Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 19:51:19
Subject: Re:Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle
|
Lance845 wrote:Don't tell other people not to participate in a conversation just because they are correctly identifying issues and their scope with something you like. Nobody is saying you don't get to like a bad thing. I like lots of bad things. My liking it doesn't make it any less bad.
I'm not telling you not to participate "just because you're correctly identifying issues." I'm asking you, please, stop the constant negativity. Constructive criticism is one thing. Saying 40K sucks is not constructive, even if it were objectively correct, which it's not.
Instead of saying just, "X is an issue," say "and here's how I would fix it." When we're working together to make house rules, or even entire new rule sets, that make the game better, things are okay. When it's just two or three (or four) people who, for all the world, appear to want to make OTHER PEOPLE stop playing the game, then it's a problem.
Let us enjoy what we enjoy, and if there are aspects you don't enjoy, then suggest how to change them. And I don't mean just, "scrap 40k and restart from the ground up," because while that MAY be what is required to fix the issues you have identified as problems, it's not helpful.
|
Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 19:58:00
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare
|
Lance845 wrote:I would love to watch brain take a game design class and argue with the teacher that the illusion of choice doesn't exist because its still a choice.
brain isn't saying illusion of choice doesn't exist, he's saying that your application of the term to the entirety of the on-table gameplay is erroneous, which it is.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 20:07:32
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
But i never applied it to the entirety of the experience. I used words like "mostly". Or terms like "next to no meaningful decisions".
The game is not a vacuum devoid of game play. But what game play is there is so shallow and so little that its "closer to chutes and ladders than not".
You taking those statements and cutting out the qualifiers to read them as definitive absolutes is on you.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/12 20:09:41
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 20:11:01
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle
|
Lance845 wrote:The game has no meaningful choices. Not no choices. No meaningful choices.
Seems to me, a few posts back, you DID exactly say the game has no meaningful choices.
Hmm.
I don't think I'm going to be able to shift your perspective, so I'm going to stop trying. I hope everyone else will cease engaging as well, but I can't control their decisions; only mine. And I decide to enjoy what I have and derive pleasure from it to the best of my ability, as is my right and responsibility.
|
Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 20:14:14
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare
|
Octopoid wrote: Lance845 wrote:The game has no meaningful choices. Not no choices. No meaningful choices.
Seems to me, a few posts back, you DID exactly say the game has no meaningful choices.
Hmmm. . . sure did. Automatically Appended Next Post: Lance845 wrote:But what game play is there is so shallow and so little that its "closer to chutes and ladders than not".
My 4 year old can play chutes and ladders as good as anyone. 40K. . . not so much.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/12 20:15:26
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 20:19:31
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot
|
I won't try to argue that there's no depth to 40k, and no choices, just that there's really not much, but the reason your 4 year old cant 40k, is probably because of the massive amount of rules to know. Rules which aren't always choices, but acts of remembering.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/12 20:21:44
Skaven - 4500
OBR - 4250
- 6800
- 4250
- 2750 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2022/02/04 00:23:18
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Insectum7 wrote: Lance845 wrote:I would love to watch brain take a game design class and argue with the teacher that the illusion of choice doesn't exist because its still a choice.
brain isn't saying illusion of choice doesn't exist, he's saying that your application of the term to the entirety of the on-table gameplay is erroneous, which it is.
+1
Exactly. I took a game design class, stuck with business software because I didn't want the pay cut  I DM for my group, and giving them the illusion of choice is really difficult.
But Lance845, you are partially correct, there's not an infinite choice of do whatever you want. But that's true everywhere, not just in 40K. Pick any video game, any board game, card game, or even DnD. You don't have the ability to do whatever you want, and we don't want that either.
I played DnD with a DM who would let the players do anything they wanted, and it turned me off DnD for 20 years. At the same time, we don't want to be railroaded into 1 style of play with 1 army list. In 40K, we have neither restriction. We are limited to 30ish armies, with tons of varied options.
