Galaxy Results Format From: bc@fccn01.fccn.pt (Luis Miguel Sequeira) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 12:41:22 +0000 I've been following the discussion between Curt Welch and David desJardins on the Galaxy game with a lot of interest. Seems to me that they are addressing a vital issue in game design: playability and player interaction. So, here follows a _long_ note with a few personal opinions on the subject: In reply to curt@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Curt Welch): [...] >The tedium of planning the logistics of the >transportation of colonist and capitol are exactly the type of thing >that you could automate. The route feature of Galaxy is already a first >step in the direction of "o automatic on". > >I think if the game has aspects that can be easilly automated like this, >then that just points out a weekness in the basic design of the game. What >makes any game interesting is the part that doesn't become obvious after >a few games. On one hand, I agree that some aspects of the game, like the above mentioned planning of transportation of colonists & capital, are tedious, and take a lot of the time of game planning (& order writing!) just to get some few results - but which are vital to success! That is, if you _don't_ do it, or worse, if you do it _wrong_, you're limiting your chances of survival. So, it must be _important_; on the other hand, it is _boring_! So, "obviously", it should be automated... But I agree with Curt. If too much stuff, specially the vital areas of a game, are automated, then why bother with including them as features of the game? Clearly, there must be somewhere a flaw in the game design... >Galaxy is an interesting game because most of it is non-obvious. It's not >obvious how much time should be spent building ships vs building industry. >And it's not obvious what type of fleet to build, and where to put them. >Most of this is non-obvious because the correct answer depends on guessing >what your opponets will do - or are doing. Well... uh, that doesn't apply just to Galaxy, you know... :-) Even a TOTALLY OBVIOUS game (ie., one where all players have all the rules & formulae of the game) has a "non-obvious" part: that the players are human, and thus, unpredictable... This is merely my own opinion, but _players_ make the game, and not the contrary. I'm presently enjoying myself a _very easy_ game (just 8 or so types of different orders... and three types of ships!), completely obvious game (there are no "hidden" or "secret" rules - the game is too simple for that), but I've got a _lot_ of fun from it - just because the other players are human, and make mistakes, or are totally unpredictable in their actions. Well, just an opinion, of course. I like complex games - when I master them, of course (which inevitabily takes a _lot_ of time for me... heh heh heh). > I find I can usually make the initial decisions >in about 5 minutes, then I quite often spend another 60 minutes checking >and double checking all the logistics issues. And even after all >that, I still make mistakes and end up with a group of transports sitting >on the wrong planet because I turned a route off and forgot to add a >send command to move them. Yeah, you're right. >Eliminating the concept of colonist (basically just assume all planets >are fully populated at the beginning of the game and stay that way) >would greatly reduce the complexity and logistic problems of building >industry. > >For that matter, I think the concept of building and transporting material >is also un-needed. But unlike colonist, it doesn't really get in your >way having it there. It's only needed for that occasional low resource >large size planet that you feel you must develop and use. Hmmm. I agree with your diagnosis on the "disease", but I don't agree with your "cure". I'm not sure if just eliminating colonists will solve _all_ the problems. It surely will reduce the amount of orders given, but... you'll still have to plan routes for other stuff... On the other hand... David desJardins <desj@ccr-p.ida.org> writes: >I think this quote just goes to show how differently different players >see the game. I strongly suspect that the parts of the game I find >interesting are exactly the parts you find uninteresting, and vice >versa. Well... this is inevitable... a "good" game should be one that offers enough diversity to appeal to many different types of players. The greater the number of different types players, the most interesting the game, I think. That's what I dislike about chess... Ever saw how they all look alike? :-) :-) >Of course I have also played and enjoyed PBM games which are much more >complicated than Galaxy. Games which are 10 on the 1-to-10 scale, where >Galaxy is about a 3. (Eventually I did decide that the 10 was too much, >and that I prefer no more than 8 or so.) Heh heh heh. Hope the Galaxy authors aren't reading this note about your scoring system... As I said, I insist on _players_ being the most valuable asset on any game. However, _very_ simple games have the great disadvantage of have a limited range of options - this, in turn, means that most players will play the game the same way, as they haven't another choice... I have nothing against _very complex_ games, except for the fact of taking the time to learn _all_ rules. I admit that I'm a lousy player, and an even worse strategist; but I've joined a quite