Brainstorming about the fun of the game

from Hatena2009-05-06

Methods of using Twitter for brainstorming. Today’s topic is about the fun of games.

Of course, the interest of a game is subjective and differs from person to person, but each game has several components, and when the amount of each component matches a person’s taste, that person finds it “interesting”.

• A striking example of the balance between the reading element, like go, and the fortune element, like card draws. I probably have a strong affinity for the reading element, so I love games like blox or Go, for example. On the other hand, I’m not so much into games that seem to have a lot of luck elements.

On the other hand, “Death March,” which clearly has a strong element of luck, was interesting because of its “storytelling,” in which a PG with a basic productivity of 1 could become a productive 7 with Emacs and Firebug. 5W1H and TRPG are also interesting in terms of story and worldview. I wonder if 5W1H and TRPG are also interesting in terms of story and worldview.

The fun of quizzes and Shiritori is competition in the sense of competing for knowledge. The fun of Go and Shogi is competition in the sense of competing in depth of reading and thinking ability. Chasing is a competition of physical ability. I guess many sports also compete in physical ability and the ability to judge a situation at a moment’s notice. I don’t know because I don’t have much experience.

On the other hand, what does the sports spectator enjoy? Storytelling?

I think it is a very rough classification to include worldview and interesting flavor text in mimicry, but that’s okay. If you take out the classification of Kaiowa and stop thinking there, you will not be able to make a more detailed classification.

And, well, think of a more detailed classification, concentrating mainly on board and card games that adults play indoors with their brains.

Consider, for example, an example where the win rate of a person playing a certain multiplayer game for the first time is exactly the same as the win rate of a person who is proficient in that game. For example, poker with rock-paper-scissors, exchanges, and no betting should be very close to this. On the other hand, in Shogi or Go, the win rate for a first-time player is almost zero.

Although the definition of “skilled players” has not yet been determined, it should be possible to quantify without subjectivity the most obvious principal component axis that distinguishes “rock-paper-scissors” from “Go” in this way.

I don’t know about this because I’m not very cognizant of it, but there is such a thing as “brah” in the world. There are very limited situations in which you can bluff. For example, there is no room for bluffing in darts, where you just aim for a high score. In Go, if both players are strong, there is no room for bluffing.

The prerequisite for the existence of bluffing is that the opponent’s move can be changed by bluffing. And that means that the opponent is “not confident that the move he is trying to play is the best move. It is essentially independent of the luck factor, although the luck factor can easily lead to such a situation. People simply don’t have the level of confidence in their hands to accurately calculate probabilities.

In Go, when both players are weak, they play bluff-like moves that are not the best moves but confuse their opponents. Especially when the opponent is weaker than you and you have an advantage if you make the board confusing.

As for bluffing, the prisoner’s dilemma occurs when you “don’t bluff/bluff” or “think the opponent is bluffing/not think the opponent is bluffing”, right? Essentially, there are ways to include the three-way chess or prisoner’s dilemma as a design that causes “a situation where you cannot be sure that it is the best move”.

I think it is often incorporated into games because it is known that if you incorporate something like that into a game, even if a particular move is a little stronger (even if the winning point is doubled only if you win with a goo), it can be absorbed by simply moving Nash equilibrium and not ruin the game. I think.

I think that the term under house control refers to controlling the behavior of the under house under the assumption that other players will act rationally, and that if you act in this way, the under house will have no choice but to act in this way. This is also common in Go, for example, when a player makes a move at the end of a hand, the player holds the end of the hand and then tsui tsui tsui the player’s turn is the first move, and so on.

The use of the term “lower house control” instead of calling it just reading is probably mainly intended for games with three or more players. The more people who move as you intend, the better. Also, some people use “shita-ke control” to mean that the player in the lower house controls the situation, and I don’t know which is correct.

I understand that Totsugi Tohoku is saying about mahjong, “If you think that bluffing and psychological reading are effective, it is because you are not able to calculate, and if you take proper data and calculate, you can win without such things.”

Not enough thinking time = not enough thinking speed of the player. Even if the search or calculation is terminated in the middle of the game, isn’t it a mistake to include unobservable things like the opponent’s intention in the decision criteria in the first place? Shouldn’t the pattern match be “In this situation, there is a high possibility that this move is good”?

Since Gokiburi Poker is a multiplayer game with only one loser, I am too inexperienced to judge whether my strategy is effective or not, but at least I pay attention to blinking and unconscious hand movements, not to what is said, which I can easily control. So far, I haven’t found a valid rule.

Oh, and I am very weak when I play cockroach poker normally, so I play by calculating pseudo-random numbers in my brain as to whether I lie or not. It’s also a game you can win if you make people shun you by coming out and saying, “I can’t read this guy,” that’s it. Oh, so this is a bluff.

If one person is the type to be a winner, everyone pulls the leg of the person closest to victory, if one person is the type to be a loser, everyone beats the person closest to defeat…

Yes, there’s a “short-term memory capacity” factor in the competitive aspect of the game. The first time I played Dominion, I passed up a win when I could have won because I didn’t remember exactly what my opponent’s winning score was. And there are plenty of games where card counting is an advantage. More directly, a nervous breakdown is a true memory game.

Incidentally, the nervous breakdown also becomes strategic in a Nim-like way if both players take the best move completely. I don’t have a very good short-term memory, so I can’t win at the level before that.

I wonder what would happen if we changed the rule of cockroach poker to “If you get four identical cards, you win”.

Since attacking in cockroach poker means that there is a 1/2 chance that you and your target will play that card, it is reasonable to play the card that has the greatest difference between you and your opponent, of course. However, if you do that, the card will be revealed, and the assumption of 1/2 probability will be broken. Therefore, why not choose the top two cards that are good for the attack, play one of them with a probability of 1/2, and say the name of one of them with a probability of 1/2? That way the opponent has no way to guess.

The “most people to beat” in cockroach poker varies from player to player. For example, as an extreme example, if I have 3 roaches, X has 3 roaches, and Y and Z have 3 flies, it is reasonable for me to beat Y or Z, and for Z to beat me or X. I just can’t think of a case where you should beat someone with fewer cards.

Summary. Game players need to have: Go-like reading skills, short-term memory, speaking skills (ability to incite other players, bluffing), confidence (resistance to bluffing). Game elements: ability competition, luck, world view If you put the worldview in mimicry, it would be exactly the same as the classification of Kaiyowa, if you add the illinks, which have not received much attention because they are indoor games…

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/ゲームの面白さに関するブレスト using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.