In 40K, if (and this is a big if) you only look at net lists, trying to find the most powerful army, then yes, you and your opponent are more limited. However, not playing against top tier army net list opens a world of possibilities. As stated, I play IG, so almost every decision matters. I do this intentionally to make me a better player. If I'm playing someone less experienced, I talk about what I'm doing, I play to intent, ask my opponents if they meant to do what looks to be a mistake to me, etc.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 20:26:39
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Battleship Captain
|
Insectum7 wrote: Sim-Life wrote:
As stated, not all decisions are meaningful. Just because you made the decision to move and shoot the most optimal target doesn't mean that's meaningful and engaging gameplay. You can play most games of 40k on auto-pilot. I don't think I've ever started a turn of 40k by sitting in silence and trying to work out how to best play out my turn because as H.B.M.C said weapon strength determines what you shoot your gun at. Theres no meaningful decision in choosing to shoot a tank with a lascannon because theres almost no reason to ever shoot infantry with it.
Decision making in 40k is the illusion of choice.
I would say the amount of in-game decision making has a heavy amount to do with the type of list you've built. Some units really are point-and-shoot. Other units much less so, and board context matters to a much greater extent. Some people really like making "point and shoot" lists though. That's literally what most "netlists" aspire to be, the "I win" button.
You don't have to build lists like that though, and you'll probably have a more engaging game if you don't.
The army I have the most experience with is tyranids. I have never played a "point and shoot" army. With Nids at least.
Nice strawman though. Did it take you long to make?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/12 20:31:32
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 20:31:31
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare
|
Thadin wrote:I won't try to argue that there's no depth to 40k, and no choices, just that there's really not much, but the reason your 4 year old cant 40k, is probably because of the massive amount of rules to know. Rules which aren't always choices, but acts of remembering.
I disagree completely with that statement. Not that my 4yo is some sort of a memorization whiz, mind you, but that if he were a mem-whiz I have total faith that I'd utterly trounce him at 40K, because there's a lot of on-table contextual knowledge that many experienced players start taking for granted.
Experienced wargame players often don't really realize/acknowledge how much they know/contextualize. There's a term for this that corresponds to professional knowledge too, I think. I can't recall it off the top of my head.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sim-Life wrote: Insectum7 wrote: Sim-Life wrote:
As stated, not all decisions are meaningful. Just because you made the decision to move and shoot the most optimal target doesn't mean that's meaningful and engaging gameplay. You can play most games of 40k on auto-pilot. I don't think I've ever started a turn of 40k by sitting in silence and trying to work out how to best play out my turn because as H.B.M.C said weapon strength determines what you shoot your gun at. Theres no meaningful decision in choosing to shoot a tank with a lascannon because theres almost no reason to ever shoot infantry with it.
Decision making in 40k is the illusion of choice.
I would say the amount of in-game decision making has a heavy amount to do with the type of list you've built. Some units really are point-and-shoot. Other units much less so, and board context matters to a much greater extent. Some people really like making "point and shoot" lists though. That's literally what most "netlists" aspire to be, the "I win" button.
You don't have to build lists like that though, and you'll probably have a more engaging game if you don't.
The army I have the most experience with is tyranids. I have never played a "point and shoot" army. With Nids at least.
Nice strawman though. Did it take you long to make?
What strawman? Some armies/units really are easier to play than others. Some units you have to work harder for to get value out of them. You even allude to this in your "never played a point and shoot army" statement.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/11/12 20:35:18
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 20:39:05
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Battleship Captain
|
Insectum7 wrote: Thadin wrote:I won't try to argue that there's no depth to 40k, and no choices, just that there's really not much, but the reason your 4 year old cant 40k, is probably because of the massive amount of rules to know. Rules which aren't always choices, but acts of remembering.
I disagree completely with that statement. Not that my 4yo is some sort of a memorization whiz, mind you, but that if he were a mem-whiz I have total faith that I'd utterly trounce him at 40K, because there's a lot of on-table contextual knowledge that many experienced players start taking for granted.
