(OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

When playing a strategy game such as this one, do you prefer to know exactly what the rules, values, and formulas are that determine what happens during play?

Some players prefer to know what the formulas are, often so they can strategize against the game mechanics, and figure out the exact odds of success of failure in certain cases.

Some other players prefer not to know the exact formulas, for various reasons such as so that the mystery and illusion of reality Last longer, and/or so that players can't game the system and skill requires learning from experience how well different things work.

I'm also curious how many players prefer simple formulas to complex formulas for game mechanics. Do you prefer the movement system to be something like Movement = speed, or would you prefer something more like Movement = Inertia + Force(Friction)/(Vehicle.Mass + Crew.Mass + Cargo.Mass + Fuel.Mass) * Behavior(Driver.Skill, Driver.Caution, Traffic.Laws, Traffic.Density) * Terrain Modifiers * Weather Modifiers?

Similarly, some players may prefer to see actual data values for their units, equipment, terrain, and so on, so they can compare and choose the best of a type. Other players may prefer to be given vague and/or inaccurate estimates or descriptions, so there is uncertainty about how things will actually perform.

I'm posting this poll in each of several game forums, to try to get a feel for the opinions of the fans of different game types. If you like, you could take the poll in other games' forums. If you do, please answer what you would prefer for a game like the forum's game (which might or might not affect different people's answers. Someone might like simple game mechanics for one genre, but complex mechanics for another genre.)

PvK

Re: (OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

I prefer not to have a clue - takes me back to the joyful old days, when I didn't have the faintest idea of whether a heavy crossbow or a wardog was any good, but I have the most vivid memory of opening fire on a hydra in my first ever game of AD&D, back in 80 or so.

Heh. Actually, I prefer to have a good idea of what things are supposed to do though. I mean - I read all the books cover to cover back then, and would lay awake at nights thinking of unconventional ways to use spells or items. Hard to do that if you don't have a good idea of what they're supposed to do. If things had had as ... vague a text description in RPGs as some things do in Dominions, it would have been difficult to rules lawyer my way to success and gory, er, glory. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Then again, in a computer game it's okay to have things a little less cut and dried, as long as you can still determine the deal via a reasonable amount of experimentation. This isn't always true of Dominions 2, in part because of the way the battles are resolved / shown.

Re: (OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

For a game like this, I like some amount of vaguary or randomness thrown into things. It helps preserve the 'flavor' IMO and makes the game a little less like chess.

However, if stuff is too vague, it is hard to figure out what is broken balance wise and what isn't... so I can see the merits to something more concrete.

How's that for a preference http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

-Crash.

Re: (OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

Exactly - without some decent amount of concrete information, it's also hard to say what's broken, period. The bugs / glitches in items and spells - for instance, the burning pearl granting full fire immunity when it shouldn't, wouldn't necessarily have been spotted without some level of concrete description.

Re: (OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

PvK started a similar poll in the SEIV forums and there's been a bit more discussion there, so you might want to check it out.
(OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?

Poll results are fairly similar though, as I'd expect them to be.

Re: (OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

PvK
could you please explain what you understand by complex, there could be formula that albeit long, are easy to understand because they make sense?

Re: (OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

I think this has alot to do with MultiPlay vs SoloPlay. The MP people tend to like some variety but only a little bit. Enough to affect a turn but not enough to decide a game. The SP folk are playing against the game itself so larger game-changing events are more acceptable.

I personally would like to see more variance in the formulas but I understand both sides. So what I would like to see in a game is that the formulas all have an random die-roll in every formula, but a game switch of some sort which can run the game with the randoms set from zero to devestating as a choice at game-start.

Re: (OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

Hrm. I'm the type of guy who prefers to have the common information concrete and availiable that doesn't give outrageous advantage to the studied, while the mechanics obscured.

Example: I like to know that my mage can cast Orb Lightning 8 times based on the rules of fatigue before he tuckers out.

I don't like to know that a siege is (str)*.45/Defense (x3.2 Mindless) etc.

I would prefer to have accurate generalities and steer clear of pure formulaic or the *Feeling* of needing to know the existing or unknown formulaic (as some feel the need to do).

Re: (OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

I think I'm in the same boat as Zen, but I'd phrase it a little differently. I want rules complex enough to make an interesting game (lots of tactical and strategic choices and plenty of replay value), but not so complex that deep understanding of the rules is the margin of victory.

Re: (OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

I like to know the formulas ... obviously (I'm always asking about that) but I prefer (at least in comouter games) complex dinamic so that knowing the formula is an help but not the solution to the problem.

