Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start

From: saschreu@cs.vu.nl (Schreuder SA)

Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1993 11:59:00 +0000

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!

But what is the point in playing against people who aren't able to do
simple calculations? You are saying they aren't even able to calculate
distances using Pythagoras, because then they need to subtract, square,
add and taking a square root!

You are almost talking about somebody who doesn't want to use the rules,
or to devote some time to study them.

>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!

The formulas I've seen are only: adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing.
Maybe a square root, or a log/exp. But any calculator has those functions,
so anyone who can use a calculator, is able to use those formulas.

And besides, the rulebook example is not an extreme example. You want us
no to have the rules, because some players _can't_ use them. What is
the difference with not publishing the rules, because some players can't
read them? Ever thought about foreign players? English isn't my prime
language, but I have to use it. I'm sure there are many people in europe
who aren't able to read this group, because they don't understand english.
But you certainly won't tell us to stop reading news, because they can't
either, will you?

So I'll post a new article, stating that we should not use english,
because some people can't read it. :-) I'll be flamed a lot!

All games need some basics skills. We play tennis, while some people
aren't able to. We use english, while some people can't understand it.
So: We publish formulas, even when some people can't work with them.

Have you ever played Star Empires? except for the initial set-up,
there is no randomness in the game. There are some basic rules,
and many other players. There is no way to minimax this game, because
there are other people present. I would be able to have as many planets
as possible, if I leave my planets undefended to capture new ones. But
because other players will capture my planets, I need to defend them. On
the other hand, if I don't capture new planets, I won't grow, and a big
player will come and take all my planets. I think no one is able to give
a good formula what to do, let alone which planets to take/defend!

The rules for this game: Each ship has X beams and Y shields. When
Y < 0, the ship is destroyed. Firing K beams at another ship, will reduce
its shields with that amount. One can jump from each planet to each planet.
Each planet produces some "income", which can be spent on new ships. I can't
imagine simpler rules, do you?

So: Even a simple game can be beyond the scope of minimaxing it exactly.

>rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace) writes:
>> >> Ah, but: For a player to use intuition, requires that the information
>> >> come in the same form it would in real life, and the output be in the
>> >> same form, i.e. it would have to be a VR simulator.  If you can't have
>> >> that, and all you get is some numbers on a piece of paper, then the best
>> >> way to approach such a game is to attempt to derive the formulas that
>> >> the computer is using.
>gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews) writes:
>> >Ever heard of graphics? Output for the tennis game is in terms of pictures
>> >of the court, ball, players, racquet. Using this information a player can
>> >develop an intuition for the game. You don't need VR - that is an extreme
>> >position! Surely you have played a computer tennis or driving game. You
>> >develop intution quite rapidly without any VR surrounds.
>>
>> Sorry, pictures aren't going to cut it, because a great deal of
>> information comes from things like observing the *movement* of the ball,
>> getting its 3D position using *stereoscopic* vision, feeling how much
>> wind there is, and things like that.
>
>Then how come it is that I have played a number of computer tennis games
>and felt that they have given a good representation of a game of tennis?
>Most notable in this respect are the Atari tennis games.

And here you skip the difference between PBM games and real time games.
In any PBM with graphics, I would be able to measure the distance
between the ball and some reference points (148 pixels to the line),
and it is possible to find out those formulas again.

In real time games, one isn't able to do so, but ever seen your computer
opponent? It knows how to hit that ball to win. Only most computer opponents
are programmed to make mistakes to give humans a chance.

This is Rec.games.pbm, so stop talking about real time games. In PBMs,
one is able to think, in stead of have good reflexes. We were talking
about a PBM tennis game, and not about "normal" games. If you were, please
post your next article in the right newsgroup.

Sjoerd Schreuder

References

Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace)
Sat, 03 Jul 1993 11:32:44 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Sat, 03 Jul 1993 17:11:09 +0000

Referenced By

Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace)
Sat, 03 Jul 1993 11:32:44 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Sat, 03 Jul 1993 17:11:09 +0000