Experienced wargame players often don't really realize/acknowledge how much they know/contextualize. There's a term for this that corresponds to professional knowledge too, I think. I can't recall it off the top of my head.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sim-Life wrote: Insectum7 wrote: Sim-Life wrote:
As stated, not all decisions are meaningful. Just because you made the decision to move and shoot the most optimal target doesn't mean that's meaningful and engaging gameplay. You can play most games of 40k on auto-pilot. I don't think I've ever started a turn of 40k by sitting in silence and trying to work out how to best play out my turn because as H.B.M.C said weapon strength determines what you shoot your gun at. Theres no meaningful decision in choosing to shoot a tank with a lascannon because theres almost no reason to ever shoot infantry with it.
Decision making in 40k is the illusion of choice.
I would say the amount of in-game decision making has a heavy amount to do with the type of list you've built. Some units really are point-and-shoot. Other units much less so, and board context matters to a much greater extent. Some people really like making "point and shoot" lists though. That's literally what most "netlists" aspire to be, the "I win" button.
You don't have to build lists like that though, and you'll probably have a more engaging game if you don't.
The army I have the most experience with is tyranids. I have never played a "point and shoot" army. With Nids at least.
Nice strawman though. Did it take you long to make?
What strawman? Some armies/units really are easier to play than others. Some units you have to work harder for to get value out of them. You even allude to this in your "never played a point and shoot army" statement.
The implication in your post is that somehow people who take "point and shoot" lists are the ones complaining about a lack of decision making. I play nids and don't play those lists. I still feel there is a lack of decision making.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 20:47:57
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare
|
Sim-Life wrote:
The implication in your post is that somehow people who take "point and shoot" lists are the ones complaining about a lack of decision making. I play nids and don't play those lists. I still feel there is a lack of decision making.
Could there be more decision making? Sure. Would I personally like more decision making? I would, if they were the right sorts of decisions that I prefer (aka not when to pop a stupid Strat). But to say the the game lacks on-table decision making is a poor generalization.
But if you feel like you're on autopilot I'd still seriously consider changing up lists. I've long been a proponent of Tactical Squads precisely because they're not "point-and-shoot" units, for example. My "all Warrior" Tyranid army was a kind of joke list, and it was pretty brain-dead to play, although still surprisingly effective for a while.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 20:49:45
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
Insectum7 wrote: Octopoid wrote: Lance845 wrote:The game has no meaningful choices. Not no choices. No meaningful choices.
Seems to me, a few posts back, you DID exactly say the game has no meaningful choices.
Hmmm. . . sure did.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote:But what game play is there is so shallow and so little that its "closer to chutes and ladders than not".
My 4 year old can play chutes and ladders as good as anyone. 40K. . . not so much.
Thats because 40k os complicated. Complication /= depth or choice. It only means complicated.
|
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 20:50:53
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot
|
I know the term you mean Insectum, can't recall it either. Guess we're not fancy word professionals
But, I do agree that there is a lot of contextual things that we as players pick up, and over time, it becomes "how to play the game" rather than "How to play the game properly". Perhaps it's a difference in word understanding that's leading to that disconnect. I've played long enough that the Choices have stopped being Choices, and they're just how to correctly play the game.
|
Skaven - 4500
OBR - 4250
- 6800
- 4250
- 2750 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 20:59:13
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare
|
Lance845 wrote:
Thats because 40k os complicated. Complication /= depth or choice. It only means complicated.
Already been addressed and you're late to the party, my man. I would argue that if you think there are no meaningful on-table choices to 40k, you are not a good player, or do not think that there are players who could be much better than you. When the same group of people win tournaments time and time again, it sorta proves the opposite of your point.
Could there be improvement though? Absolutely.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 21:00:56
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
brainpsyk wrote: Insectum7 wrote: Lance845 wrote:I would love to watch brain take a game design class and argue with the teacher that the illusion of choice doesn't exist because its still a choice.
brain isn't saying illusion of choice doesn't exist, he's saying that your application of the term to the entirety of the on-table gameplay is erroneous, which it is.
+1
Exactly. I took a game design class, stuck with business software because I didn't want the pay cut  I DM for my group, and giving them the illusion of choice is really difficult.