As an example: I would like to know if the size alter the morale of a squads if the breaking number is 10-15 or 20 ... so probably I'll try to make squads of the right dimension ... but that is not enough to win ... also I lik to know how precision works ... if I know that is something like 2d6 + precision + a factor I like to know how the factor is realted to the distance ... so I know well which is the different between a 25 or a 30 range spell hitting at 10 ... I don't think this knowledge is the key to win the game

... any way ... good play!
Liga

Re: (OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

Yes, I meant complex but sense-making.

There are of course important different types of complexity. Here I was trying to reduce it to preference about complexity itself, and the theme I had in mind was the difference between being able to fairly easily completely understand the rules and be able to predict outcomes.

On one extreme, a player would prefer to know all the rules and the values of both sides, and for them to be simple enough to easily predict results.

On the other extreme, a player would prefer to not know the exact rules, nor the exact values even of his own assets, so that players need to accept much uncertainty, relate to what the things are supposed to represent, rather than their game values, and to learn from play how things work and which units have which qualities.

Thanks for the really interesting answers, all of you! I posted this in SE4 and also in the 82nd Airborne thread. The values have fluctuated a bit, but I think I see some interesting differences between the responses in each thread, which I think kind of make sense. For instance, although only a few people have voted so far in the 82nd thread, in that game there are very complex formulas which tend to be explained but usually not written out, and the values are detailed but not shown exactly - the game is all about dealing with uncertainty and complexity. In that poll, there was more in favor of those sides of the scales. In SE4, being more about technology and machines and being a bit simpler and clearer in the game mechanics than either 82nd or Dominions, I think there has been more of a preference for simplicity and open rules and values.

Of course, some game mechanics can seem to give the players full information, and yet be impossible to predict what will actually happen, because there will be too much going on during play. For example, even if we had the exact formula for how the missile weapons fly in Dominions II it would still be hard to predict the odds of a certain amount of damage from a barrage of 30 archers at various ranges, target densities, etc. It's only when the game mechanics not only involve clear formulas, but simple algorithms (like Mind Duel, or castle defense erosion in Dominions), that it becomes very easy to predict.

Anyway, very interesting - thanks again for your thoughts!

PvK

Re: (OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

I strongly prefer to know exact formulas, item values, and to have complex formulas.

Re: (OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

I guess I am not as hard core as most here, but I do understand when a programmer wants to "hide" some of the factors from players. I like understanding the basic rules, but in essence, when you get as complex as DOM 2 and SE IV, there are *lot* of modifiers involved and recreating the same conditions in two separate games is sometimes impossible.

Re: (OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

I have to agree with what Zen said. I like knowing things in general terms. I have no interest in learning or trying to decipher complex formulae. ie - I'm fine knowing that having a particular sword will roughly double the damage of my creature, or that a target is carrying a shield that could negate the effects of my fire spells. I do not need to know that damage = (str/7*bonus)+3 - (target defense/2.5 + level). (completely made up stats, of course.)

For what it's worth, to draw from Gandalf's post, I play about half and half multi and single play. I usually use single play as a sort of sandbox to try out new ideas or strategies, and then play "for real" in MP. Though I also admit, that the VAST majority of my MP games are with the same small group of people I work with, since we can get together and discuss the game once in a while. I *do* step out every so often to get into a public MP game, but perfer to stay closer to home, so to speak.

Re: (OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

Even if you choose to hide the formulas, some people will always try to figure them out from empirical evidence. With the Diablo series, Blizzard tried to hide most of the inner workings of the games, but those games have some hardcore fans and even the most obscure formulas eventually were discovered. I guess some people enjoy trying to find the formulas, but my feeling is that given enough time and enough people working on it, the formulas are all going to be known eventually, so you might as well make them all known and give everyone equal access to the information (instead of just people who hang out on the same forums as the hardcore researchers).

Re: (OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

From a thematic/role-playing perspective, there's certainly information which *should* be available as it would be well-known in the game world and would normally be a factor in the decison-making process. Most of this is pretty general, however; for instance, that crossbows do well in penetrating heavy armor, but fire slowly compared to normal bows, or that some troops are prone to fleeing while others might well fight on even when under heavy casualties. One should have a sense of why and how one would use particular items, or spells, or troop types...

To switch genres for a moment, for instance, it would be crippling to play a WWII tactical game without having any idea about how well a tank's main gun can penetrate somebody else's armor at any given range. The physics formulas don't need to be stated, but as long as one's placed in the commander's seat and expected to make the decisions something -- documentation, in-game assistant, whatever -- should suggest such relevant data such as the fact that the Nashorn has a main gun and optics that prove quite capable of destroying your T-34s at long range, but has weak armor, whereas a hull-down Jagdtiger can be quite difficult to kill from the front... or, say, how futile it is for Pz IIIs to bounce rounds off a KV-1. Knowing what would probably be obvious should help avoid what mind-bogglingly unlikely moves such as, well, sending a dozen Pz IIIs to charge a KV-1 from 1km away and expecting to rapidly knock it out by reducing its "hit points" under sustained fire.

