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

[snip]>> 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?

We're getting into realms of personal preference again here, I think,
and I
(not being a computer programmer or career mathematician) tend to prefer
systems that don't actually let the players easily calculate exact odds;
I
find it adds to the "fog of war" and feeling of simulation - in reality,
does a tank commander or gunner stop to figure out "hey, I've got a
24.67%
chance of killing that big tank, but a 27.2% chance on that lighter one
a
bit further away - think I'll shoot at the little one..." or does he
just
let fly at the most obviously threatening target?
Similarly, why do infantrymen often fire their rifles at aircraft and
helicopters? Is it because they have worked out that they might actually
have a 0.0003% chance of damaging it, or just because it makes them feel
a
little bit less like fish in a barrel...?
>
>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...

This is a minor cock-up, obviously - the designer couldn't have had a
mailing list full of gleeful number-crunchers to run this stuff past....
:)
>
>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.

Ah, the Hidden Munchkin Trap (TM)......The bigger they are, the more
often
they break!  :)
I don't have a problem with this, it just adds to the fun.
>
>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.

Exactly. If it really doesn't matter a damn, why worry about it? We had
to
state one way or the other about returning the chits to the pot or not,
otherwise everyone would have argued about it forever....
>
>> 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.

Let's just say I've deliberately stayed out of certain on-list
arguments,
and watched the pretty fireworks.... <BIG GRIN>

Jon (GZG)
>
>--
>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 |