Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And that is the secret. Choosing a high construction rate should cost me something of equal value whether it be research speed, happiness or to hit probability. Determining that "equality" is the rub. For instance:

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In my opinion, you can drop Ancient Race and give me Natural Merchants. Does this mean you are wrong, Spoon? No, it may mean we have wildly different styles! Or perhaps one is better than other. I don't know... but I will continue using Natural Merchants while not even considering Ancient Race.

If we had all of the several hundred regulars on this board set down on paper, their "perfect" balance, we would not get two the same. Simple differences in style and outlook would overrun the "perfection". ... But we would discover a dozen or more things that everyone thinks are too strong or too weak. Perfection is unattainable but improvement is very possible.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

Equating Se4 to Rock/paper/scissors is a compliment for Se4, not a criticism. It demonstrates that every strategy you could choose in SE4 will beat some strategy, and lose to some other strategy. There is no perfect strategy.

It's a good analogy and is particularly appropriate for a discussion about balance in the game.

Of course Se4 has a multitude of strategies and techs to choose from, and RPS only has three. But it's an analogy. It's finding a common point between two things that appear different and using their commonality to demonstrate a particular point. Nobody is trying to say they are the same game, or should be.

For me this discussion about balance always ends up being a disagreement over semantics. I think different people have different things in mind when they say balance. Because to me balancing SE4 would mean that you could choose any weapon and have a chance of beating any other weapon in a straight up fight. I don't think that is something we should strive for. If balance means something other than that to you, then we may not be disagreeing, even though we think we are cause one of us wants balance and the other doesn't. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Weapons have strengths and wealnesses in different areas that make a damage per KT comparison difficult at best, and meaningless at worst. Cost to research and cost to construct and maintain particularly.

So weapon A can't beat weapon B in a straight up fight, but it can beat C. And C loses to A, but it beats B. Rock/Paper/Scissors.

But most of the differences in weapons don't even have to do with that tiny example. It isn't about beating some opponent in a straight up fight. It's about using your weapons choices advantages to put your self in a posiiotn where you aren't in a straigh up fight. Cause you have more ships than he does in a particular place.

Victroy doesn't go to who has the better ships. Victory goes to whichever one destroys all the other guys ships first, by whatever means nessecary. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

[ December 26, 2002, 12:21: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

I think part of the challenge is finding a way to make the most of what you have. A good player can win with one set of racial traits and then take the losing race and beat you again.

This is due to the ability of finding the best way to use what you have.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

Well, I have great contempt for the game "rock/paper/scissors", for people who waste their time for it, and I am dumbfounded by people who see it as a principle of game design. The principle I see as worthwhile is that no one approach should dominate all others, and every technique should have weak points and counter-tactics. I would never call that "rock/paper/scissors" though, because what "rock/paper/scissors" stands for to me, is thoroughly pointless game design, where the elements are superficially labelled as something interesting, but in fact are all exactly the same. I guess it's just a semantic pet peeve of mine, rather than a real disagreement with the actual concepts involved.

At least, most of the time. I have however noticed that often (not necessarily in connection with SE4) that people who do talk use the expression "rock/paper/scissors" as if it were a fundamentally good concept, also tend to come up with some game design ideas that I really don't enjoy. Especially, games designed with really obvious artificial balance techniques that don't make any sense but make it clear to unsophisticated players what the strengths and weaknesses of each element are.

Ah well,

PvK

[ December 27, 2002, 04:52: Message edited by: PvK ]

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then play a 0 Racial Point game.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There is also the card game of "War", and betting on coin flips.
Rock/Paper/Scissors can be useful, too; not as a game in itself, but as a random number generator for "SE4 on Paper" during a car ride, it works well. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

To the point:
The RPS analogy can validly be used to describe the idea that there should be no UberTech.

That dosen't nessesarily mean the speaker wants to make a pointless RPS mod. Don't get too upset over the use of RPS in a non-derogatory sentence http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then play a 0 Racial Point game.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That doesn't address the issue of determining what is relatively more valuable than what (ie: what should cost more, what should cost less). All it does is give you fewer points to spend.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree with you that RPS is not a principle. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif If we think about it, it is only an example of how the principle operates.

You describe the operative principle well when you say "The principle I see as worthwhile is that no one approach should dominate all others, and every technique should have weak points and counter-tactics."

However, we humans are such lazy creatures. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It is so much easier to say "RPS" to identify the principle rather than have to describe the operative principle over and over again in the way you have done above.

Tomorrow, "RPS" may lose favour and we may use something else to identify the principle. Maybe it will be something like FWS (fire, water, sponge). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

Pvk, Suicide Junkie, Thontob,
You all say it so much betterer than me.
Thinking back, I have played games simulating warfare since 1975. I can only think of a few exceptions where there was not in effect some form of a Play Balancing System.
Rock, Paper, Scissors component selection
In a WWII game the main elements were Infantry, Armor, Artillery. I’m over simplifying here. Each had distinct advantages and each disadvantages. It really came down to selecting the right units for the job and deploying them correctly.
I can also remember the endless "competitive discussions" on whether this or that was "Realistic". Since many of the games were "real world" simulations such as WRG's Ancients or their WWII (forget the name) miniatures game there was a strong emphasis on making them “more realistic”. So we changed the rules or added more. In SEIV we don’t have many options to change the hard code. We can Mod and make Gentleman’s Agreements on restricting the use of a perceived exploit.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

WRG Ancients

Talk about problems with game balance.

