Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start

From: sjc@cs.purdue.edu (Steve Chapin)

Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1993 09:08:27 +0000

}} In article <C9JpDG.95x@dcs.ed.ac.uk> gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews) writes:
}}
}} Even if I agree that a whole lot of statistical analysis will give you
}} great approximations to the formulas, I still think that pusblishing the
}} formulas is detrimental. Take Joe Average Arts student. He plays a computer
}} game in which the formulas are published. He is not going to understand
}} the formula so he won't look at it. So he will play by feel. Now all
}} the CS and Maths majors will grab the formula and analyse it etc. So
}} when you publish the formula the non-maths people have zero *usable*
}} information and the maths people 100% usuable info. Now if we don't
}} publish the formulas Joe Average is still on zero usable knowledge
}} but all the maths people are not on 100% knowledge. So by not publishing
}} Joe Average is better off.

Now, here I agree with David, Russell, and the rest of the "publish!"
crowd.  The purpose of withholding the formulae is not to punish the
minimaxing nerds; it is, as Scott Turner has said, to provide an aura,
a mystique, a sense of wonder.

A properly designed game of this type (which is *not* a strategy game,
as defined by David Desjardins), will not give significant advantage
to those who know the formulae.

I tried to explain this before with an example from armor in Olympia
I.  Each type of armor was rated so that on three factors (weight,
effectiveness, price), they came out even.  You could get lightweight,
highly protective armor, but it would cost you a bundle.  I would tell
you up front that lightness increases costs, and that protective value
increases cost.

So, when you went to buy armor, you had several choices before you.
But you could buy the most armor you could get for your money, knowing
that you could choose between heavy, protective armor for a given
price, or lightweight armor that was not as effective for the same
price.

Publishing the formula would only give players one more bit of
information:  the formula.  It would not tell them any more than this,
and it would, in a small way, destroy the feel of the game.

I agree with David Desjardins:  in a strategy game, publish the
formulae.  I disagree with him when I say that for a game such as
Olympia, design the game well, and don't publish the formulae.

For the record, I can minimax with the best of them, and love to in
strategy games.  But there are games where exact knowledge of formulae
will not provide a significant advantage, and will be detrimental to
the indended effect of the game.  In these games, I feel the formulae
should not be published.

sjc@cs.purdue.edu                 Steve Chapin                 ...!purdue!sjc
    loose == set free; lose == misplace, or fail to win, gain, or obtain
         their is possessive; there is a place; they're == they are

"But Doctor...I *am* Pagliacci..." (The Comedian, in "Watchmen")

References

PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Fri, 02 Jul 1993 12:01:01 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
saschreu@cs.vu.nl (Schreuder SA)
Fri, 02 Jul 1993 14:04:09 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Fri, 02 Jul 1993 16:20:03 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Thu, 01 Jul 1993 11:40:27 +0000

Referenced By

PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Fri, 02 Jul 1993 12:01:01 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
saschreu@cs.vu.nl (Schreuder SA)
Fri, 02 Jul 1993 14:04:09 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Fri, 02 Jul 1993 16:20:03 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Thu, 01 Jul 1993 11:40:27 +0000