Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary

From: bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu (Bruno Wolff III)

Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1993 23:26:28 +0000

From article <C9I3Ky.9uz@dcs.ed.ac.uk>, by gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews):
] 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.
] Graham Matthews:
]> >That is inevitable - its called experience.
] rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace) writes:
]> 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?
]
] Please read my reply before you comment. The answer to your question is
] given in the very next comment I made, namely
]
] ********
]> >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
] ********
]
] Did you read this and think what impact it had on your question before
] you posted your reply? I shall spell this all out in great detail to make
] it easy for you to understand.
]
] There is nothing inconsistent about my position at all. There are basically
] two problems here :-
]
] a) how people acquire knowledge about a game
] b) the "experience problem
]
] Now I dislike people acquiring knowledge by looking at game code or having
] formulas published or whatever. I like players acquiring knowledge by playing
] the game, by trying things in the game and seeing if they work or not. This
] ensures that the game is a good simulation - after all in reality people learn
] by trial and error.

People generally learn by being taught, not by trial and error. If people
learned mostly by trial and error we would still be living as cavemen.

]
] Now there is nothing I or any game designer can do about people playing a lot
] and getting better at a game. This is inevitable. A game designer can only
] rely on the players to treat experience equitably.

Yes there is. You can publish the formulae a game is based on. This allows
new players to compete on an even footing with experienced players. It takes
a lot less time and frustration to study the rules then to play a game
numerous times without knowing what you are doing.

]
] So as far as I can see there is no inconsistency.
]
] Graham Matthews:
]> >I must be frank and say that the basic problem here seems to be
]> >one of winning.
] rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace) writes:
]> 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
]> 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.
]
] Please if you are going to write bullshit like this I see no point in continuing
] the discussion. This is just plain crap. READ WHAT I WRITE - not once have I advocated
] games where "it doesn't matter that you haven't a clue how to run a military
] campaign because strategic competence confers no advantage". PLEASE POINT OUT
] WITH A DIRECT QUOTE WHERE I HAVE SAID THIS. IF YOU CANNOT THEN SHUTUP AND MAKE
] SOME SERIOUS POINTS INSTEAD OF WAFFLING!!!!!!!!
]
] To date all I have commented on is HOW knowledge can be acquired by players, and
] whether certain sorts of knowledge (eg. of bugs) should be exploited.
] Please stick to this discussion instead of making up fatuous crap like the
] above.
]
] Now you believe it is ok for players to consult code or lists of formulas to
] play well. I do not (this is the point at issue, and not whether good play
] should be rewarded). For the reasons outlined in my previous post I do not
] think it is good for players to have access to formulas and code. Care now to
] actually reply to my points rather than setting up this strawman above?!

I got a similar impression of your approach to games. I have played have
against people who are playing without really trying to win.  There was a
titan game where one player tried to convince another player to not attack
her titan stack because it would eliminate her from the game. This kind
of surprised us because we were trying to eliminate the other players in the
game. It turned out that some people just play titan in order to try and
recruit Colossus and such before the end of the game. The two camps of people
pretty much stopped playing with each other. The people playing to win didn't
find defeating the people who just wanted to recruit very challanging. And
the people trying to recruit didn't get to play long enough to get many nifty
units.

I don't necessarily mind games where people can other objectives than mine,
but I do like to formulate strategies for achieving my objectives. This is
kind of hard to do when you don't know the rules of the game you are playing.

]
] Graham Matthews:
]> >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?
] rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace) writes:
]> 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.
]
] Again this is a strawman argument. You make a logical jump here that is
] unfounded, namely that by reducing the precision in control that a player
] has over his forces, you necessarily increase the luck, and that hence
] this makes for a game in which strategic competence is of no value.
] Now by this argument General Rommel's wins in WWII were all pure luck.
] After all he had no direct control over the feet placement of all his
] soldiers - hence his wins were all luck. Please think again!
]
] What I am advocating is the right level of control to make for a realistic
] simulation. You seem to take this all or nothing line - that I am advocating
] total control or no control. There is some middle ground.

When I play a game the background is for flavor, I don't expect exact
simulations or often even want them. I want to play a good game not a good
simulation.
Even on the simulation level there can be some problems. If I am playing a
character who is a expert swordsman, I don't want to have to be an expert
swordsman in the real world in order to be able to play him well. If I am
supposed to rely on my intutition this is going to result in my swordsman
doing a lot of stupid things an expert swordsman would never do. Also if
the game designer wasn't an expert swordsman (or have one handy for advice)
the simulation may not be very good either.

]
] I am not going to bother replying to anymore points of yours because to
] every point you warp it into some extreme position - a strawman - that
] I have never advocated, and then proceed to knock down that strawman.
] Well fine - have fun. If you want to reply against what I actually
] wrote then I will reply too. But if you insist on viewing my comments in
] your all or nothing style then end of discussion. A case in point. You
] write,
]
]> 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.
]
] Now this is just plain rubbish. If you do not know the formulas exactly then
] that does not mean that you might as well flip a coin for your strategy!
] I have played many a game without knowing any formulas and done ok because
] the game is well designed. For example if I was planning a military campaign
] and the game had some notion of climate, I might expect that the climate
] had some effect on military operations and plan accordingly (if the climate
] had no effect on anything then why is it in the game!?!?!?).
]
] This is an example of you warping my comments to some extreme strawman
] position. Its boring and pointless.

The comment was an extreme example of what you are advocating to illustrate a
point. The questions are why don't you want to people to know the details of
a game. If your answer is so that they can't play well, then I would ask if
you are not trying to play well what are you trying to do when playing a game.
I personally find games where what I do has little impact on what happens in
the game boring.

]
] Waiting for a sensible reply...
]
] graham

References

Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Thu, 01 Jul 1993 19:31:45 +0000

Referenced By

Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Thu, 01 Jul 1993 19:31:45 +0000