complex PBM some four years ago, and _still_ know about 40% or 50% of the rules. But the game really gives the players "ellbow room", as each one can develop completely different and antagonistic ways of improving their situation... [however, the "best" way has already been found, so most players stick with it...] (I'd rate that particular game with an 8 - having discovered another PBM which has, at least, four times the amount of rules & complexity - which would certainly qualify as a 10 or so) >>I find I can usually make the initial >> decisions in about 5 minutes, then I quite often spend another 60 >> minutes checking and double checking all the logistics issues. > >To be perfectly frank, if you are making these basic decisions in 5 >minutes, you are doing a pretty lousy job. How do you decide exactly >how much of each resource you need in each place? And exactly what ship >designs will be most valuable in the long run? And when to buy research >vs. when to build ships? Hmmm... this is an old issue. Intuition vs. spreadsheet & supercomputer. On a game where you have but 8 orders to choose from, I take 5 minutes to think about the situation, and half an our to write the orders. I considered this "normal behavior", as the game was _very_ simple. I later found out that another player spent at least a few hours to run his calculations on spreadsheets before making a move... Currently, both him and I have a similar situation, being almost equally strong. So I gather that my intuition isn't that bad as it looks, eh? Ok, this is, of course, another matter of opinion. Galaxy, for example, takes a lot longer than 5 minutes - but this is mostly due to diplomatic contacts. I won't spend more than half an hour thinking what ship I should build now to get the maximum effect on turn 258. Even if I had the time to do it - which I certainly haven't - I wouldn't do it. >There's a reason that I have the largest industry in each of two games I >am in (Clarke and Alpha). It's because I take care with these >decisions. You just can't make these long-term decisions in even >approximately the best way without making some detailed calculations of >their consequences. Yeah, you're probably right. But then again, I play the game just for fun, not for beating records, earning gold medals or simply to win the game. That's why I never won any game, anyway. :-) Curt Welch <curt@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, in reply to David desJardins, writes: >I can see where games of much higher complexity would be fun. But for me, >I just don't have that much time in my life to play games. Heh heh. Same thing here - or almost. I just don't have that much time in my life to play _so many different_ games! >Actually, I'd like to see a Galaxy type game that wouldn't last quite >so long. At one move a week-day, Galaxy lasts something like 4 to 5 >months. I'd like to see a game that would only last 1 to 2 months so >I could play twice as many games in the same time. I'll have to think >about how I could change galaxy to make this happen - yet still try to >keep it interesting. Hmm... ever played any role-playing game? For me, the fun I get from it as a player (I almost invariably end up as GM, but...) is to have a character I can identify myself with, and develop him/her so that it becomes more and more "real". After a while, I get really fond of him/her - so I'm really sad about he/she being killed in battle - or worse, when the GM quits the game or ends the campaign. What I mean is: if the game is too short, I won't ever get fond of my character... On PBeMs there is something similar. I'm playing an open-ended medieval-style strategical/economical PBM for two years now - that is, the "county" I control has been in my hands for this long time. There are simple some decisions that I _won't_ take, because I _like_ that "county". I grew fond of my neighbors and the way they tackle politics & economy. I love the way the powers of the game struggle for victory, and how I can participate in events of world-shattering nature. So, I won't engage in suicidical battles; I won't declare wars on neighbours which were my friends, unless I had really good reasons for doing that; I won't ruin my economy just for the fun of it; I won't sell my castles away, which had cost me months of real time to build, just because I need some extra cash; etc. But this is possible only if the game goes on for a large period of time. If it's too short, you'll never get fond of the position you control; so, you end up saying "who cares if I lose my home planet; I can always join the next game anyway" and do foolish things, without thinking twice, just because "it's just a game, there are more games around, anyway". I _really_ think that a 2-month, one-week-turn game is _too_ short. >>And exactly what ship >>designs will be most valuable in the long run? > >You can't calculate this because the correct answer is based on >knowning, or guessing what the other players will do. There are some >stupid things you have to learn not to do, like building a drive-only >ship with more than one drive. But once you learn the basic correct >stratiges, then the choice is a matter of taking a random guess at >what the other players will do. Making that guess only takes me 5 or >maybe 10 minutes. > >>And when to buy research vs. when to build ships? > >Same thing. You can't calculate this. You just have