Comments on: Metamechanics http://tleaves.com/2004/03/20/metamechanics/ Creativity x Technology Sat, 17 Mar 2012 05:09:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: monty http://tleaves.com/2004/03/20/metamechanics/comment-page-1/#comment-193 monty Mon, 22 Mar 2004 05:25:23 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=56#comment-193 Black's position is definitely weaker, but it is very slight, and in all the reasonable variations in all the openings only ever gain a "theoretical" advantage for white by the middle game. People still play "losing" lines for Black, because they offer advantages if opponents don't play the perfect lines against them, which below Grandmaster level they rarely do. If you had two perfect players, it's more likely the game would be drawn than any other outcome. However, even if it would result in a win for White every time (which I doubt because Black can dictate the defensive line, and aggresively lead it toward a draw by swapping off pieces etc.), it would still be an unavoidable outcome. That's what spoilt the game for me :/ Black’s position is definitely weaker, but it is very slight, and in all the reasonable variations in all the openings only ever gain a “theoretical” advantage for white by the middle game. People still play “losing” lines for Black, because they offer advantages if opponents don’t play the perfect lines against them, which below Grandmaster level they rarely do. If you had two perfect players, it’s more likely the game would be drawn than any other outcome.

However, even if it would result in a win for White every time (which I doubt because Black can dictate the defensive line, and aggresively lead it toward a draw by swapping off pieces etc.), it would still be an unavoidable outcome. That’s what spoilt the game for me :/

]]> By: Robert 'Groby' Blum http://tleaves.com/2004/03/20/metamechanics/comment-page-1/#comment-192 Robert 'Groby' Blum Sun, 21 Mar 2004 19:48:01 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=56#comment-192 I'm not sure if chess has been *proven* yet to be completely balanced. Many chess players *believe* black has a slightly weaker position. As for the skill/randomness pair - I think it's a bad choice to offer dexterity as a skill, especially if it's the only skill that can make a significant difference. Maybe it's time for games to explore other skills except dexterity. I’m not sure if chess has been *proven* yet to be completely balanced. Many chess players *believe* black has a slightly weaker position.

As for the skill/randomness pair – I think it’s a bad choice to offer dexterity as a skill, especially if it’s the only skill that can make a significant difference. Maybe it’s time for games to explore other skills except dexterity.

]]> By: monty http://tleaves.com/2004/03/20/metamechanics/comment-page-1/#comment-191 monty Sun, 21 Mar 2004 13:56:01 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=56#comment-191 Because I was a chess and adventure game addict when I was young, I always felt randomness was a very cheap and undesirable mechanic. Then chess lost it's magic because I realized it is actually just a big game of tic-tac-toe. A very deep, highly sophisticated version, but still a mathematically finite game which, if played perfectly from both ends, would end in a draw every time. That killed the mystery for me :/ The one dimensional nature of adventure games also became limiting. They are engaging as a puzzle is engaging, but there is only one way through and the solutions are at the mercy of the game's writer and so can be unfairly silly or nonsensical. I still don't really like too much randomness as I think it removes the skill and so the challenge from a game. Now, I think the best sort of "randomness" is that provided by other players, which is why online games are bigger experiences (generally) for me than single player games. Artificial randomness always feels that way. Human randomness... now there's a new dynamic ;) Because I was a chess and adventure game addict when I was young, I always felt randomness was a very cheap and undesirable mechanic. Then chess lost it’s magic because I realized it is actually just a big game of tic-tac-toe. A very deep, highly sophisticated version, but still a mathematically finite game which, if played perfectly from both ends, would end in a draw every time. That killed the mystery for me :/ The one dimensional nature of adventure games also became limiting. They are engaging as a puzzle is engaging, but there is only one way through and the solutions are at the mercy of the game’s writer and so can be unfairly silly or nonsensical.

I still don’t really like too much randomness as I think it removes the skill and so the challenge from a game. Now, I think the best sort of “randomness” is that provided by other players, which is why online games are bigger experiences (generally) for me than single player games.

Artificial randomness always feels that way. Human randomness… now there’s a new dynamic ;)

]]> By: peterb http://tleaves.com/2004/03/20/metamechanics/comment-page-1/#comment-190 peterb Sun, 21 Mar 2004 13:39:13 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=56#comment-190 Robert, Good point about how randomness can destabilize the balance of a game if it is skewed too far in either direction. Now I want to play Sid Sackson's classic dice rolling game "Can't Stop". Robert,

Good point about how randomness can destabilize the balance of a game if it is skewed too far in either direction.

Now I want to play Sid Sackson’s classic dice rolling game “Can’t Stop”.

]]> By: Robert 'Groby' Blum http://tleaves.com/2004/03/20/metamechanics/comment-page-1/#comment-189 Robert 'Groby' Blum Sun, 21 Mar 2004 01:36:25 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=56#comment-189 It might be that players prefer randomness to dexterity because randomness treats everybody equal, in the long run. Dexterity is something that takes hard work to develop. Many strategy gamers don't care about that - they want to concentrate on strategy. And a purely deterministic outcome takes out an interesting element - risk. If I know my piece will die killing the other guy, I can carefully calculate if it's worth it. Boring. It's much more interesting if you *should* take the other guy out, but sometimes don't. Or if sometimes you are able to pull of a wonderfull suicide bomb run that completely turns the game. Games without any randomness feel lifeless. Too much randomness, and they're annoying instead. Just the right amount of randomness, and you create the image of much more depth than the game has. (The last part (about depth) is I think something Richard Garriot said, but I can't find the quote right now) It might be that players prefer randomness to dexterity because randomness treats everybody equal, in the long run. Dexterity is something that takes hard work to develop.

Many strategy gamers don’t care about that – they want to concentrate on strategy.

And a purely deterministic outcome takes out an interesting element – risk. If I know my piece will die killing the other guy, I can carefully calculate if it’s worth it. Boring. It’s much more interesting if you *should* take the other guy out, but sometimes don’t. Or if sometimes you are able to pull of a wonderfull suicide bomb run that completely turns the game.

Games without any randomness feel lifeless. Too much randomness, and they’re annoying instead. Just the right amount of randomness, and you create the image of much more depth than the game has. (The last part (about depth) is I think something Richard Garriot said, but I can’t find the quote right now)

]]> By: Steve http://tleaves.com/2004/03/20/metamechanics/comment-page-1/#comment-188 Steve Sat, 20 Mar 2004 16:55:24 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=56#comment-188 Work through all the obstacles in order to reveal the developing story and get the hero(es) to win the day (Adventures, RPGs) :) Work through all the obstacles in order to reveal the developing story and get the hero(es) to win the day (Adventures, RPGs)
:)

]]>