NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/games/pbm/3435

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-28 | 16.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!gateway
From: [e-mail] (Luis Miguel Sequeira)
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
Subject: Galaxy Results Format
Date: 28 Dec 1992 06:41:22 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 349
Sender: [e-mail]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

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 [e-mail] (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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>, 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!"
_/_/_/ _/     _/  _/_/_/

  [e-mail]                        Luis Miguel Sequeira
                                  Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil
  Phone [phone] Ext. 2752   Centro Informatica/Grupo Sistemas Centrais
  "Don't call me, I'll call you"  Av. Brasil, 101 - 1700 Lisboa, Portugal
                                                                          /
_________________________________________________________________________/