But Lance845, you are partially correct, there's not an infinite choice of do whatever you want. But that's true everywhere, not just in 40K. Pick any video game, any board game, card game, or even DnD. You don't have the ability to do whatever you want, and we don't want that either.
I played DnD with a DM who would let the players do anything they wanted, and it turned me off DnD for 20 years. At the same time, we don't want to be railroaded into 1 style of play with 1 army list. In 40K, we have neither restriction. We are limited to 30ish armies, with tons of varied options.
In 40K, if (and this is a big if) you only look at net lists, trying to find the most powerful army, then yes, you and your opponent are more limited. However, not playing against top tier army net list opens a world of possibilities. As stated, I play IG, so almost every decision matters. I do this intentionally to make me a better player. If I'm playing someone less experienced, I talk about what I'm doing, I play to intent, ask my opponents if they meant to do what looks to be a mistake to me, etc.
Neat! My BA is in game design. I am not talking about infinite choice. Illusion of choice has nothing to do with the number of choice. It has to do with the value of each choice in comparison to the others. If choice a gets you 100 points. Choice b and c get you 50 points and choice d e and f get you 0 points the question isn't just why would anyone ever take d e and f? Its why would anyone ever do anything but a? And so b-f are the illusion of choice.
Once you understand your flow chart you will find a lot of choice as. And yeah, your unit COULD move in an infinite number of directions. But why would you ever move them anywhere but a? And yeah, you could shoot your gun at any unit. Or not shoot at all! But why wouldn't you focus fire on the biggest threat with the guns that do the most damage? Why not A?
And people will talk about terrain and positioning and etc... But its all a static game state. Once your turn begins the opponent can do precious little to interrupt you. So you are a better or worse player only in your own ability to utilize your flow chart to recognize A. The only cost to you is your own inability to find it. You loose nothing by doing A. You gain everything. The opponent cannot stop you.
Thats 40k.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/12 21:03:55
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 21:07:58
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps
|
its all a static game state. Once your turn begins the opponent can do precious little to interrupt you. So you are a better or worse player only in your own ability to utilize your flow chart to recognize A. The only cost to you is your own inability to find it. You loose nothing by doing A. You gain everything. The opponent cannot stop you.
I'm finding a hard time thinking of any game where this doesn't apply. Could you give an example of a game where this is not true?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 21:08:43
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot
|
Basically how I feel. And I feel as though this doesn't proclude(word choice?) the dominance of certain Pro Players who place high every tournament. They understand the game better than I do, better than most people do, so their choices are closer to the 100-point choice, than my choices that I think may be the 100-pt choice, but are actually the 75 or the 50.
Then there's the factors about desire to play that way, and ability to play that way via disposable income to factor in. I don't want to, and probably can't live the lifestyle of Sean Nayden, for many reasons.
Rihgu wrote:its all a static game state. Once your turn begins the opponent can do precious little to interrupt you. So you are a better or worse player only in your own ability to utilize your flow chart to recognize A. The only cost to you is your own inability to find it. You loose nothing by doing A. You gain everything. The opponent cannot stop you.
I'm finding a hard time thinking of any game where this doesn't apply. Could you give an example of a game where this is not true?
Take this with a grain of salt as I have no experience with it, but previously, XWing was mentioned in this thread about a game that does utilize tactics over strategy.
However, an example that is unachievable on tabletop games by and large, would be RTS games. Apologies if you meant strictly tabletop games.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/11/12 21:11:51
Skaven - 4500
OBR - 4250
- 6800
- 4250
- 2750 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 21:14:29
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
Rihgu wrote:its all a static game state. Once your turn begins the opponent can do precious little to interrupt you. So you are a better or worse player only in your own ability to utilize your flow chart to recognize A. The only cost to you is your own inability to find it. You loose nothing by doing A. You gain everything. The opponent cannot stop you.
I'm finding a hard time thinking of any game where this doesn't apply. Could you give an example of a game where this is not true?
A game where instead of playing against the mechanics you play against the opponent.
Or where multiple choices have equal or uncertain value through risk and reward scenarios. Because the opponent cannot react, because your entire strategy acts as a singular uninterrupted whole, because you gamble nothing, the values of your choices are static and knowable.
