Re: (OT) Rules "inspiration" (was [OT] Bring and Battle

On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Ground Zero Games wrote:

> I don't dispute this. Though in my experience most alternating
activation
> rules have in the past also had some kind of initiative sequence that
> restricted the choice of who to activate when.

Well, I played BattleTech this way back in the 80's. Sure there's *one*
(unmodified) roll to see who gets the first choice, but after that it's
free selection.

Given the market share of BTech vs. GZG, guess which is likelier source
for such a mechanic to be lifted from? Not that I think it's original to
BTech either...

> kill. I think the sheer size of the chart that you need to duplicate
the
> variability of results that the chits can give you speaks for itself
in
> this case. YMMV, of course.... :)

Well, as you might recall, I did the chart basically because doing it
presented an intellectual challange. I actually prefer it, because it
shows the probability distribution of results much better than "pull 3
chits, yellow valid". 

I'm a bit uneasy about games that obfuscate the basic chances. If I
don't
know the exact chances, I begin to wonder does *anyone*, including the
designer?  There are numerous examples of game designers (not GZG
though),
who either don't understand basic probability math, or don't care to do
it
when designing a game. And if the designer was unaware, is there a
buried
loophole waiting to be exploited by someone who takes the time and
effort
to calculate the chances?

E.g. In Great Rail Wars, stats are dice and you roll vs. a fixed target
number. Typical gunmen have shootin' D6. Slightly better ones have D8.
However, if you roll the maximum of your die type, you get to add and
roll
again. 

Now here's the problem: Hitting at long range is vs. target number 8.

Shootin' D8: 1/8 chance = 12.5%
Shootin' D6: 1/6 * 5/6 = 5/36 = 13.9%

So, the "snipers" you paid more points for are actually worse shots at
long range than your "average" guys. All because the game designer
couldn't pass a jr.high math course, or didn't bother to try... 

E.g. I don't think many people realize just how often they'll pull a
"SD:F" chit in DSII if they just blindly stick in the biggest gun they
can.  I know I didn't before I calculated it. 

E.g. Newbies are sometimes unsure whether to return each chit to the mix
before pulling another. Well, we all know you shouldn't, but how much
does
it really matter? Let's see:

We'll take the "SD:F" chit as an example for two reasons:
1) It immediately short circuits the rest of the pull, therefore being
the easiest result to calculate.
2) It is also the most rare chit (only 2 in the mix), thus its
proportional chance to show up when after other chits are removed from
the
mix is increased the most. I.e. if there is a difference, it should be
most pronounced with the "SD:F" chit.

Chits  SD:F with vanilla	    SD:F after returning
1      2/119 = 0.0168		    2/119 = 0.0168
2      235/7021 = 0.0335	    472/14161 = 0.0333
3      13689/273819 = 0.0500	    83546/1685159 = 0.0496
4      527046/7940751 = 0.0664	    13145200/200533921 = 0.0656
5      15087540/182637273 = 0.0826  1939056242/23863536599 = 0.0813

Somehow I fail to see the difference of a few thousandth's at best to be
significant, or apparent in any number of games I'm likely to play in my
lifetime.

> I agree, no. This means you've put some real intellectual effort into
> devising a new (and hopefully better) way of doing whatever it is,
which is
> very different from doing it the same way as the other person did but
just
> changing a few bells and whistles to skirt the grey areas of the law.

The other aspect of patent law is that trivial procedures can not be
patented. In the few cases where a single game mechanic is IMHO
non-trivial, it is also IMHO too complex for casual gaming. An entire
system of interacting mechanics is much more likely to be non-trivial.

Patent law, ofcourse, does not apply to games. I'm merely using as a
reference ground for "ethical rights" to gaming systems.
 
> Hey, Mikko, do you realise we've actually agreed on quite a few things
> here?? better be careful, it might set a precendent.... <GRIN>

I don't recall us violently disagreeing about much ever, unless you've
kept quiet about it.

-- 
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	   | A pig who doesn't
fly
+358 50 5596411 GSM +358 9 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice   | is just an ordinary
pig.
Maininkitie 3C14 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?    |	      - Porco
Rosso
http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/      | hateme.html |