Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start

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

Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1993 11:17:25 +0000

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!
markiel@callisto.pas.rochester.edu (Andrew Markiel) writes:
> 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.

This is not true of all simulations though and that is my point. BMW engineers
for example do molecular level simulations for parts of the simulation of
fluid through a cars cooling system.
markiel@callisto.pas.rochester.edu (Andrew Markiel) writes:
> 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).

And now you miss the point, namely that I agree whole-heartedly that
the equations to get an accurate model of a real economy are probably
non-existent or unbeliavably complex and not simulable in any sort of
finite time. BUT simplified and realistic enough equations for a game can be
formulated. Formulas that capture the essence of things to a level that most
gamers would be happy. And these formulas are simulable. No-one expects a
perfect simulation, just a half-way decent one.

gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
>[on people's lack of math skills]
markiel@callisto.pas.rochester.edu (Andrew Markiel) writes:
> 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.

First I am not claiming that people don't have high school educations.
Most people are probably taught percentages, ratios etc at high school and
then by the time they have finished their arts degree they have forgotten
all that high school stuff - or rather they have forgotten the parts that
are no longer relevant to their life. I for example studied german at high
school and I have forgotten heaps and heaps of german. I doubt I could even
make an intelligible german sentence these days beyond "How are you feeling",
and "what is your name". So many of the people I game with do not understand
percentages and ratios. They once knew how to deal with them but not anymore.

I would also add that in many situations you need a hell of a lot more than
simple high school math to understand formulas. Ask a population biologist to
give you a simple but realistic model of population growth in a competitive
environment and you will end up with an equation which is non-linear and
chaotic!

gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
> >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!
markiel@callisto.pas.rochester.edu (Andrew Markiel) writes:
> 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.

See previous comments.

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

As I said before its not straightforward maths. Second reading and numeracy
skills are almost entirely unrelated so the last two sentences are just
gibberish.

Lastly I detect what borders on a kind of arrogance here. If I was french
say and I wrote a game in french and you couldn't play it cause your
french sucked, would I be reasonable to say "If we shouldn't assume players
can do straightforward french ...". I think not! Now why is math any
different to french? As far as I can see its just another langauge.

graham

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
Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
markiel@callisto.pas.rochester.edu (Andrew Markiel)
Mon, 05 Jul 1993 07:23:57 +0000
PBM design and formulae - a summary
rob@ccc.govt.nz (Rob McNeur)
Mon, 28 Jun 1993 09:53:02 +0000