainly did not intend to.  To answer
your questions, in order.

Because at least partially strong positions are more enjoyable in many
ways than weak one _because_ they are an indication of skillful play.

I certainly don't know whether less skillful players "deserve" less
enjoyment of a game, but I can say that in virtually all cases and all
games better players who frequently win _do_ enjoy the game more.

New players beginning with positions less powerful than those of old
ones, have at least one advantage over the old ones which is why they
very well may want to play: They have a chance to improve their
position greatly which some might argue is the most enjoyable aspect
of it all.

I hope I'm misunderstanding.  It's true that there have to be _goals_
   for players to strive for.  Otherwise there is no challenge to the game,
   and any random set of moves is as good as anyone other.  But there's no
   reason that one should not separate, to the maximum extent possible, the
   pursuit of those goals from the things that make the game enjoyable,
   including the opportunity to play a significant role in the game and (if
   applicable) knowledge of how the game works.

I'm not certain I understand what you are saying here.  Surely you can
not be saying that every beginner should have the same opportunity to
influence the course of the game as a long-standing skillful player ?
Certainly, a skillful beginner should over time at least have the
ability to asymptotically approach or even surpass the power of an
equally skillful oldtimer, but the opportunity to alter the history of
the world is too precious to give it to just anyone.  Rather it is
that opportunity which should be one of the motivating factors of
advanced players.

Carl Edman

References

Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
srt@aero.org (Scott 'Dr. Pain' Turner)
Thu, 08 Jul 1993 15:45:36 +0000
Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
bonar@gnumath.rutgers.edu (Doug Bonar)
Thu, 08 Jul 1993 17:17:00 +0000
Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Thu, 08 Jul 1993 18:16:56 +0000
Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Thu, 08 Jul 1993 18:56:43 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
srt@aero.org (Scott 'Dr. Pain' Turner)
Thu, 08 Jul 1993 15:45:36 +0000
Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
bonar@gnumath.rutgers.edu (Doug Bonar)
Thu, 08 Jul 1993 17:17:00 +0000
Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Thu, 08 Jul 1993 18:16:56 +0000
Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Thu, 08 Jul 1993 18:56:43 +0000