hatena
<body>
*1241583111* Board Games
San Juan won by id:cactustman
f:id:nishiohirokazu:20090506131148j:image
If I put it in a hard sleeve, I can't put it back in the original case. I need to procure a container.
f:id:nishiohirokazu:20090506132403j:image
<a href="http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/B0002HZ7VS?ie=UTF8&tag=nishiohirokaz-22&linkCode=as2&camp=247&creative=7399& I am wondering if I should buy a <a href="creativeASIN=B0002HZ7VS">colorette</a>.
f:id:nishiohirokazu:20090506140335j:image
In the meantime, I've noted down the card allocations and will consider them before deciding whether to buy.
The idea of using tiles sold at Tokyu Hands or other stores for life counters is quite good.
f:id:nishiohirokazu:20090506154748j:image
*1241615225*[en]Sumida Park
f:id:nishiohirokazu:20090506220654j:image
*1241618207*[SpaMon] Ver 1.5 proposal
I played against id:peraneko and got a lot of advice. Basically, he suggested to cut unnecessary cards as id:waruhuzaketaichi did, but the difference is that Rationale is "currently the threshold for new players is too high and needs to be eased". It's a little different.
- In the previous proposal "<a href='http://d.hatena.ne.jp/nishiohirokazu/20090427/1240828251'>[SpaMon] Card Vre 1.4</a>", I chose it because of the maniacal combo generation, so Reverse It was a Level 1 card, but it should be introduced at a later level because it requires the introduction of a new concept called "direction of execution," which is not in the actual program and is difficult to use effectively.
- Crack and Bomb are lvl 1 because the effect is easy to understand.
- Is Surge necessary? (Considering the amount of damage it does, isn't it effectively a "if someone puts it down, everyone has to put it down to get there" card?)
- The second opinion is that we still do not need Heal. Rather, they are talking about providing a counterspell. But I'm holding off on introducing a counterspell to Spaghetti Monsters.
- Is it necessary to have three copy systems? I think the copy cards are very important as they are the key to tricky combos. →I think copy cards are very important cards that are the key to tricky combos, but they are definitely tricky, so why not leave them out or add one at the start and then add more as the level goes up?
-- →Float is Lv1, CopyPast is Lv2, CopyFuture is Lv3, but maybe Float should be Lv2 and CopyPast should be Lv3 by removing CopyFuture.
- The "Which of the two numbers do you increment?" question. Maybe one Arabic number per card. Basically, it's only written in Inc/Dec and damage systems. Maybe "4 damage to 1 player" should be increased to "2 players" for 8 damage, or "4 damage to any player" so that the number of players cannot be incremented, since it is rather fraudulent.
now that it comes to that
- The "easy to understand" cards that you can safely put to lvl 1 MoveBit, RemoveBit, Crack, Bomb, AddBit.
-- I am not sure if these 5 cards, 4 bits each, will be enough for a game. Rather, the problem is too small to be readable by a computer.
- Lv2 MoveCard(difficult to understand because of the flow control element?) Lv3: MoveCard (difficult to understand because of flow control elements), RemoveCard (may cause a thousand-day hand if put into a small number of cards), Float (need to introduce the concept of copying), Inc/Dec (need to introduce the concept of instruction rewriting)
I will explain the execution flow using this card up to Lv1. I told id:hagino_3000 that the person who won the rock-paper-scissors game would be the one to place the bits, and I lost the rock-paper-scissors game 6 times in a row. Then I thought, since the person teaching is an advanced player, it would be better to place the bits on the 5 cards in "first move, second move" order. I thought, since the teacher is an advanced player, it would be good to put the bits on the five cards in the order of "first player, second player".
The introductory mode is to play with 10 cards up to Lv2, after a light play and explanation in the
- Lv3: Jump(The concept of jump destination lock is complicated. The "5 or more cards away" condition is designed to be 1/3 when played with 15 cards)
- Lv3: Reverse (takes some getting used to, but it's a very important card for throwing a change of pace from outside the expected range, even though it doesn't seem to be very useful)
- Lv3: CopyPast, moved from Lv4: ChangeBit, SwapBits, for a total of 15
The standard mode is to play with these 15 cards. And I set the card that makes the board situation more chaotic to Lv4 in case I play against someone like id:TOKOROTEN who thinks that it reduces the complexity of the problem and makes it less interesting.
