Moderator: JC Denton
by Kuzdu » 14 May 2008 21:48
by JoshF » 15 May 2008 06:27
Kuzdu wrote:I was wondering about the suggestion that the relationship between complexity and depth is "exactly linear".
Alex wrote:Each new meaningful rule makes a game more complex, and gives the player some extra work to do in order to learn it. Each new rule interacts with the existing rules in new and increasingly complicated ways, creating an ever-widening realm of possibilities which the player is called upon to grasp. The better he grasps them the more capable he becomes in using them to his advantage, and thus the more skillfully he can play.
Kuzdu wrote:It seems to me that some games with simple rulesets can nonetheless have a lot of depth. For instance, Go has just a handful of rules, and yet the distance between a master and an amateur is immense.
by Kuzdu » 15 May 2008 09:21
by raphael » 15 May 2008 09:51
by icycalm » 16 May 2008 18:03
Kuzdu wrote:I was wondering about the suggestion that the relationship between complexity and depth is "exactly linear".
It seems to me that some games with simple rulesets can nonetheless have a lot of depth. For instance, Go has just a handful of rules, and yet the distance between a master and an amateur is immense.
Kuzdu wrote:It seems to me that some games with simple rulesets can nonetheless have a lot of depth.
JoshF wrote:Situations (maybe there's a better word?) can be part of the rules too.
JoshF wrote:For instance you won't find "Dee Jay's jumping light punch will beat T. Hawk's Condor Dive" on an instruction card, but it is a rule nonetheless, as it is unalterable.
raphael wrote:So novice players don't stand a chance as long as they don't learn those rules. Actually, these are not considered rules because they only derive from the basic set of rules. They are merely consequences. But still, the knowledge of these derivative rules makes a dramatic difference, so people play by them. And when you start learning it you discover they are very complex... and numerous.
Kuzdu wrote:It seems to me that the two examples I've given point to the relationship between complexity and depth in games being something less than exactly linear.
by icycalm » 16 May 2008 18:24
Kuzdu wrote:My example, Settlers of Catan, is a game that has many rules, but really comes down to luck in the end, and is therefore not really skill-based at all....
Kuzdu wrote:BUT, I suppose if you count "situations" that arise from a ruleset, the 'meta-rules', then it is reasonable to suggest that complexity, depth, and skill do in fact have a linear relationship.
Kuzdu wrote:What this suggests though, and this is by no means a bad thing, is that we might never really know all the rules of a given game. If the rules interacting gives rise to "situations", new rules, and then through the interaction of those new rules we discover even more rules, then that could proceed on forever.
Kuzdu wrote:Hmm, very interesting...
by Ichigo Jam » 17 May 2008 01:13
icycalm wrote:As for the relationship between complexity/depth and skill... it is obviously linear, and we can say this by experience. More possibilities* means more ways to gain an advantage, means a higher degree of skill is necessary to exploit them.
by JoshF » 17 May 2008 03:53
by TreeFrog » 17 May 2008 11:26
Ichigo Jam wrote:But anyway, my real question is: does this mean that increasing the size of the dartboard in a game of darts reduces the complexity? It seems to reduce the skill required, does it not?
by Ichigo Jam » 17 May 2008 13:05
JoshF wrote:I think this proves what Alex said, that depth, complexity, and skill must go in a certain order to effect one another.
icycalm wrote:It is logically impossible for us to conceive of them separately, as they are in fact related in an exactly linear fashion
by icycalm » 17 May 2008 16:01
Ichigo Jam wrote:About the word linear: maybe it's just the mathematician in me, but your use of the word linear implies things I don't think you mean.
Ichigo Jam wrote:I.e. a relation of the form f(x)=kx+c (with k and c constant and k non-zero). For example it's correct (if pointless) to say that the number of pieces remaining on a chess board is linearly related to the number of pieces taken (i.e. f(x)=32-x).
Ichigo Jam wrote:I took "impossible for us to conceive of them separately" to mean that the three concepts are nearly interchangeable.
Ichigo Jam wrote:But anyway, my real question is: does this mean that increasing the size of the dartboard in a game of darts reduces the complexity? It seems to reduce the skill required, does it not?.
JoshF wrote:I think this proves what Alex said, that depth, complexity, and skill must go in a certain order to effect one another.
by Kuzdu » 17 May 2008 21:57
by hypsup » 18 May 2008 10:23
by icycalm » 18 May 2008 15:57
Kuzdu wrote:I guess I misspoke when I said "simple" ruleset when what I really meant was "small".
Kuzdu wrote:That is, Go has a very small ruleset, if we're not taking the emergent situations as rules.
Kuzdu wrote:I think we agree that a game's rules define its possibility space.
Kuzdu wrote:What I'm suggesting though, is that as you map that possibility space through play, at a certain point the game actually starts to have a less depth, not more, as more of the formerly meaningful rules prove to actually be meaningless.
Kuzdu wrote:I was being (perhaps inappropriately) facetious when I said that this mapping could go on infinitely.
Kuzdu wrote:"Skill" is really a matter of being able to effectively navigate a possibility space, but when the space has been entirely or mostly mapped, as it has been in Tic-Tac-Toe or Checkers or Catan, then navigating it becomes trivial.
Kuzdu wrote:I started this thread in order to clear up some of my misunderstandings though, so as you said, I'll start a new one if I want to keep hashing these things out.