Try taking the sea people vs Alexander's Macedonians (1500 points each).

(Actually I loved WRG ancients. It just took toooooo long to paint those lead suckers.)

[ December 28, 2002, 05:35: Message edited by: SamuraiProgrammer ]

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">See, realistic WW2 combined arms tactics (another gaming obsession of mine) is a great example of something I would never describe as "rock/paper/scissors". Yes, any one element alone is going to have exploitable handicaps, but the relationships between them are detailed and make sense, and it is not a case of A beats B beats C which beats A. Some things are better than others in different circumstances, and different elements' strengths and weaknesses can complement each other IF used in ways that make sense. That's VASTLY more complex, interesting, and sensible than "rock/paper/scissors" - by many orders of magnitude.

OTOH, I won't ever forget talking with a game developer gushing about his latest RTS and proudly mentioning the "rock/paper/scissors" "principle", and the frequently-mentioned an utterly idiotic set-up (no doubt from some wretched old game theory textbook written by a non-gamer academic, and/or the 80's game The Ancient Art of War) where there are spearmen, swordsmen, and bowmen, and spearmen beat swordsmen who beat bowmen who beat spearmen. Which, as a fan of realistic and interesting ancient/medieval tactical games, I would say is utter bunk, not to mention being completely uninteresting.

Ooops, I'm ranting in the middle of the night about my pet peeve again. 'scuze me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

PvK

[ December 28, 2002, 10:36: Message edited by: PvK ]

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

I am one of the people who have used the Rock/Paper/Scissors analogy. I would like to clarify the statement by saying it this way:

This game is about figuring out what your opponent is up to and countering it.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

PvK, you are taking the RPS thing way too seriously. It's an analogy. Nobody is saying SEIV is just like RPS in all ways. There are no RPS forums. There is no PBW for RPS. There are no RPS Mods.
RPS balance mod: See if I hold my hand like this, it's a stapler. Stapler beats paper. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Geoschmo

[ December 28, 2002, 14:38: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

I think you are missing the point of an analogy. It does not say that A is B, it says that A is similar to B in some way. There is a huge room for difference between A and B. SE4 is not RPS, it is just vaguely similar in one single way, in that there is no uber-tactic. All tactics have counter-tactics, but it is not as simple as RPS. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

Yeah, you guys are basically right - I'm bemoaning the term, which has the wrong associations for me, and nothing you folks are intending. So, this is not the best forum for whining about it.

The expression "Rock/Paper/Scissors" can be interpreted so many ways, that it's nearly meaningless unless accompanied by a more specific discussion, which here it almost always is. I guess it mainly bugs me because I have seen so many game industry professionals who seem to be dumping millions of game dev bucks into lame repetetive designs according to moronic adherence to formulae. Formulaic RTS + primitive RPS = crapware from heck, more often than not.

PvK

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That doesn't address the issue of determining what is relatively more valuable than what (ie: what should cost more, what should cost less). All it does is give you fewer points to spend.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I will admit that it gives you fewer points to spend but it also forces you to make some tough decisions about what is most valuable to you since you MUST take a lower ability in one or more areas to get a bonus in one or more areas.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, not really. You can take down Physical Strength, Environment resistance, Organic Extraction, Repair Aptitude, and Political Savvy without much penalties to your race. You can also take down Intelligence in high tech games, and Cunning in no intel games. Take down anything else and it means sure defeat.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

Google: Rock Papper Scissors
and you get: http://www.worldrps.com/

The Official Rock Paper Scissors Strategy Guide
2002 International RPS Championships November 16th, Toronto, Canada.
At the Mockingbird, 580 King Street West. 1st Prize $1,200, 2nd ...
Description: Strategy and game news from the World RPS Society.
Category: Games > Hand Games > Rock, Paper, Scissors
www.worldrps.com/ - 9k - Cached - Similar pages

Bwahahaahahahaahahahahahahahaha
Gotcha GEO:
Quote Geoschmo "...There are no RPS forums..."

[ December 29, 2002, 04:05: Message edited by: Wardad ]

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

That website is a hoot. It is so well crafted and professional looking I can't tell if it's for real or just a big joke. Thanks for the link Wardad.

Geoschmo

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

Wow, I had no idea that there's a World Society for Rock Paper Scissors, with World Championship tournaments!

Looking at the web site, it says that RPS is played all over the world and has many different names: Jenken, Jan Ken Pon, Roshambo, Shnik Shnak Shnuk, Ching Chong Chow, Farggling, Scissors Paper Stone, Scissors Rock Paper. ... interesting!

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

Egad!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

Geo, did you look at the "RPS links" on that site? There are serious academic studies in subjects like game theory and Artificial Intelligence programming. I remember when the programming competition was mentioned on Slashdot. It's deinitely not a joke site.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

I think I spy one too many Discordian and Subgenius references on that site...

And read the forums - funny stuff. Even funnier avatars. And there is a guy named "Chad Leatherstep" who belongs to the "WRPSS Disiplinary Committee".

We need someone like that here!

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I said if it's a joke it's a well done one. But links to legitimate sites doesn't guarantee the organization is valid, or that the site isn't tounge in cheek.

Geoschmo