Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary

From: rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace)

Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1993 23:25:42 +0000

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

>Graham Matthews:
>> My personal opinion is that if a player needs to "know the formulas"
>> to play well then one of two things is happening :-
>>
>> a) he/she is a bad player
>> b) the formulas are bad.
>desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
>>This is entirely subjective.  It depends on what you mean by "play
>>well." I can play very well without knowing any formulas.  I can play
>>much better still once I do know them. Many people in this discussion
>>have said that they hope by hiding the formulas, to make it more
>>difficult for competitive players like me to find good strategies. So
>>clearly I am not the only one who thinks that knowledge of the formulas
>>can give a significant advantage.

>I never said that knowledge of the formulas didn't give you a
>serious advantage. Obviously it does. I just said that I think it
>screws the game up.

You haven't answered the point that people having played long enough,
will get some idea of the formulas, by getting killed off a few times if
in no other way.

>If people know the formulas they tend to :-

>a) write scripts/programs etc to find optimal settings for the
>formulas.

Even in a game as simple as chess, you can't find optimal settings
within the age of the universe.  And writing code does nothing unless
you have enough grasp of strategy to know what to ask your spreadsheet
or whatever.  (Otherwise I could beat Kasparov at chess if I was allowed
bring a laptop computer along to the contest.)

>b) spend hours maximising formulas, adjusting tiny details etc.

>My complaint with b) is that it turns the game into a "who has the
>most free time at present" or a "who is prepared to sacrifice their
>social life for the game" type of game. Galactic Bloodshed is the
>classic example of this. The winner is usually the person who can
>spend the most time playing, and not the person who is the most
>skillful.

This is probably because Galactic Bloodshed is an online game, not a
PBEM.

>tiny details is (in most games) very unrealistic. Take GB again as
>an example - you can look at the individual sectors of a planet to
>get an optimal population distribution. That strikes me as pretty
>unrealistic. GB is supposed to be a simulation of universe-wide
>war game. Now how many planetary rulers can order their people
>to live on a certain spot on the planet. Population dynamics just
>don't work that way. People live where they find it most advantagous
>to live, not where somebody orders them to live. Now thats a long
>and specific example but it typifies complaint b).

Ah, you would forbid the players from issuing more than vague
generalities for orders?  Sounds fun.

>desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
>>If you don't think that knowing the formulas helps one to play well,
>>then you must surely be in favor of publishing them all.  Because it
>>doesn't hurt anyone, and the players who enjoy playing with that
>>knowledge can do so.

>As I said before I never said that knowing the formulas doesn't
>help you play well. Rather I said that it ruins the game for the
>reasons I outline above.

Right, so you figure forcing people to play the game by flipping a coin
is OK provided everyone is so forced?  What do you do about the people
who have played for some time and thereby figured out reasonable
approximations to the formulas?  By your own admission, these people
have a big advantage.

>desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
>>Also, there is not an obvious line between "bugs" and "features." One
>>might well learn from the formulas that certain plausible-looking
>>strategies are in fact always inferior.

>To my mind this is a game fault. If the strategy is "plausible
>looking" then it also should be plausible.

If every strategy that SEEMED good at first glance really was good,
there wouldn't be much thought involved in playing the game, would
there?

>>Sometimes I do find things that I would describe as true bugs, for
>>example certain problems with the Intercept command in Galaxy.  I
>>generally don't take advantage of those.But there are players who do,
>>and if I were competing against one then I probably would.

>Why? So you can win a (silly little) game by cheating.
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ah, abuse. :-)

--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwallace@cs.tcd.ie

References

PBM design and formulae - a summary
rob@ccc.govt.nz (Rob McNeur)
Mon, 28 Jun 1993 09:53:02 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Mon, 28 Jun 1993 20:30:42 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Tue, 29 Jun 1993 11:55:07 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Tue, 29 Jun 1993 21:24:09 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Wed, 30 Jun 1993 10:33:28 +0000

Referenced By

PBM design and formulae - a summary
rob@ccc.govt.nz (Rob McNeur)
Mon, 28 Jun 1993 09:53:02 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Mon, 28 Jun 1993 20:30:42 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Tue, 29 Jun 1993 11:55:07 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Tue, 29 Jun 1993 21:24:09 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Wed, 30 Jun 1993 10:33:28 +0000