Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary

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

Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1993 11:37:19 +0000

Graham Matthews <gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk> writes:
> As I said last time, as a game designer I don't like people bringing
> too many skills to bear from outside the game world. It rather
> defeats the purpose of having skills in the game world. Care to
> answer this point? You just ignored it last time!

desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
>You never said it before, but I would be glad to answer it.  If you
>really want the success of the game not to be based on _any_ real
>world skills, you might as well make the outcome completely random.
>Otherwise you are giving the players with good strategic sense an
>advantage.

Sorry David but this is a rubbish.

I did not say that I want the success of the game to not be
based on *any* real world skills - I said I like players to bring
as little real world skills as possible. Please don't exagerate, it
makes discussion impossible. I fail to see how not basing the game
on real world skills makes the game into a completely random game.
Sure if players were not allowed to use any real world skills (like
memory!) then the game would be completely random, but once again
I did not say they couldn't use any real world skills.

Next time try reading what I wrote.

desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
>For example, if the game requires micromanagement of hundreds of
>thousands of units, that might give an advantage to players who write
>their own computer programs to automate their orders.  Therefore you
>shouldn't write that sort of game if you don't want that to be the
>leading factor.

I disagree with this approach. If the the game requires lots of
management of lots of units then the game should provide facilities
for that management. This ensures that everyone has the same tools
as their disposal. Undoubtedly some people will use those tools
better but there isn't much a game designer can do about that.

desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
>The problem is that it is _impossible_ to make the game work the way
>you seem to want it to, at least for any length of time.  Players who
>have played before will already know how to use their tanks with
>their infantry.  Players who have been playing for 10 turns will also
>know. New players won't know.

This is quite obviously true. The phenomenon you describe is called
experience! How many times does it have to be said that I am not
against experience - there is nothing that can be done about that.
What I am against is players initially learning game information by
reading code for example.

Graham Matthews <gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk> writes:
> Now a game is supposed to simulate something. How realistic do you
> think the game is that has players work out their strategy by
> consulting the game code?  The basic point is that you as a player
> should only be able to do things that the party you represent in the
> game could do in the game, and the party you represent in the game
> cannot consult the source code to see how tanks are best deployed.
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
>Now here's where I strongly disagree.  Certainly many, probably most,
>games are not supposed to "simulate" anything at all. What exactly is
>chess supposed to simulate?  And why can a queen move seven times
>farther than a king?  Is that "realistic"??

As you said above "I had assumed we were talking about simulation
games". Sure a lot of games don't simulate anything but a hell of
a lot do. So instead of pointing out that there are games that are
not simulation games why don't you answer my question with more
than "I stongly disagree"!

desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
>Personally I play games not to simulate anything, but to present
>interesting mental challenges.Chess presents an interesting challenge
>even though it doesn't simulate anything, at least not very well or
>seriously.For that matter, it also wouldn't be much fun playing chess
>against someone who knew the rules and you didn't.  At least I can't
>see how.

If you are implying that I was suggesting that people should play
chess without the rules then once again you misrepresent my
position. Obviously people should have the rules when they play
chess. But what they should not have for example is a database
of every game thats ever been played before that they can consult
to play (this is the equivalent of knowing the *exact* formulas in a
strategy game).

graham
--
Graham Matthews                   Go west, go west
Dept Comp Sci, Univ Edinburgh     Where there's work so I'm told
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk                  California's never cold

References

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
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Wed, 30 Jun 1993 20:13:49 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Thu, 01 Jul 1993 11:15:09 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Thu, 01 Jul 1993 17:38:04 +0000

Referenced By

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
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Wed, 30 Jun 1993 20:13:49 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Thu, 01 Jul 1993 11:15:09 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Thu, 01 Jul 1993 17:38:04 +0000