Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary

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

Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1993 13:16:04 +0000

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

>Graham Matthews:
>>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.
>rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace) writes:
>>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.

>That is inevitable - its called experience.

I don't get it.  You don't want the formulas published lest a smart
player might use them against you.  Yet you don't mind the prospect of
an experienced player using his knowledge against you.  What is the
reasoning behind this inconsistency?

>As a game designer there is no real way to counter that other than
>by having your formulas differ slightly from game to game but
>even that is not entirely satisfactory. The best way to avoid having
>experience as a problem is to rely on the players to either :-

>a) play only with players of similar experience
>b) help newbie players out alot by sharing strategy etc

>I must be frank and say that the basic problem here seems to be
>one of winning.

Yes, this is precisely what it seems to be.  You seem to object to the
idea that people play games to succeed in a within-game objective, such
as the military defeat of another player.  Virtually all PBM games are
designed with this as at least an element of the game.  You have
objected to the formulas being made available, and to the possibility of
the best strategies not being obvious from the rules.  What you're
looking for is a game that resembles a 60s love-in session rather than a
military/economic strategy game, and where it doesn't matter that you
haven't a clue how to run a military campaign because strategic
competence confers no advantage.  Of course, tastes differ.  I would
find such a game mindbogglingly boring, but if you want to write one,
feel free.

>Graham Matthews:
>>>If people know the formulas they tend to :-
>>>a) write scripts/programs etc to find optimal settings for the
>>>formulas.
>rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace) writes:
>>Even in a game as simple as chess, you can't find optimal settings
>>within the age of the universe.

>Chess - simple!?!?! It may have a small set of rules but that does
>not mean it is a simple game. Don't confuse simplicity of rules with
>simplicity of games. Take a game like FlatTop. The rules are fairly
>simple and obvious but the game is by no means simple as a result!
>(take tennis as another example).

My point is that you were talking about people using spreadsheets to
calculate the "optimum strategy".  This is nonsense; the number of
possible moves in Galaxy for example is much greater than in chess, and
chess still has so many that plain number-crunching analysis won't get
you an optimum answer within the age of the universe.  This demolishes
your argument that victory in war games goes to he who can use a
spreadsheet, rather than he who is a good strategist.

>Graham Matthews:
>>>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.
>rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace) writes:
>>This is probably because Galactic Bloodshed is an online game, not a
>>PBEM.

>I don't see what the type of the game has to do with my complaint.

Lots.  If you have to be online all the time, this is clearly going to
use a lot of time.  If you play a game at 1 turn per week and spend a
couple of hours on each turn, that's not a problem.

>Graham Matthews:
>>>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).
>rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace) writes:
>>Ah, you would forbid the players from issuing more than vague
>>generalities for orders?  Sounds fun.

>No it sounds like realism! On practically any level of simulation
>nothing should be specified precisely - thats called realism! Even
>at say a squad level you cannot order your squad to do everything
>precisely (eg: 5 footsteps left, 2 forward ..). The trick for a
>designer is to get things precise but not too precise.

>Please answer my point with some serious thought, rather than
>a flippant one liner. My example above brings out a serious point
>in game design - care to address it?

Certainly.  You want to reduce the amount of control players have over
their own forces.  This will reduce the element of skill in the game, in
favour of the element of luck.  This is of course consistent with your
campaign for a game in which strategic competence is of no value.

>Graham Matthews:
>>>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.
>rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace) writes:
>>Right, so you figure forcing people to play the game by flipping a
>>coin is OK provided everyone is so forced?

>Err I don't follow this conclusion at all. Some explanation of
>how this conclusion follows from my points might be nice!

Certainly.  You agree that knowing the formulas is of value, that people
can use this information to good effect, and that without it a lot of
the time you might almost as well flip a coin for your strategy since
you don't have the information to base a decision on.  You then said
that you wanted nobody to have the formulas.  This means that everyone
would have to play that way.

>Graham Matthews:
>>>To my mind this is a game fault. If the strategy is "plausible
>>>looking" then it also should be plausible.
>rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace) writes:
>>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?

>Obviously some strategies are better than others. All I was saying
>was that a strategy that seems plausible, should not be implausible.
>It might not be optimal but it should be plausible.

What do you mean by "plausible"?  If you mean "possible", i.e. it is
possible to use that strategy, then fine.  But a strategy which is not a
good one will lose you the war to someone who does use a good strategy,
other things (e.g. number of allies on each side) being equal.  Again,
it sounds like you want a game where all plausible looking strategies
are pretty much equal, and therefore the ability to choose a good
strategy would confer no advantage.

>Again I have to ask for some thought behind your answers. I am
>getting fed up with having to answer silly one line flippant
>bullshit like the above - bullshit that shows you have obviously
>not read my post carefully or thought through your reply. If you
>had you would surely have come up with my totally obvious reply
>yourself!

>I don't mean to be aggro but I am trying to conduct a sensible
>thoughtful discussion, and you write simplistic stuff like the
>above. Maybe I am missing something here ...

>graham

As I have said above, your comments imply that you want a game where
strategic competence confers no advantage, since you want nobody to have
available the formulas which you agree provide important information for
figuring out a strategy, and you want to be able to use any plausible
looking strategy without getting trounced by someone with a non-obvious
but much better one.  If you want to write such a game, by all means go
ahead; each to his own.  I personally would consider such a game
mindbogglingly boring, but that's another matter.

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

References

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
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace)
Wed, 30 Jun 1993 23:25:42 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Thu, 01 Jul 1993 11:40:27 +0000
PBM design and formulae - a summary
rob@ccc.govt.nz (Rob McNeur)
Mon, 28 Jun 1993 09:53:02 +0000