Re: PBM design: give away the formulas? (*FORMULAE !)

From: wbruvold@weber.ucsd.edu (William Bruvold)

Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1993 20:38:52 +0000

In article <20a9nc$5q2@growler.ccr-p.ida.org> desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
>Steve Chapin <sjc@cs.purdue.edu> writes:
>> A well-designed game will follow two of Lindahl's Laws: the principle
>> of least surprise, and equal investment yields equal return.  The PoLS
>> means that more expensive weapons should be more deadly.  The EIYER
>> means that if I invest the same amount of time and money on a mob of
>> rabble or a few highly-skilled, well-equipped swordmasters, they
>> should be equally deadly.
>
>This seems silly.  If all strategies yield equally good results, then
>there isn't any strategy to the game at all.  I guess this could appeal
>to pure role players, but anyone who is even the least bit interested in
>strategy wants to have different options which have different
>consequences, not exactly the same consequences.

David (i think) misses the point at least if people have
Atlantis in the back (front?) of their minds.  In this game (along
with some others) the game may largely be determined by one simple
random event on turn one, which factions moved in which direction
from the starting square.  Those that randomly chose south (assuming no
private knowledge) have what I believe will be a game spoiling
advantage, acess to a prime resource.  After that the game is simply
one in which the player(s) that opened with the advantage chose the
ONE strategy that makes sense.  All other responses are _largely_
second best responses. What has been pointed out is that the ability
to try different styles of play, experimenting and developing along
vastly different lines makes no sense and the game turns into a slow
version of UCSD empire, a very good war game, but NOT a PBEM
fantasy/role playing game.

>Now this is wrong.  The two are not at all equivalent.  The point is, or
>should be, that different strategies have different advantages and
>disadvantages.  A swordsman should not be exactly the same as a mob of
>rabble that costs the same, rather the former should be better in some
>situations and the latter in others.  Finding the best choices and
>compromises for the situations in which you find yourself is what
>strategic games are all about.

David is exactly right here but again, if Atlantis is being
discussed, I think the game is not of this nature.

Some of this discussion can be cleared up by noting that good
strategy games build in randomness AND flexibility.  They offer
players with numerous "what if" chances and paths that, due to
either responses by opponents, are made either advantagous or
idiotic.  What good games do NOT have is straightforward mini/max
solutions (the problem with Atlantis) in which a simple
understanding of the rules indicates the best possible response.

More examples?  Compare 7 card "baseball" with "hold 'em" or
"omaha".  In baseball the game largely depends on pure luck.
Betting is simple, straight forward and few decisions by a good
poker player have to be made.  "hold 'em", by contrast, is a game
with limitless possibilities and wonderful strategic interaction.

Erik

References

Re: PBM design: give away the formulas? (*FORMULAE !)
sjc@cs.purdue.edu (Steve Chapin)
Wed, 23 Jun 1993 18:49:06 +0000
Re: PBM design: give away the formulas? (*FORMULAE !)
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Wed, 23 Jun 1993 19:08:28 +0000
Re: PBM design: give away the formulas? (*FORMULAE !)
bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu (Bruno Wolff III)
Wed, 23 Jun 1993 18:19:45 +0000

Referenced By

Re: PBM design: give away the formulas? (*FORMULAE !)
sjc@cs.purdue.edu (Steve Chapin)
Wed, 23 Jun 1993 18:49:06 +0000
Re: PBM design: give away the formulas? (*FORMULAE !)
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Wed, 23 Jun 1993 19:08:28 +0000
Re: PBM design: give away the formulas? (*FORMULAE !)
bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu (Bruno Wolff III)
Wed, 23 Jun 1993 18:19:45 +0000