Opponent interruptions make it into gambles and uncertainties. Hidden information, like your opponents hand on poker, mean you cannot calculate the values. Only guess.
By having cost to choices (how much mana does a cost versus b), uncertain values, and opponent interruptions, you add depth to your choices. Which then builds tactical game play. Since you are uninterrupted, nothing is hidden from you, and your choices have no cost to execute 40k lacks depth. And when you start seeing As you start losing meaningful choice from the illusion of choice.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/12 21:24:50
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 21:23:18
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot
|
I'll drag over an example from AoS.
To me, it feels like there's more choice in the combat phase due to the existence of the basic Command Abilities everyone gets, All out Attack, and All out Defense. Since you can only use each command ability once per phase, and each unit can only receive one command ability per phase, you have to weight your options. Piled atop the alternate activation of combats within the combat phase.
Coincidentally, the armies I dislike the most are the ones that take away that fun game of take and pull with applying buffs and fighting against your foes. The Always-Strikes-First abilities, the armies that just don't get in to combat all, etc.
Now, it's by no means perfect. I just mean to use it as an example of what I think largely makes for a more interesting experience with some better choices to be played around with, than what 40k offers.
|
Skaven - 4500
OBR - 4250
- 6800
- 4250
- 2750 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 21:25:51
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps
|
Huh, in that case then that actually flips my understanding. Only Kings of War, 40k, AoS, One Page Rules, checkers and chess (among games that I'm familiar with) aren't so-called tactical games. (It's been a really long time since I've played Go, but I think it would also fall under this category? But long enough that I can't confidently say it does).
Infinity, Necromunda, Adeptus Titanicus, Aeronautica Imperialis, Conquest (as a subset of examples) all have elements of hidden information. Interesting.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 21:33:17
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
Chess and way more so Go are percieved as tactical due to the sheer volume of choices available. But computers wreck master chess players percisley because the values can be calculated and executed on. Go has WAY more potential moves than chess. And it either is taking longer or has taken longer to create a computer that can calculate Go. But thats just a matter of programing and computing power. Its not a if, its a when.
|
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 21:39:36
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot
|
Off topic-ish, but there's an interesting youtube documentary series called Down the Rabbit Hole. One of the video's was about Deep Blue, and the development of that Chess Machine, that was the first to beat grand masters.
|
Skaven - 4500
OBR - 4250
- 6800
- 4250
- 2750 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 21:59:00
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare
|
Lance845 wrote:
Neat! My BA is in game design. I am not talking about infinite choice. Illusion of choice has nothing to do with the number of choice. It has to do with the value of each choice in comparison to the others. If choice a gets you 100 points. Choice b and c get you 50 points and choice d e and f get you 0 points the question isn't just why would anyone ever take d e and f? Its why would anyone ever do anything but a? And so b-f are the illusion of choice.
Once you understand your flow chart you will find a lot of choice as. And yeah, your unit COULD move in an infinite number of directions. But why would you ever move them anywhere but a? And yeah, you could shoot your gun at any unit. Or not shoot at all! But why wouldn't you focus fire on the biggest threat with the guns that do the most damage? Why not A?
And people will talk about terrain and positioning and etc... But its all a static game state. Once your turn begins the opponent can do precious little to interrupt you. So you are a better or worse player only in your own ability to utilize your flow chart to recognize A. The only cost to you is your own inability to find it. You loose nothing by doing A. You gain everything. The opponent cannot stop you.
Thats 40k.
That sure seems like there are still important decision points to be made on the table-top, very unlike chutes and ladders.
And I'm still interacting with the opponent's decision making, and potentially seeing their plan and making it go sideways, even if that isn't "big-gun-shoots-at-big-threat" logic.
Lance845 wrote:Chess and way more so Go are percieved as tactical due to the sheer volume of choices available. But computers wreck master chess players percisley because the values can be calculated and executed on. Go has WAY more potential moves than chess. And it either is taking longer or has taken longer to create a computer that can calculate Go. But thats just a matter of programing and computing power. Its not a if, its a when.
