Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3  All

Author Topic: Game rules and their depth  (Read 14370 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Game rules and their depth
« on: January 04, 2013, 09:04:07 am »
0

Depending on how you define depth, chess is not as deep as Dominion.

I know several people who believe Go to be a deeper game because chess is so much more easily conquered by AI
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9416
    • View Profile
Re: Game rules and their depth
« Reply #1 on: January 04, 2013, 10:01:24 am »
+2

Depending on how you define depth, chess is not as deep as Dominion.

I know several people who believe Go to be a deeper game because chess is so much more easily conquered by AI

Relevant:



That said, I agree that Dominion is a deeper game than Innovation, partially because of the available cards, and partially because of the (usually) smaller decision tree in Innovation.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Game rules and their depth
« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2013, 10:49:44 am »
0

Well, the trick in the comic that make it funny is, the last category should be "games where humans will NEVER beat computers", and those are the games with the least depth.
Logged

Kuildeous

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3840
  • Respect: +2221
    • View Profile
Re: Game rules and their depth
« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2013, 11:21:32 am »
+1

I love how the games seemingly become more complex but then ramps up to Snakes and Ladders. I guess they could have also listed War or Candyland, but Snakes and Ladders is probably more universally recognized (though I've not heard of Ghost).

And just you wait. There will be a computer that can win at Seven Minutes of Heaven. That will mark the end of our civilization as the need for human contact becomes obsolete.

Edit: Though, apparently, Ghost is far more global of a phenomenon than I realize. I'm not really sure how I never learned of the game.

And according to Wikipedia, the game was even in "The Long Walk," which I've read twice. I apparently have a blind spot for Ghost.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2013, 11:33:28 am by Kuildeous »
Logged
A man has no signature

Drab Emordnilap

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1832
  • Shuffle iT Username: Drab Emordnilap
  • Luther Bell Hendricks V
  • Respect: +1887
    • View Profile
Re: Game rules and their depth
« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2013, 11:46:52 am »
0

Ghosts are traditionally hard to see.
Logged

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3360
    • View Profile
Re: Game rules and their depth
« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2013, 11:54:11 am »
0

I love how the games seemingly become more complex but then ramps up to Snakes and Ladders. I guess they could have also listed War or Candyland, but Snakes and Ladders is probably more universally recognized (though I've not heard of Ghost).

And just you wait. There will be a computer that can win at Seven Minutes of Heaven. That will mark the end of our civilization as the need for human contact becomes obsolete.

Edit: Though, apparently, Ghost is far more global of a phenomenon than I realize. I'm not really sure how I never learned of the game.

And according to Wikipedia, the game was even in "The Long Walk," which I've read twice. I apparently have a blind spot for Ghost.

I've never heard of it either
Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

shraeye

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 690
  • Shuffle iT Username: shraeye
  • More Graph Theory please
  • Respect: +299
    • View Profile
Re: Game rules and their depth
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2013, 12:11:17 pm »
0

Ghosts are traditionally hard to see.
ZING!!
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9192
    • View Profile
Re: Game rules and their depth
« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2013, 01:20:41 pm »
0

Mao is a great game.
Logged

Drab Emordnilap

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1832
  • Shuffle iT Username: Drab Emordnilap
  • Luther Bell Hendricks V
  • Respect: +1887
    • View Profile
Re: Game rules and their depth
« Reply #8 on: January 04, 2013, 03:00:56 pm »
+2

Mao is a great game.

This post broke a rule. Try again.
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9416
    • View Profile
Re: Game rules and their depth
« Reply #9 on: January 04, 2013, 05:14:08 pm »
0

Well, the trick in the comic that make it funny is, the last category should be "games where humans will NEVER beat computers", and those are the games with the least depth.

You think Mao and Calvinball don't have great depth?  (OK, Chutes and Ladders not so much.)
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Game rules and their depth
« Reply #10 on: January 04, 2013, 07:04:02 pm »
+2

Well, the trick in the comic that make it funny is, the last category should be "games where humans will NEVER beat computers", and those are the games with the least depth.

You think Mao and Calvinball don't have great depth?  (OK, Chutes and Ladders not so much.)

I didn't know what Mao was, I assumed it was like Chutes and Ladders.  Computers should crack Mao rather easily, actually.  The computer could make a rule with encryption complexity.  It'd be a stalemate for a human at best.

Calvinball, is of course, an exception Kirian.  On a forum with posters with the general level of intelligence as we have here, it should go without saying as an understood idea that Calvinball is the deepest game in the history of man, and the deepest game we will see for a minimum of a hundred thousand more years.

