Re: PBM design: give away the formulas?

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1993 06:36:34 +0000

In article <20bcga$j12@runner.ccr-p.ida.org>, desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
|> (Since this discussion isn't about Atlantis, I won't comment on that
|> part of the posting, except to note that the player who moved south in
|> force on turn 1, and was "fortunate" in the terrain he found, quickly
|> got wiped out and is now completely out of the game.)

Thats as maybe.  The force that wiped him out didn't come from Ettrick, I know
that. [Ettrick was the second startup square, and a lot further away from the
lonely mountain]

|> John Sloan <js138@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes:
|> > Rules and formulaes are not the point of PBM games.  They should be a
|> > framework by which people can interact, and intimate knowledge or lack
|> > of it shouldn't be a factor in deciding who wins.
|>
|> > Similarly the exact formulae for determining when a force will break in
|> > battle should be completely hidden.  Ideally it will be complex enough
|> > and depend on so many factors that even extensive research and trial
|> > and error won't determine the _exact_ formulae.
|>
|> It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself 100%.  In the sort of
|> game you describe, knowledge of formulas is _vital_.  The players who
|> play early and often, and discover the information---if not the exact
|> formulas, then workable approximations---have an _immense_ advantage
|> over new players.  They can judge _much_ better when to fight, when to
|> run away, what sorts of results they can expect.  (What fraction of the
|> traffic about Legends on this newsgroup is devoted to players trying to
|> "break" the system and gather information that they shouldn't have
|> within the game itself?  Half, at least?  Probably more.)  I don't
|> understand how you can expect to get new players to join such games at
|> all, unless they are the (rather rare) sort who really don't mind
|> getting kicked around for a long indoctrination period by the
|> experienced players.

No, you're misinterpreting me.  I'm arguing that the formulae should be hidden,
but not the general results of the formulae.  A statement in the rules which
captures 80% of the formula without going into the exact details is more than
enough for most people, and yet discourages the worst sort of minmaxing which
occurs [if I add one more person to my attack group, then I can kill them all
without losing a single person as they'll only do 0.99 damage to me and it gets
rounded down].  A simple statement about the sort of casualties you should expect
with various force ratios would do.

|> The way to make "intimate knowledge" not a "factor in deciding who wins"
|> is to give everyone, new or old, exactly the same information.  I really
|> don't see how this could be more clear.
|>
|> > Personally, when I want to play a game which involves perfect
|> > information, I play a simple game like Diplomacy, where the
|> > calculations are fairly simple, and the point is to work out the
|> > reactions of other people.  When I play a game without perfect
|> > information, I don't want to have to spend hours working out
|> > approximate formulae to be able to minimax, but I do want to be able
|> > to trust my intuition to be right most of the time.  10 knights are
|> > more likely to win a fight than 5 knights, for instance, is a fairly
|> > safe bet.  Playing large games with lots of rules, where you have to
|> > spend significant time to work out what the best move to achieve
|> > objective X is strikes me as completely pointless.  How boring when
|> > instead of outwitting your opponent, you're outcalculation him.  Yawn.
|>
|> Now this is a different issue.  The issue here is whether the formulas
|> should be simple or complicated.  Atlantis is simple.  Virtually anyone
|> can understand about how much a swordsman is worth compared to an
|> unarmed peasant.  Starweb is simple.  One shot destroys one ship, or
|> one-half of a ship, or whatever.  Galaxy is more complicated.  Many
|> players probably don't realize that the optimal weapon size for
|> attacking a fleet of ships with shield strength S is eS/4 = 0.68 * S.
|> Some other games are much more complicated than that.