It's already happened: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40042581 There's a pretty nice documentary about it, I think just called "AlphaGo".
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 22:20:11
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
Your not dealing with the opponent. You are dealing with the aftermath of their decision making. Its a fairly significant difference.
And yes, there are a lot of decision points, (# of units * number of phases they act in at minimum). But those decisions are rarely if ever meaningful (see above).
The "big gunz big target" logic is a simplified example. You might, though I think rarely, find a decision point that has more complexity. But like chess and go the complexity doesn't stop it from being an equation and your own skill level is the only thing preventing you from finding A, the optimal choice.
Your opponent is incapable of having a plan until he sees what he has left in the aftermath of your choices. At least not one that has any value. Automatically Appended Next Post: Well, thats not entirely true. Your opponent has a strategy. Undermining their strategy is part of finding A. Ala chess.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/12 22:21:18
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 23:17:07
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Thadin wrote:Off topic-ish, but there's an interesting youtube documentary series called Down the Rabbit Hole. One of the video's was about Deep Blue, and the development of that Chess Machine, that was the first to beat grand masters.
Continuing down the Rabbit Hole with the off topic nature- I used to do a fair bit of spoken word/ performance poetry, and connected with other professional poets. One of my favourite poems of all time is a piece by David Perez about the chess match where Deep Blue beat Gary Kasparov. It isn't necessarily the most literary of poems, but in performance, it sounds great- the escalation of the chess moves in parallel with the anthropomorphized computer taunting Gary is just amazing when you hear it. Here's a link if you dig on poetry, chess or AI:
http://davidperezpoetry.blogspot.com/2010/02/deep-blue.html
Okay, back on topic:
I've tried to post infrequently in this thread, but I've followed it. I've softened my position on the synonymous nature of tactics and strategy, and I find Lance's distinction between pregame choices and game play choice to eliminate the need for such semantics anyway. I try hard to see people's points even when I disagree, and I think a few things are becoming clearer as a result.
The folks talking about meaningful choices vs. flowchart play, I think, are primarily those who are more satisfied by AA- style games; this might be what they mean by interacting with players, rather than interacting with a strategy. And as I've said before, I get the appeal of AA- the back and forth nature of the action, and that you can't rely too heavily on a 'plan' because you only get to execute the plan one unit at a time, so the opportunities for the opponent to interrupt are far greater, which means you have to be able to adapt on the fly no matter how good your plan is, because as in real warfare - "No plan survives first contact with the enemy."
There is appeal in this style of play, and to some, it feels like more of a wargame or simulation.
The bad news for players who prefer this style of play though, is that no matter what GW does to 40k, if it stays IGOUGO, I'm not sure they can ever be satisfied. The "flowchart" feel is a product of IGOUGO (I think) and not necessarily the specific rules of 9th ed 40k. I came to this conclusion when I tried to think of how any game could not be flowcharted. AA games were the only thing I could come up with, specifically because of the evolving game state that arises as a by-product of the interrupt phenomenon.
But what I wish, is that these players could also see the game from our point of view- I totally understand the appeal and validity of their preferences, but I find that in their attempts to suggest improvements to the game, they often get a tone where it feels like they are attacking players with different preferences or the game itself. And to be fair, I recognize in my own posts times where I've probably come across the same way, despite my attempts to avoid doing so.
So to those against, I ask:
Is it possible that games designed for strategists have as much intrinsic value as those designed for tacticians? Maybe if you, like me, prefer IGOUGO 40k you are a strategist and not a tactician. And maybe that's okay. It's unfortunate if you love 40k models and 40k lore but you're more of a tactician than a strategist... Because you're going to keep proposing things that you perceive as genuine improvements to the game... And we're going to keep reacting against them because we think strategies are cooler and more fun than tactics.