Re: (OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

I'm not fine simply knowing ArrowFend could negate arrow damage. Is it 10%? 50%+no dmg from 1st arrow? 95%+((Def/100)+(MR/100))? I still don't know and the in-game description and manual are useless. I would rather spend my time on strategy and battle tactics rather than hunting down the truth on forums or watching several trial and error runs for a guess-timate.

Whether it's a complex formula with numerous variables or a fixed simple figure is irrelevant to me.

For those who don't want/need that information, don't use it. I've played games without even opening the manual much less gather forum knowledge. As mentioned, this information will be or has been discovered anyways so you're only fooling yourself if you think hiding it locks everyone into a guessing game.

Re: (OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

The more I think about the more I'm sure I want, complex formulas and know the formulas. By complex I mean with several variables, as it seems to enhances the possibilities one has to do something.
For the formulas, it is a problem of decision, especially in a MP, my first thought was you absolutely need to know wich variables occurs in the formula, then I see that it wasn't enough, if the first is take half, and the second exponentialy, every one schould seek to maximize the second, so you need to know how they are bound in the formula, but then, you know the formula. I think in every process where the player has to take decision, he should have the formula, to be sure that what he will do make at least sense.

Re: (OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

Would anyone prefer formulas that are complex enough not to be deciphered and broken down into statistics?

The current morale system for example. It might be decipherable, but I think that apart from being unknown, it is not easy to decide if it is better to have one large squad that probably won't rout or three smaller that are more likely to rout individually.

Is this good or is it just fustrating?

Re: (OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

PyroStock:

Arrow Fend and other air shields have a negation chance. It is often 80%, but may be less in the case of the air blessing.

Air shielded soldier hav an icon of an air shield. Right-click on the symbol to find the number.

Re: (OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

The hidden mechanics of the morale system is fine to me, since it is suffciently complicated to make it impractical to be learned from repeated experiments:

I think that the question should rather be what is a desireable factor for "successful" play: It seems proper to me that an experienced player has an advantage, but I do not like it if this "experience" can be obtained by simply assiduous experiments, e.g. I do not like the "wish" spell: "Wish" is certainly funny for SP, but would anyone use it blindly in MP? Certainly not! But acquiring the knowledge how "wish" functions requires no genuine insights, but just a large enough amount of time for solo play against a weak AI (or map modding expertise).

On the other hand, learning the morale system also needs time, but it still requires some thought, for the number of possible battle setups (troop compositions, placements & scriptings) is just too numerous. Thus there is no obvious way of experimenting. The only way to learn more about it is to gain some intuition by conducting a great variety of battles.

So I would want that all simple things are made easily available to save me the hassle to conduct boring experiments instead of playing the game. I do not want to tediously study the game before being able to play in MP! Or in more aggressive words: Anything that can easily learned from playing against a simple AI should also be easily accessible right from the start!

Re: (OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

I'd prefer to have all game information available in-game via icons, right clicking, turn by turn battle summaries with detailed results [i.e. attack 15 (base 13 + 2 for exp) vs def 13: chance to hit = 70%: HIT for 5 damage (spear 3 + strength 15 - 13 protection)].

The battle summary might be a bit much considering the number of units that participate in a battle. But having the etheral unit icon say somtheing like "75% of non-magic strikes ignored" or having a spell say the type of damage it does (and hence you could figure out what resistances reduce that damage) would be good.

The detailed information could be made available only by explicitly clicking on an icon, battle report, etc. Only people who were interested in the detail would have to look at it.

Or you could have a Preferences option that gives greater detail for help text.

Re: (OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

Kris O, that is what I was trying to ask with my second question. It appears that many players do enjoy complex formulas that may be difficult to predict outcomes from, particularly as long as they aren't broken, which of course can be trickier to establish than if they are simple.

Chazar I think also just made a very good point about simple tricks and things which can be found out with dull work being good candidates for things to be explained up front, while more complex mechanics which defy basic analysis and prediction may be more the sort of thing that can be left for discovery by experience.

PvK

Re: (OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

I would like to know the exact values (items, spells, abilities) and formulas, but I expect the formulas will be complex enough that you can never predict the exact numbers in the next turn. So, if I want I should be able to plan and build a commander with all the maximum morale boosting items and spells available, but still know that I cannot predict the exact value when combat happens due to dominion, heat, and other factors in the formula.

