Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary

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

Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1993 00:25:30 +0000

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

>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.

>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.

>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.

Oh, good.

This is just plain crap. READ WHAT I WRITE

I have been doing so, though it has not been a particularly edifying
experience.

- 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!!!!!!!!

In your own words: "I must be frank and say that the basic problem here
seems to be one of winning".  Well, the fact of the matter is that
better strategists do tend to win games.  (What about the people who
play non-combative positions for the roleplaying or whatever, and don't
want to wage war against other players?  Fine, let them stay out of the
fighting.  This is no problem.)  Your solution to the "problem" that
better strategists tend to win games is to deny them the knowledge (the
game rules) that they need to formulate a strategy.  Hopefully you will
not deny that you do advocate keeping the game rules secret, or that the
reason you advocate this is precisely because you agree that this is
useful information in formulating a strategy.  Though, considering that
your primary (indeed, only) rhetorical technique is to deny (in strong
language, with capital letters) having said things, perhaps this is a
vain hope.

>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.

We all agree that bugs should be reported to the GM instead of
exploited.  You have stated that any situation where an apparently
plausible strategy turns out to be bad is equivalent to a bug.  (Or are
you going to deny this as well?)  If any apparently plausible strategy
is required to be indeed reasonable, then this reduces the element of
skill required to play the game well.  Surely even you should be capable
of appreciating this?

You have also stated that you think the only valid way to learn about
the rules is by trial and error, e.g. learning that a particular army
composition is not very effective by getting wiped out a couple of times
with that army composition.  The only reason you have put forward for
this is that you seem to think that strategic skill is about writing a
computer program to calculate stuff for you, a claim the absurdity of
which I have already pointed out.

>> 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,

If you reduce the degree to which a player can control his forces, you
must increase the amount of luck relative to skill (unless you believe
in karma or some other third factor that goes into deciding the
outcome).

>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!

To the extent that a general does not control the actions of his own
forces, his wins are partly due to luck, or to the skill of his
subordinates (a factor which does not enter into a computer moderated
game, leaving only luck).  Or do you believe that no good general in
history has ever lost a battle through bad luck?

>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.

Most PBM games are a combination of strategy and luck.  To be sure, it
would take a great deal to make one *all* luck.  Your suggestions,
however, would increase the proportion of luck relative to skill.

>Waiting for a sensible reply...

Waiting for a sensible point to reply to.  I suspect I may be waiting
some time.

--
"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
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Thu, 01 Jul 1993 11:40:27 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Thu, 01 Jul 1993 19:31:45 +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
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
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
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Tue, 29 Jun 1993 11:55:07 +0000