Heck, given the current popularity of the game, perhaps strategists are flocking to the game and loving it, while tacticians are concerned. It's also possible that some of the things people liked about previous versions (facings, pinning. morale) appealed to them specifically because it tickled the tactician in them, but they hold little value for us because we're strategists and we're happy enough with what we've got. Some of us probably even prefer it- I know I do.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 23:34:05
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Lance845 wrote:
Neat! My BA is in game design. I am not talking about infinite choice. Illusion of choice has nothing to do with the number of choice. It has to do with the value of each choice in comparison to the others. If choice a gets you 100 points. Choice b and c get you 50 points and choice d e and f get you 0 points the question isn't just why would anyone ever take d e and f? Its why would anyone ever do anything but a? And so b-f are the illusion of choice.
Once you understand your flow chart you will find a lot of choice as. And yeah, your unit COULD move in an infinite number of directions. But why would you ever move them anywhere but a? And yeah, you could shoot your gun at any unit. Or not shoot at all! But why wouldn't you focus fire on the biggest threat with the guns that do the most damage? Why not A?
And people will talk about terrain and positioning and etc... But its all a static game state. Once your turn begins the opponent can do precious little to interrupt you. So you are a better or worse player only in your own ability to utilize your flow chart to recognize A. The only cost to you is your own inability to find it. You loose nothing by doing A. You gain everything. The opponent cannot stop you.
Thats 40k.
And that's every single solitary game in existence, from 40K to MMOs, to board games, card games, you name it, including chess! So your complaint is that 40K has the same problem as every other game (except Chutes and Ladders)? Literally, chess masters call it 'playing the same line' - you've been in that situation before, so you know if you do A then B will happen. In Blackjack, if the dealer shows X and you have Y, you do Z. There's even a handy reference card about the size of a credit card that some casinos will let you bring in.
Whenever people pull out the mathhammer, there is always a best option. However, while playing the game, the decisions you make affect which mathhammer you apply. That's why all the little decisions matter, because then you're predicting and forcing the game to a particular direction which should be to your advantage.
I think the term you guys are looking for is 'muscle memory' - you've done something often enough that you will take the action (right or wrong) instinctively without having to think much about it. But remember, it's not practice makes perfect, it's perfect practice makes perfect. Doing the wrong thing over and over just means you'll instinctively do the wrong thing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 23:38:56
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Loyal Necron Lychguard
|
Pretty much impossible to argue with someone who has defined tactics so thinly that chess doesn't have any. In a fighting game with zero randomness there is always a theoretical correct choice to make, a rock-paper-scissors situation where if you pick one option you take your turn and if you pick the other you get hit.
What makes fighting games interesting is that nobody can read minds and know if their opponent is gonna pick rock or paper; they do know that if they pick rock and lose they get knocked down but if they pick scissors and lose they lose the round.
Risk assessment is at the heart of pretty much any valid competitive game. A lot of the risk in 40k comes from dice rolls and the potential to whiff or overkill, but 8th and 9th introduction of stratagems absolutely adds another layer of decision making. The -1 to wound and similar stratagems create a game of chicken where both players are on the hook to decide how much to commit and when, at the same time even! If the attacking player overcommits their biggest guns first then the bulk of their shooting will get wasted in a well-protected squad, if the defender commits to the stratagem too early then the attacker will simply switch to a softer target now that they know the rest of the army can't be protected. There's no pre-game strategy that can "solve" that decision.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/12 23:56:18
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Lance845 wrote:Your not dealing with the opponent. You are dealing with the aftermath of their decision making. Its a fairly significant difference.
And yes, there are a lot of decision points, (# of units * number of phases they act in at minimum). But those decisions are rarely if ever meaningful (see above).
The "big gunz big target" logic is a simplified example. You might, though I think rarely, find a decision point that has more complexity. But like chess and go the complexity doesn't stop it from being an equation and your own skill level is the only thing preventing you from finding A, the optimal choice.
Your opponent is incapable of having a plan until he sees what he has left in the aftermath of your choices. At least not one that has any value.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well, thats not entirely true. Your opponent has a strategy. Undermining their strategy is part of finding A. Ala chess.
Exactly!!