As follows our expectations, even a five year old human can crush the world's best supercomputer at Calvinball without effort.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2013, 07:14:02 pm by popsofctown »
Logged

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8172
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Let me tell you a secret...
  • Respect: +9634
    • View Profile
Re: Game rules and their depth
« Reply #11 on: January 07, 2013, 12:48:08 am »
+5

Mao is a great game.

This post broke a rule. Try again.

Mao needs to die in a fire.  When the entire point of a game is to frustrate new players, it has no right to exist.
Logged
Contrary to popular belief, I do not run the wiki all on my own.  There are plenty of other people who are actively editing.  Go bother them!

Check out this fantasy epic adventure novel I wrote, the Broken Globe!  http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Globe-Tyr-Chronicles-Book-ebook/dp/B00LR1SZAS/

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9416
    • View Profile
Re: Game rules and their depth
« Reply #12 on: January 07, 2013, 02:03:07 am »
+1

Mao is a great game.

This post broke a rule. Try again.

Mao needs to die in a fire.  When the entire point of a game is to frustrate new players, it has no right to exist.

Certainly.  Zendo fills its inductive reasoning design space quite well and is better designed.  If you want random stuff, go play Fluxx.  Mao, along with Alien Letters, Crossed/Uncrossed, etc, are really just hazing rituals.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3360
    • View Profile
Re: Game rules and their depth
« Reply #13 on: January 07, 2013, 05:59:43 am »
0

Mao is a great game.

This post broke a rule. Try again.

Mao needs to die in a fire.  When the entire point of a game is to frustrate new players, it has no right to exist.

If you want random stuff, go play Fluxx.

Please, never suggest anyone ever goes to play Fluxx, for whatever reason!
*shudders*
Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

Tables

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2817
  • Build more Bridges in the King's Court!
  • Respect: +3351
    • View Profile
Re: Game rules and their depth
« Reply #14 on: January 07, 2013, 07:36:13 am »
+2

There's nothing wrong with Flux.

It's a light, quick game, easy to play with new players, and there's some strategy involved (testing shows that playing cards at random only wins about 30% of the time against someone that's actually trying!)
Logged
...spin-offs are still better for all of the previously cited reasons.
But not strictly better, because the spinoff can have a different cost than the expansion.

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9416
    • View Profile
Re: Game rules and their depth
« Reply #15 on: January 07, 2013, 08:25:32 am »
0

There's nothing wrong with Flux.

It's a light, quick game, easy to play...

Except no.  I've seen games of Fluxx last five minutes; I've seen games of Fluxx last an hour.  The randomness of the cards makes it possible for the game to become nearly interminable, assuming people are playing to win.  Sure, it's simple, but simple doesn't equate with good.  At least "We Didn't Playtest This At All" tells you right on the cover that it's ridiculously unbalanced and random.

In terms of game design, I think it's about the worst thing Andy Looney ever designed.  In terms of pure profit... well, I won't fault him for putting out seventeen different versions if people keep buying them.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

Drab Emordnilap

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1832
  • Shuffle iT Username: Drab Emordnilap
  • Luther Bell Hendricks V
  • Respect: +1887
    • View Profile
Re: Game rules and their depth
« Reply #16 on: January 07, 2013, 09:49:44 am »
+1

and there's some strategy involved (testing shows that playing cards at random only wins about 30% of the time against someone that's actually trying!)

In what other game is it possible to win 30% of the time playing completely randomly against someone who's trying? I'm pretty sure you can't even win Tic-Tac-Toe 30% of the time playing randomly.
Logged

Tables

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2817
  • Build more Bridges in the King's Court!
  • Respect: +3351
    • View Profile
Re: Game rules and their depth
« Reply #17 on: January 07, 2013, 10:59:54 am »
+1

Clearly sarcasm doesn't go down well on the internet...

Although it is definitely a good light filler. I've never seen games last more than about 20 minutes, and most games I've seen tend to be about 4-6 player. It's not a game to bring out when you have heavy gamers around, but it's a bit of fun as long as you don't take it too seriously.
Logged
...spin-offs are still better for all of the previously cited reasons.
But not strictly better, because the spinoff can have a different cost than the expansion.

Thisisnotasmile

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1493
  • Respect: +676
    • View Profile
Re: Game rules and their depth
« Reply #18 on: January 07, 2013, 12:21:28 pm »
+1

and there's some strategy involved (testing shows that playing cards at random only wins about 30% of the time against someone that's actually trying!)

