Re: Pre-measuring things

Indy <kochte@stsci.edu> writes:

I guess we'll never agree, but I'll at least try to explain my point.

> I have to ask, if you could not remember the size of your table and
someone
> came to play who didn't pre-measure but could judge the length/breadth
of
> your table, and you lost the game, would you blame it on their ability
to
> measure over yours? Would you consider this ungamesmanlike conduct on
their
> part, being able to Mk I eyeball judge better than you?

No. Not at all. Just like I wouldn't bitch about losing to superior
tactics or better luck with dice.
 
And yes, I *am* handicapping myself. It's called a rule, and I expect
everyone else I play with to follow the same rules.

> I don't understand. What is it you are trying to imply with this
statement
> about his being a carpenter? 

Pro-pre-measurement people often gripe about carpenters, because
their job teaches rather well the ability to eyeball typical gaming
distances.

But he doesn't care about knowing it's "roughly six inches", he'd like
to
know it's exactly 6.00000000000000000000000000001 inches so I'd be out
of
range.

> If the pre-measuring guys were counting hexes, they were only getting,
> as you noted, a "good approximation" of the distances involved. That's
> not as accurate as actually taking a measuring tool and getting an
exact
> reading. 

No, and it was close. But hex-counting game them a definite edge.

> When you judge distances and do NOT pre-measure, how do you do it? In
> ship lengths? Such as, oh, taking a NAC battleship and seeing in your
> mind's eye how many NAC battleship lengths it is to the target? And
judge
> based on that which target is closer and in which range band? Or do
you
> just randomly assign targets without having ANY idea what range band
> those targets are in?

Sit down first. The answer is basically: Gut Feeling. Gut feeling and
prior, proven knowledge (such as "I shot at them last turn and neither
has
moved, so...") Actually, I've been thinking about making range rulers
with
only the range bands marked, so you'd know he's in medium range but not
exactly by how much.

E.g. given a choice of two targets, I would do what I would do in "real
life" -- choose the closer one barring tactical considerations of much
greater importance. Maybe they're actually in the same range band and I
would have been better off shooting at the farther one... maybe I get
lucky and the closer one is actually closer in game terms. But in either
case I feel I made the right, logical decision.

> If the game is dull and boring, there is no victory in winning for me.

Ach, some agreement found!
 
> You said *effective* range is 300 yards. 

300 is just a number. Don't get stuck on it. I welcome you to the
following test:
We establish range X at which I am able to hit a man-sized target with
one
of my rifles of your choosing. You can choose any X you like but first
we
must validate it with a paper target.

Then, you volunteer to stand X+1 yards away while I shoot at you.

Oh, and since it's impossible to hit anything at X+1 yards, I get as
many
shots as I like.

History is littered with dead guys who thought the other guys couldn't
hit
an elephant at X+1...

There is no X in real life. There's only clearly in range, clearly out
of
and the fuzzy gray area in between. If the game is supposed to be some
sort of simulation, the game should also have the gray area.

> No, you don't know you'll be there first. There are far, far too many
> other variables to take into consideration. The other team may move
> faster. The terrain between you and them. Someone tripping and
falling,
> causing them to 'waste time' getting back up again.

Then why do you allow it in a game? 

> If it doesn't noticeably slow the game down
> (and my experience, as noted in another msg, it hasn't really), 

Well, I and others on the list have different experiences. 

> Premeasuring, on
> the otherhand, puts everything even, even between people who are not
as
> accurate as some others.

It's not unequal vs. equal, it's a different TYPE of unequal footing.
The footing is *always* unequal in the sense that some people are better
at some things than others. The only truly equal game would be a totally
random one (unless you believe luck is an innate ability), but that
wouldn't pose much of a challange. To me at least.

To return to the beginning: YES, I AM KNOWINGLY HANDICAPPING MYSELF --
but
it's not a one-sided handicap. The rule is the same to all players, I
just
lose more than others for it. Not pre-measuring while others do would
effectively be different rules for different folks. 

I have better than average skills and formal education in math,
probability, logic, game theory, statistics etc. Given enough hard data,
I
could leave my carpenter friend dead in water in the prediction and
analysis department. 

I could play like a real asshole. If I had money riding on it, I
probably
would. I am a reformed Car Wars player after all ;-)

But besides taking too much time, it wouldn't be much fun either.
I choose not to. I'm just not being naive in that choice, I want others
who play with me to make the same choice.

Because I have a dream.
I dream of a game. 
A game where you could concentrate on playing the game, not the rules. 
A game you could play well without actually knowing the rules, only the
principles behind them.

-- 
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	  | A pig who doesn't
fly
GSM +358 50 5596411 Tel +358 9 8092681		  | is just an ordinary
pig
Länsimetsä 3B1 02300 ESPOO FINLAND   Hate me? Try |	      - Porco
Rosso
http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/      hateme.html  |