1 - every game you're dealing with the aftermath of the opponent, whether 40K or card games or MMOs (where your opponent is the game developer)
2 - This, so much this: "your own skill level is the only thing preventing you from finding A, the optimal choice" - Your own skill level, meaning there are important decisions that you have to make, what we've been saying all along.
and finally
3 - "Your opponent has a strategy. Undermining their strategy is part of finding A. ". Yep - how do you stop their secondaries, how do you stop them from scoring on the primary. How do you trade up units? Those are the strategies, but how you go about them is 100% tactics.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/13 00:11:08
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Battleship Captain
|
brainpsyk wrote: Lance845 wrote:
Neat! My BA is in game design. I am not talking about infinite choice. Illusion of choice has nothing to do with the number of choice. It has to do with the value of each choice in comparison to the others. If choice a gets you 100 points. Choice b and c get you 50 points and choice d e and f get you 0 points the question isn't just why would anyone ever take d e and f? Its why would anyone ever do anything but a? And so b-f are the illusion of choice.
Once you understand your flow chart you will find a lot of choice as. And yeah, your unit COULD move in an infinite number of directions. But why would you ever move them anywhere but a? And yeah, you could shoot your gun at any unit. Or not shoot at all! But why wouldn't you focus fire on the biggest threat with the guns that do the most damage? Why not A?
And people will talk about terrain and positioning and etc... But its all a static game state. Once your turn begins the opponent can do precious little to interrupt you. So you are a better or worse player only in your own ability to utilize your flow chart to recognize A. The only cost to you is your own inability to find it. You loose nothing by doing A. You gain everything. The opponent cannot stop you.
Thats 40k.
And that's every single solitary game in existence, from 40K to MMOs, to board games, card games, you name it, including chess! So your complaint is that 40K has the same problem as every other game (except Chutes and Ladders)? Literally, chess masters call it 'playing the same line' - you've been in that situation before, so you know if you do A then B will happen. In Blackjack, if the dealer shows X and you have Y, you do Z. There's even a handy reference card about the size of a credit card that some casinos will let you bring in.
Whenever people pull out the mathhammer, there is always a best option. However, while playing the game, the decisions you make affect which mathhammer you apply. That's why all the little decisions matter, because then you're predicting and forcing the game to a particular direction which should be to your advantage.
I think the term you guys are looking for is 'muscle memory' - you've done something often enough that you will take the action (right or wrong) instinctively without having to think much about it. But remember, it's not practice makes perfect, it's perfect practice makes perfect. Doing the wrong thing over and over just means you'll instinctively do the wrong thing.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed his point. The decision to take the most optimal action in 40k is almost always immediately obvious. As I said before, no one chooses to fire a lascannon at guardsman because its the best choice.
Lets pretend for a second that 40k plays like Warmachine. Now before you say anything this isn't about whether you like the mechanics of Warmachine its just an example of how the the decision making of both games play out at the start of a turn.
So in Warmachine 40k at the start of my turn I have to allocate resources to my tanks to make them do stuff better. These resources are also needed to activate my warlords aura abilities, buff his attacks and also buff his save if he gets attacked in my opponents next turn. Already I have a bunch of decisions to make about both how I want to play my turn. I can see my opponent has a few heavily armoured models in the scoring zone that I need to get rid of to score but also that he's left his warlord in a somewhat delicate position with only infantry protecting him and if I kill him I win the game.
I could allocate some of my resources to the tanks to make them somewhat more likely to clear the scoring zone, I could allocate a lot to almost definitely clear the zone but leave myself unable to use auras or defend myself well, or I could not give them any resources and try to clear the infantry with my infantry, use the tanks as back up in case of some bad rolls so that I can try to kill his warlord with mine.by burning all.my resources to buff up and win the game. Thats not even getting into things like abilities that move enemy models or disrupt their following turn somehow.
None of those choices are immediately obviously the best choice. Where as with 40k the decision would be shoot their best tank with strong guns, shoot infantry with anything too weak to kill tanks, turn over.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2021/11/13 00:17:08
Subject: Restrictions are good for the game
|
 |
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests
Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.
|
This part of the thread has made me appreciate the Heat rules in BattleTech all the more. That stuff influences damn near every decision you make during the game.
|
|
|
 |
 |
|