Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary

From: js138@cus.cam.ac.uk (John Sloan)

Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1993 17:13:53 +0000

In article <20qbtp$9kf@wahoo.ccr-p.ida.org>, desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:

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 just disagree with those who think
|> that hiding formulas will improve the balance.]

Well if I were designing a game, and hiding the formulae, it would _not_ be with
the purpose of obscuring what are in fact the good strategies.  You should be
able to find good strategies without having to know the formulae in a well
designed game of that form.

|> 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.

This is a non-sequitor.  Mainly, I think because you are assuming a black and
white universe where you either know how combat (for instance) works, or you
haven't a clue about how it works.  You can know in grey terms that 200 men will
beat 100 men, all other things being equal, but the losses you incur may well
depend on many factors that affect both sides equally.  I certainly don't see
much point in having these extra factors in the game if you can calculate them
exactly, and some people would argue that you don't need them.  Fair enough, but
don't argue that in a game with them in that knowing the exact formulae is going
to affect good strategy all that much.  [I can see times when I would want to
beat someone with minimal casualties, instead of killing them regardless of the
cost to myself, but this is a small factor compared to making sure I don't lose]

|> >> (Further, if you make the formula increasingly complicated, it is
|> >> increasingly likely that I will be able to discover "bugs" in the
|> >> formula---ways in which its behavior is counterintuitive, and which I
|> >> can use to my advantage.  I don't want the formula to have those, but if
|> >> they do exist I generally do feel it necessary to use them.)
|>
|> > Arghh - this may sound old-fashioned but personally I prefer to
|> > play to the "intent" of the rule/formula and not exploit the little
|> > bugs. Moreover, why is it "necessary to use them [these little
|> > bugs in the formulae]"? Is it to win?
|>
|> I guess I prefer that too.  I would strongly prefer that the "bugs" not
|> exist.  Nevertheless, if I am engaged in a serious competition against
|> another player, where we are both playing very hard to win, and both of
|> us know about "bugs" in the rules, it is going to be very difficult for
|> us to resist taking advantage of the things that we know about.  And
|> once we start doing so, we might both gain a big advantage over other
|> players who are not so analytical.

I'm a strong believer in not exploiting bugs.

|> 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.  Example: building [1 1 1 1 0]
|> ships in Galaxy.  I don't see how it can be unsportsmanlike to use that
|> knowledge not to build such ships, even though it gives me a big
|> advantage over players who haven't figured it out.  Such inequities of
|> knowledge are much more likely when the formulas are hidden.  At least
|> with the public Galaxy formulas, several different people have
|> discovered and announced the fact that ships like the one above are
|> stupid.  Thus other players are a lot more likely to find that out than
|> if the formulas themselves are only known to relatively few, and
|> especially than if "discovering" the formulas is considered to be part
|> of the game process, so that players who do discover them are not
|> inclined to share them.

There is a very obvious line between bugs and features.  Features are documented
bugs.  Its an old line, and I think it applies to pbm games as much as programs.

If you want unintuative features in your game, then people will get upset when
they are on the receiving end with no warning.  Note as to the existance, if not
the exact effect, of these things in the rules is important.

John

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