Simplicity is wonderful, but playability comes first.  Atlantis could remain
almost as simple but become much more playable by making trading a viable
profession, and something that a warmonger requires, rather than having trading
being something that a warlord can (and will) do for himself.  Galaxy could be
improved by reducing the ammount of effort you need to spend playing it.  However
both games are (if you are prepared to put enough effort into scouting and
talking to people to find out) perfect imformation games, though the volume of
information means that only the most dedicated will be able to take full
advantage of it.

|> It seems clear to me---and probably to you too---that whether the
|> formulas are simple or complicated is a matter of personal preference.
|> Some players, like me, are going to like more complicated games, in
|> which the more complicated system leads to more different kinds of
|> interactions.  (Perhaps the board games we play are Star Fleet Battles,
|> or Advanced Squad Leader.)  Other players, like you, don't want to have
|> to do any calculations at all to do well, and don't mind if that makes
|> the system and interactions extremely simple.  (And the board game you
|> play is Diplomacy.)  That's fine.  That's why not everyone plays the
|> same games, because different people like different things.

Well I do play Diplomacy, and I enjoy it precisebly because it so neatly
abstracts away most of the system, and lets you get on with the player
interaction, which is after all the name of the game.  However I enjoy more
complex games as well.  The trouble with more complexity is keeping all the
elements in balance with each other, and the increased difficulty in finding the
optimal moves to achieve objective X.   If the rules are not specific, then
optimisation is discouraged, and people will spend more time on the player
interaction.

|> But I really don't think that you are going to be happy with the kinds
|> of games you say that you want.  The only consequence I have ever seen
|> of games with complicated hidden rules and formulas is that the
|> experienced players who are willing to do a lot of analysis and
|> experiment to discover those rules, end up with an enormous advantage
|> over the players who don't.  Much _more_ of an advantage than if the
|> rules and formulas were simply public in the first place.  Precisely the
|> opposite of promoting a game system in which players don't need detailed
|> knowledge in order to do well.

The only answer to that is to point out that the games in question are badly
designed if it matters so much if your activity level is 7 and not 6, and if you
can have double to casting power if you take such and such a career path.
My ideal game would have complicated formula such that if large numbers of
factors can subtly alter the outcome of a battle, or the chance to research a
spell, or my chances of persuading that city leader to join my faction, and that
these should be guessable, but not open to exact calculation.

|> To sum it up, I've yet to see a game where people didn't play because
|> the formulas were public.  (They might not play because the formulas are
|> too complicated---again, that's a different issue.)  I have seen a lot
|> of games that don't get played because there are too many secrets, and
|> no one wants to go up against the players who already know all of them.
|>
|>                                         David desJardins

Well I think there is the world of difference between game secrets, which will be
found out, and which I disapprove of [unless they change from game to game - that
at least is a good idea], and games where the exact formula used to calculate
various things is not known.

In perfect information games, I don't see the point of undue complexity, though
that is personal preference.  In non-perfect information games, the formula
should be hidden, but its general outline known and _in the rules_.  The more
extra factors that you can think of which _might_ give you an edge that are
factored into it, the better.  This rewards people who are thinking about the
game, and trying things which might work, but not to the extent where they are
sure that it is worth it, or to the extent that they can hold off two players who
don't know the trick.

References

Re: PBM design: give away the formulas? (*FORMULAE !)
wbruvold@weber.ucsd.edu (William Bruvold)
Wed, 23 Jun 1993 20:38:52 +0000
Re: PBM design: give away the formulas?
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Wed, 23 Jun 1993 22:12:14 +0000
Re: PBM design: give away the formulas?
js138@cus.cam.ac.uk (John Sloan)
Thu, 24 Jun 1993 03:59:10 +0000
Re: PBM design: give away the formulas?
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Thu, 24 Jun 1993 05:02:02 +0000

Referenced By

Re: PBM design: give away the formulas? (*FORMULAE !)
wbruvold@weber.ucsd.edu (William Bruvold)
Wed, 23 Jun 1993 20:38:52 +0000
Re: PBM design: give away the formulas?
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Wed, 23 Jun 1993 22:12:14 +0000
Re: PBM design: give away the formulas?
js138@cus.cam.ac.uk (John Sloan)
Thu, 24 Jun 1993 03:59:10 +0000
Re: PBM design: give away the formulas?
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Thu, 24 Jun 1993 05:02:02 +0000