to guess what >the other players will do. You do have to spend time studying what >the other players are doing, so you can make your decisions, but still, >this only takes about 5 minutes per move. You _can_ do "almost precise" calculations, applying economic theory, statistics and sociology to predict patterns of behavior, etc., as "the real world" economists & politicians do. If they didn't do it, they'd lose their jobs... Of course, nothing guarantees success, but there are ways to make good estimates. But you'll need the mind of an economist, a strategist or a mathematician to do it... :-) No offense intended, but I know a game where the "winning team" is composed of a player with a PhD in Mathematics and one with a master's degree in Mathematical Physics. They are on rival factions, and use several methods to maximize their output (etc.), and really are "unbeatable". Most other players think they are "magicians". If everyone knows that ships _can't_ cross the land, so how can _their_ ships do it? (they found a "hole" in the rules permitting them to do this, ie. building fortresses at appropriate places, which ships _can_ cross) If everyone has read the rules, and they state that a fleet can't move faster than its slowest ship, and that this means an upper limit of 40 hexes per turn, so how can _their_ ships move 60 hexes? (on certain situations, the fleet admiral can improve the fleet's movement rate - you just have to figure out when and how. They did.) And so on. We, common players, delight at such tales of wonder and mythology from the Far Lands. In fact, all is done knowing _very_ well the rules, an average spreadsheet, and lots of incomprehensible formulae for us mortals... And takes a LOT of time, of course, and absolute dedication to the game. >I think it's a waste of time over-calculating these long-term decisions >because most of the long-term outcome is based on in factors you can't >control or predict - like who will attack you and when. Not to mention >the luck factor which also plays a big role. I won a big battle with >the VOGONS that basiclly decided the fate of the game for him. Why? >Not because he or I spent hours calculating moves, but because his >e-mail didn't get through so half his force didn't show up. Pure >luck. Just like in the real life... :-) Weren't for pure luck, and bad decisions, all of Europe would be speaking German today... :-) >And at this point of that game (move forty something), the outcome is >going to be determined by what teams get formed, and what they decide >to do, not by who made the best decision on what type of ship to build >back in the first 40 turns. Well... again I insist on my "thesis": players make the game. And _they_ are unpredictable... >Which is why I'd like to reduce the amount of calculations that the >game encourages you to do in the first 40 moves. I don't mind spending >2 hours thinking about strategy, or 2 hours figuring out the best tactics, >but I don't like being forced to do 2 hours of math problems and logistics >to implement it. At first, the math problems and logistics planing were >interesting, but now I find them a pain. > >If a change to the game will reduce the amount of time spent on math >problems, I think it would be an improvement. Whether removing the concept >of colonist does this or not is another question. By the tone of my _long_ note, you've certainly found out that I'm no mathematician (or anything related). Yes, I agree completely with Curt. _My_ view of a game which is _fun_ is one where you are concerned with strategy, tactics, trade, or diplomacy - that is, pure player-to-player interaction. The purpose of a multi-player game is exactly to be able to have _lots_ of players to interact with. PBMs are the ultimate multi-player games, where you can have hundreds of players at the same time. So, and this is again my own opinion, but I think that Curt will agree with me, the emphasis on every PBM (or other form of multi-player gaming) should be on the player interactions. Rules & math stuff are secondary; they are necessary to give players a base of negotiation, and of conducting war in case negotiation fails. If a player _insists_ on doing math problems, that's _his_ problem. After all, the beauty of most PBMs is that they can make a lot of different people happy with it. But I still think he's on the wrong place... :-) So, I'd welcome _any_ game where maths are reduced to a minimum, and player interaction to a maximum... using math talk. >I'm going to try and find some time next week to implement "my" version >of the game. Yeah, count me on!!! Sorry for the long letter, everyone... Have a Happy New Year! - Luis Sequeira (definitevely a non-mathematician...:-) _________________________________________________________________________ / / _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ Computer scientists do it byte by byte. _/ _/_/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ "We don't ask for miracles to get the job _/ _/ _/ _/ done, we RELY upon them!" _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ bc@fccn01.fccn.pt Luis Miguel Sequeira Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil Phone 351-1-8482131 Ext. 2752 Centro Informatica/Grupo Sistemas Centrais "Don't call me, I'll call you" Av. Brasil, 101 - 1700 Lisboa, Portugal / _________________________________________________________________________/ Referenced By Up