Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary

From: gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)

Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1993 11:00:32 +0000

Graham Matthews <gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk> writes:
> > Now do you understand the point? Its really very simple. A game to be a
> > good simulation should only allow players to learn things by a means that
> > the character they represent could learn in the "reality" being simulated.
> > This gives everyone the same information and something therefore of an
> > equal chance.
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
> In the immediately previous article you claim to be discussing "games of
> all types."  Now suddenly you are discussing games which are to be "good
> simulations," which is surely a very tiny sliver of the space of all
> games.

True I was commenting on simulation games - thats why I used that word
"simulation" - to make the context clear. Personally I think simulation
games actually cover a large spectrum of games as many games are simulations
of some reality (or are supposed to be), even if simplistic ones.

desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
> Subject to your restriction to that very small set of games, I agree
> with the following proviso.  The most likely outcome of the game you
> have described, is that players will play one game learning just as you
> have intended.  However, in the second game, the players who have played
> before will know all of this stuff which the game is supposed to
> "simulate" learning, which ruins the point of the game both for them,
> and for the first-time players who have to compete against them.

As I have said before there is nothing that can be done about experience.
Its up to the players to play against equally strong opponents.

desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
> However it seems to me that when you advocate "learning" the basic
> formulas of the game, you can't possibly use this paradigm, because it's
> not practical to vary the formulas themselves from game to game,
> certainly not in a computer-moderated game.  Nor is it going to be
> practical for players to join the game at different points, since that
> will ruin the "simulation" by giving them different levels of knowledge.

a) their is nothing to stop the formulas being changed from game to game
b) I agree that means people can't join halfway through

> How do you intend to address this?  All I have heard you say so far is,
> yes, that experience will help.  But surely it is not a "good
> simulation" to have the single most important factor be whether the
> player---not the "character"---has played the game before!

But now the real point here and that is that publishing the formulas does
*not* alleviate the "experience problem". In a game with published
formulas, experienced players will :-

a) have all their formula tools working bug free and smoothly - the newbies
won't
b) have a better feel for the really crucial things in the game (many games are
unbalanced and have over-ridingly important factors which are not obvious from
the formulas eg. robot factories in Stellar Conquest)
c) have a better feel for the non-formula related activities like alliance
making
d) know the game quirks
etc

So whether you publish the formulas or not, experience is always going to be
an important factor. It seems to me therefore that this whole thread about
experience being a problem in games with non-published formulas is a red-herring
since its also a problem in games with published formulas.

graham

References

Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Sat, 03 Jul 1993 22:10:46 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Sun, 04 Jul 1993 17:56:46 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Mon, 05 Jul 1993 03:21:52 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Sat, 03 Jul 1993 16:31:08 +0000