"Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races

[Suicide Junkie]

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.

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.

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

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Thei R'vek:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grandpa Kim:
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.

Then play a 0 Racial Point game.

---

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.

[tbontob]

Originally posted by PvK:
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.

I agree with you that RPS is not a principle. 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. 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).

[Gryphin]

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.

[SamuraiProgrammer]

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 ]

[PvK]

Originally posted by Gryphin:
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.

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.

PvK

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

[SamuraiProgrammer]

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.