It is important to be able to learn from trial and error, and unless everyone is expected to put in lots o' hours with a combat simulator, the effects and formulas should be available to limit the number of variables in the 'trial' part.

Even after using Ember and the Sword of Many Colors, I can't quantify the damage/effect of the two. Thats annoying.

Sill

Re: (OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

I guess that I have not really answered this question in my previous post as I liked to, so please let me elaborate my view on this topic a little further by telling a little example story:

In an MP game on Karan, around turn 6?, almost all my forces had been annhilated by a vicious global alliance of my enemies, but all I was needing for ascension where two more victory points. My own victory points where secured by currently unsieged wizard towers, with no adjacent enemy forces and my enemies did not possess any substantial flying armies (thus giving me three turns time). I had just a few scattered provinces, no money, but plenty of gems, some items, two air queens, that astral ice devil (three IDs total), almost no ordinary troops and only about seven seraphs left (Yep, I just had won a couple of pyrrhic victories). I had scrying spells active on all victory points (which were all defended by fortresses) and thus knew exactly what awaited me there. There were indeed two easy ones left (Fools!). Thus I pulled out my calculater and determined the total sieging strength of my remaining teleportable forces. Thanks to that I could divide them up accordingly, distribute the gate cleavers, sieging horns, strength increasing items and set them all to cloud-trapeze/teleport to the other end of Karan. Thanks to the exact arcane reconnaissance, I knew that instead of cloud trapezing I had to cast "call of the winds" to gain enough sieging strength (the hawks are weak, but they are flying (siege+1) and I knew exactly how many would appear). It was close, but both sieges immediately broke down the walls of the defenders (Why couldnt they teleport right inside the castle anyway?).

So the points of my little story are:

• It is good that the exact sieging mechanics are available, since otherwise I would just have run boring time-consuming tests to determine it - after all, my ascension depended on it! Hence all mechanics should be revealed!
• It is bad that this information is not easily available within the game itself: My friends do not read this forum, so I was using knowledge not available to them (like the exact sieging power of a "call of the winds" spell), so I felt a bit like cheating. Hence all information on game mechanics should be readily available from the game or its manual! It should not tell me to use "Call of the Winds" for sieging, but once I have that quite simple idea, the game should provide the necessary information (i.e. average number of summoned units and their strength). (Of course I had sent my friends Zen's quick references beforehand to address such issues.)
• I did not like it that I used a calculator (pen and paper) and that I knew in advance that I was automatically going to succeed. However, making the sieging mechanism complex somehow and adding random elements (e.g. like adding an unscoutable, terrain-biased +2d6(oe) to defense-point at castle creation time) does not solve this problem in my view, since the outcome of a siege is still a simple yes/no answer and I can still be on the safe side by preparing for the worst case. Hence I can again run repeated tests to obtain some simple percentage values. Thus things that are simple should be kept simple, after all it was me had prepared this tactical move (by item forging, arcane scrying, thinink of long distance summons, etc.)
  
  (Nevertheless, adding a small random element like that random bonus depicted above might add some nice tension in those cases where availables resource are between min and max. Its usually nice if one is sometimes forced to take a small gamble.)

So my simple answer to Kristoffer's questions is yes, but it is only good since moral is naturally a complex thing without an easy yes/no answer, unlike sieging for example.




(BTW, in the end my victory has not been as easy as one might guess, thanks to an enemy pretender being able to teleport a whole army of sacred marignonian knights... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif )

Re: (OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

Thanks for the detailed example, Chazar. I think it is a good example of a broader design principle

If something is effective but not fun or interesting, then either make it more fun or interesting, or try to minimize its tediousness and time/effort required to do it. Otherwise, players end up with good reasons to spend time and effort on things that are tedious.

PvK

Re: (OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?
 

I think a little uncertainty is a good thing, and makes games more exciting to learn as well as to play.

HOWEVER, it bogs a game down when there are so many unknowns that you can never isolate all the variables without tedious, trial-and-error empirical sampling. I don't need exact numbers for every formula, but I need to know enough to compare different courses of action. It really comes down to how hard it is to experiment, and learn by trial.

I like formulae that are complex enough that I can figure out what's more important and what's less important, but I don't need to do all the math every time to develop a sound strategy.

If the cost of experimentation is low (e.g., "I set my cavalary to 'Attack Rearmost Enemies' and see how close they have to come to an enemy unit before breaking off to attack a nearby target"), that's good and improves the gameplay. I get it wrong a few times, but the price of those mistakes isn't catastrophic.

The "Wish" spell is a good, frustrating example at the other end. I love the idea of an open-ended spell like that, but it's too expensive for easy trial-and-error. 360 Astral Pearls later, I'm still wondering why I didn't just summon 7 Angelic Hosts.