(OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?

[Cohen]

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

[Caduceus]

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.

[daesthai]

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.

[Yossar]

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).

[Kristoffer O]

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?

[Taqwus]

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.

[PyroStock]

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.

[Skolem]

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.

[Kristoffer O]

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.