In what other game is it possible to win 30% of the time playing completely randomly against someone who's trying? I'm pretty sure you can't even win Tic-Tac-Toe 30% of the time playing randomly.

It's not possible to win more than 0% of the time against someone trying to win at tic-tac-toe... whether you're playing randomly or trying to win yourself.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9192
    • View Profile
Re: Game rules and their depth
« Reply #19 on: January 07, 2013, 01:09:06 pm »
+1

Mao is a great game.

This post broke a rule. Try again.

Mao needs to die in a fire.  When the entire point of a game is to frustrate new players, it has no right to exist.

Certainly.  Zendo fills its inductive reasoning design space quite well and is better designed.  If you want random stuff, go play Fluxx.  Mao, along with Alien Letters, Crossed/Uncrossed, etc, are really just hazing rituals.

The point of Mao is not to frustrate new players.  At least not the way my friends and I play it.  Confusing newbies is funny, but the real game begins when everyone knows what's up.
Logged

Drab Emordnilap

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1832
  • Shuffle iT Username: Drab Emordnilap
  • Luther Bell Hendricks V
  • Respect: +1887
    • View Profile
Re: Game rules and their depth
« Reply #20 on: January 07, 2013, 01:14:28 pm »
0


It's not possible to win more than 0% of the time against someone trying to win at tic-tac-toe... whether you're playing randomly or trying to win yourself.

You're correct, of course. The comparison I had in my head was "You can't achieve the best outcome playing randomly 30% of the time", and in Tic-Tac-Toc, the best (achievable against a competent opponent) outcome is a draw. So really I should have said "You couldn't achieve a LOSS rate of better than 70% playing randomly".
Logged

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8172
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Let me tell you a secret...
  • Respect: +9634
    • View Profile
Re: Game rules and their depth
« Reply #21 on: January 07, 2013, 02:47:48 pm »
0

Mao is a great game.

This post broke a rule. Try again.

Mao needs to die in a fire.  When the entire point of a game is to frustrate new players, it has no right to exist.

Certainly.  Zendo fills its inductive reasoning design space quite well and is better designed.  If you want random stuff, go play Fluxx.  Mao, along with Alien Letters, Crossed/Uncrossed, etc, are really just hazing rituals.

The point of Mao is not to frustrate new players.  At least not the way my friends and I play it.  Confusing newbies is funny, but the real game begins when everyone knows what's up.

Or I'll just play Egyptian Rat Screw. 
Logged
Contrary to popular belief, I do not run the wiki all on my own.  There are plenty of other people who are actively editing.  Go bother them!

Check out this fantasy epic adventure novel I wrote, the Broken Globe!  http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Globe-Tyr-Chronicles-Book-ebook/dp/B00LR1SZAS/

Thisisnotasmile

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1493
  • Respect: +676
    • View Profile
Re: Game rules and their depth
« Reply #22 on: January 07, 2013, 05:26:12 pm »
0

Mao is a great game.

This post broke a rule. Try again.

Mao needs to die in a fire.  When the entire point of a game is to frustrate new players, it has no right to exist.

Certainly.  Zendo fills its inductive reasoning design space quite well and is better designed.  If you want random stuff, go play Fluxx.  Mao, along with Alien Letters, Crossed/Uncrossed, etc, are really just hazing rituals.

The point of Mao is not to frustrate new players.  At least not the way my friends and I play it.  Confusing newbies is funny, but the real game begins when everyone knows what's up.

So why not just tell people the rules so you can get to the "real game" quicker?
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9192
    • View Profile
Re: Game rules and their depth
« Reply #23 on: January 07, 2013, 06:05:23 pm »
0

So why not just tell people the rules so you can get to the "real game" quicker?

It depends on the group of people.  We're almost at that point.  When I was first taught the game, my friends would look at me until I played a card and then penalize me.  I toughed it out until I caught on.  But we've found that most newbies aren't as stubborn as we are and give up too soon without encouragement.  We're much more lenient with them now, and will generally try to be helpful while still keeping silent.
Logged

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1345
    • View Profile
Re: Game rules and their depth
« Reply #24 on: January 07, 2013, 06:59:57 pm »
0

Fluxx scales really badly. I've played a lot of 2p fluxx with my girlfriend to pass the time when we don't feel like playing a serious game, and it's fun, mostly random. But when you get above 4-player, it can really slow to a crawl, with keeper limits, hand limits, steal a keeper, trash a keeper, etc making it so nobody has any winning goals and you cycle through the whole deck with no progress.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  All
 

Page created in 0.079 seconds with 21 queries.