Kuzdu wrote:Thanks for clarifying! I understand what you were getting at.
by Molloy » 19 May 2008 16:03
hypsup wrote:When it comes to absolute complexity it is more useful to look at the top tier alone. If the top 100 players all have exactly the same high score for example you can bet that the rules of the game can be and have been perfectly exploited. The absolute complexity of the game is now a known quantity.
by Molloy » 19 May 2008 21:06
by icycalm » 20 May 2008 14:59
Molloy wrote:I think World of Warcraft is a good example of how to spoon feed complexity so people don't get too snowed under. Any casual player can handle it at the start. There are only two or three buttons on the screen. But by the time you reach level 70 the screen looks like something off a helicopter HUD.
Molloy wrote:More needs to be done to ease the less competitive players into hardcore gaming.
by icycalm » 20 May 2008 15:26
hypsup wrote:I am not sure I agree with your assertion that the absolute complexity of a game can be measured by the maximum distance between the best and worst players. This will really only tell you whether not the game is a pure game of chance or not.
hypsup wrote:If after 1000 matches of a game each player has won 500 it is clear that the game is a game of chance. However, what if the results of the the game are 600 to 400? You know the game has a sizeable element of chance, but the rules can obviously be exploited to win. It’s hard to say anything about its complexity.
Molloy wrote:hypsup wrote:When it comes to absolute complexity it is more useful to look at the top tier alone. If the top 100 players all have exactly the same high score for example you can bet that the rules of the game can be and have been perfectly exploited. The absolute complexity of the game is now a known quantity.
I'd say that assertion is pretty much on the money from what I've seen in multiplayer games.
by wateyad » 03 Sep 2008 23:29
icycalm wrote:For the present case I'll just say that even if Twelve's final, say, five battles were the best SRPG battles ever made, that would STILL not have convinced me to spend even a SINGLE extra hour playing the kind of boring scenarios I played in the first six hours.
by icycalm » 03 Sep 2008 23:56
wateyad wrote:There is a meaningful difference between written rules and the interactions that arise out of them, it's just not immediately apparent when your primary frame of reference is videogames.
wateyad wrote:You'd rather be actually playing a game than reading a rulebook right?
wateyad wrote:There's a fairly well known and popular school of thought in tabletop game design that a player should have to learn as few rules as possible in order to sit down and play a game without having to constantly reference the rulebook but those rules should produce as many meaningful decisions as possible. In short, it should be as easy as possible to learn what you can do in any given situation but as hard as possible to figure out what you should do.
wateyad wrote:icycalm wrote:For the present case I'll just say that even if Twelve's final, say, five battles were the best SRPG battles ever made, that would STILL not have convinced me to spend even a SINGLE extra hour playing the kind of boring scenarios I played in the first six hours.
It's pretty much analogous to this only with "boring scenarios" replaced with effort that must be expended before you can even begin to play the game. Although I'll admit that there's a much higher chance of the payoff to passing through the high barrier to entry being worth it.
wateyad wrote:Now I'll admit to being a little fuzzy on how this concept applies to videogames in particular.
wateyad wrote:This is less obvious and possibly less direct, due to most of even the written rules of a videogame only being dealt with by the computer. I think an example of this kind of barrier to entry, although obviously one that has been deemed worth it and passed through by most of the people, if not everyone, here may be found in learning fighting game move lists (especially for someone who had never played one before, who would also have to learn to recognise and perform the common directional motions) but if anyone can think of a better (and if it exists, probably at least somewhat more direct) example I'd be interested to hear it. I have a feeling that I'm missing something that I'll kick myself when I find.
by Worm » 21 Dec 2008 08:50
I understand all there is to know about how to follow the rules of Chess, but I am poor Chess player. Do you say that I don't understand the rules of Chess?icycalm wrote:There is nothing "simple" about the ruleset of Go, just as there is nothing simple about the ruleset of Mushihime-sama or KOF XI. Just because you can easily recite something (a poem, say, or a ruleset comprised of six rules) doesn't mean you understand it.
by JoshF » 21 Dec 2008 09:10
I understand all there is to know about how to follow the rules of Chess, but I am poor Chess player. Do you say that I don't understand the rules of Chess?
by Vert1 » 21 Dec 2008 11:23
Worm wrote:I understand all there is to know about how to follow the rules of Chess, but I am poor Chess player. Do you say that I don't understand the rules of Chess?icycalm wrote:There is nothing "simple" about the ruleset of Go, just as there is nothing simple about the ruleset of Mushihime-sama or KOF XI. Just because you can easily recite something (a poem, say, or a ruleset comprised of six rules) doesn't mean you understand it.
by Gnarf » 21 Dec 2008 13:09
Worm wrote:I understand all there is to know about how to follow the rules of Chess, but I am poor Chess player. Do you say that I don't understand the rules of Chess?icycalm wrote:There is nothing "simple" about the ruleset of Go, just as there is nothing simple about the ruleset of Mushihime-sama or KOF XI. Just because you can easily recite something (a poem, say, or a ruleset comprised of six rules) doesn't mean you understand it.
Worm wrote:To ask it another way: are you contrasting recitation (i.e. parroting the syllables) with the ability to follow the rules? Or do you mean (as I think you do) that to "understand" a ruleset you must grasp the realm of possibilities that it creates? In the former case, understanding the rules of Chess is a trivial task. In the latter, well, who can ever be said to understand them?
Vert1 wrote:All I am reading from this is that knowing does not equal understanding when dealing with rulesets. I don’t see where being a good/bad player with regards to things that follow rulesets comes in.