Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start

From: markiel@callisto.pas.rochester.edu (Andrew Markiel)

Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1993 07:23:57 +0000

In article <C9LMEL.76t@dcs.ed.ac.uk> gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews) writes:
>gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews) writes:
>
>Oh come on Russell. Galaxy might represent the economies of all these
>planets etc, but it does so by representing the key factors. Now a simulation
>of those key factors is going to be trivial. We don't need to trace the
>movement of every particle in/on the planets, unlike the wing simulation
>where we do!
>
You miss the point that in the wing simulation, the number of particles
is immaterial: whether you are solving for 3 particles or 5 billion,
the motion of each particle is governed by the same simple and well
known equations. The only difference the number makes is in how many
multiplications you have to make.

In contrast, the equations governing the economy are not simple (if
they were, people could actually predict it). So to model an economy,
you have to make a number of simplyfying assumptions (and it is
hardly clear what the appropriate choices are: again if they were
clear people could make accurate predictions of the economy). This
means that it is highly unlikely that this model economy will behave
like our real economy, and so you cannot use real life to help you
make your decisions: you need the formulas to predict the strange
ways that this model economy will function. I will grant you that
*if* you could make a set of equations that correctly models our
economy, then it would be unnecessary to give the players these
equations: Russell's point is that if you could do this, you'd win
a Nobel Prize, becuase no one has been able to do it yet. The
Galaxy economy is a fantasy economy with fantasy behavior (reasonably
intuitive, but not completely so).

>gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews) writes:
>rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace) writes:
>> If "Joe Average" is so staggeringly stupid he can't understand the
>> concepts of percentage or ratio (which concepts suffice to understand
>> most formulas in most games), he shouldn't be playing at all.  What are
>> you going to argue next, that a printed rulebook should not be provided
>> because it puts at a disadvantage people who can't read???
>
>You live in a rarified world Russell. Most people do not have the mathematical
>skills you allude to - sorry but its true! Ever played serious games with
>people who are language or philosophy students. One game with such people
>will convince you that what I am saying is true!
>
The skills Russell alludes to are the concepts of percentage and ratio.
Last I checked, these were taught in high school: thus you claim that
most people do not have a high school education. Personally I think
such a claim is rather out of proportion (although I'll grant that
there are far too many people who don't). But even accepting that,
what's your point? Are you actually claiming that game designers, in
the general case, should be careful not to exclude people without high
school educations from their games? Such a claim is patently absurd.

>Moreover most decent formulas are not nice simple percentages or ratios.
>Take the formulas for population growth, something that many econonmy
>simulations would have, surely!
>
Ooh, exponential functions. Had them in high school too. I take it
these people don't know how to use calculators either? If you're
*really* desperate, you could include a table of representative
values so math-challenged people wouldn't have to compute them
themselves.

Or, of course, you could just say that your game is intended for
people who can (and want to) do such calculations. There actually
are quite a few of them; it's hardly a design flaw to assume basic
abilitites from the players.

>As to the "printed rule book", its one of those extremities again ...
>
Your statement was one of those extremities; we're just wondering how
far into absurdity you're willing to travel. If we shouldn't assume
players can do straightforward math, how can we assume they can read?
After all, there certainly are people who can't read.

>
>graham

-Andrew
markiel@callisto.pas.rochester.edu

References

Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Thu, 01 Jul 1993 11:40:27 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Sat, 03 Jul 1993 17:11:09 +0000
PBM design and formulae - a summary
rob@ccc.govt.nz (Rob McNeur)
Mon, 28 Jun 1993 09:53:02 +0000

Referenced By

Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Thu, 01 Jul 1993 11:40:27 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Sat, 03 Jul 1993 17:11:09 +0000
PBM design and formulae - a summary
rob@ccc.govt.nz (Rob McNeur)
Mon, 28 Jun 1993 09:53:02 +0000