- Lv4: Surge (delete? I don't understand the need for this. But if you eliminate it, is it unbalanced in the number of damage cards? I assume that if you place a bit, everyone has to place it to go, and from there you aim to get rid of someone with MoveBit or RemoveBit, or rather remove them with RemoveCard without placing yourself?)
- Lv4: CopyFuture (delete? No need to have two pieces similar to CopyPast. No need for symmetry there. If you delete one of them, CopyFuture to bury the whole card, which is a difficult problem to fix that stops the game progress when Float moves just before CopyFuture.)
- Heal, AddCard, SwapCard?, more perverse flow control or copy?
- Or we could put in the concept of a register around here and explode the state space.
As for the Lv1 minimal game, I think I can make an AI with a Monte Carlo tree search. I don't have to think about the initial placement of bits. I'll try to make it.
*1241623464* I went to the Dark Ruin Board Game Convention.
http://twitter.g.hatena.ne.jp/hagino_3000/20090502
>>
* Dominion
* Shadow Hunters
* It's like I'm under a spell.
* Trick & Treat
* Upside down series
* Collette
* Burn rate
* San Juan
* Dynamite Nurse
* Munchkin
* Spaghetti Monsters
* Death March
* Andromeda
<<
Common sense says it's impossible ><
- dominion
-- I did it in Java-ja Onsen, so I passed. Instead, I played poker with Texas Hold'em rules. I was still weak.
- Shadow Hunters.
-- It was fun, but I would like to have a character sheet on hand for these types of games where each character is unique and has a variety of personalities. If you are the only one who knows who your character is, and you meet each victory condition, you win. Basically, there is a team of bad guys (shadows), a team that hunts bad guys (hunters), and people who are neutral and do whatever is appropriate.
-- "If you're a hunter, you can give people a "1 point of damage" kind of card face down, and that will gradually narrow down the field.
- It's like I'm under a spell.
-- No time
- Trick & Treat
-- You didn't do this?
- Uroku Series
-- You didn't do this too?
- colorette
-- This is still an interesting game. I feel I am too conservative to play it well.
- burn rate
-- A game based on the dot-com bubble: "If you endure to the end without going bankrupt, you win".
- San Juan
-- I didn't. id:cactusman bought it for me and packed it in a hard sleeve!
- Dynamite Nurse, Munchkin, Andromeda
-- I don't even see your name up there!
- Spaghetti Monsters
-- Yes. See one previous post.
- death march
-- It would be interesting to play a few times to get an idea of what kind of cards are available. Expect a new version with faded cards, card types expressed in colors that are hard to distinguish, etc.
*1241631396* Brainstorming about the fun of games from Twitter
>>
Methods of using Twitter for brainstorming. Today's topic is about the fun of games.
Of course, the fun 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 perceives it as "fun.
This is an example of a remarkable balance between the Go-like element of reading and the element of luck, such as card draw. I probably have a strong affinity for the reading element, which is why I love games like Blox or Go, for example. On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of games that seem to have a lot of luck elements.
On the other hand, the "Death March," which clearly has a strong element of luck, was interesting because of its "storytelling," such as a PG with a basic productivity of 1 becoming a productivity of 7 with Emacs and Firebug. 5W1H and TRPGs are also interesting because of their stories and worldviews, I think.
The fun of quiz and Shiritori is competition in the sense of competing for knowledge. Go and Shogi are competitive in the sense that they compete in the depth of reading and thinking ability. Chasing is a competition of physical ability. In many sports, players 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 we take out the classification of Kaiowa and stop thinking there, we 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 method of defining "proficient" has not yet been determined, this method should be able to quantify the most obvious principal component axis that distinguishes "rock-paper-scissors" from "Go" without subjectivity.
<<
>>
I don't know about this because I am not very cognitive, but it seems that there is such a thing as "bluffing" in the world. There are very limited situations in which bluffing is possible. For example, there is no room for bluffing in darts, where you simply 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 that such things are often incorporated into games because it is known that even if a particular move is a bit stronger (even if the winning point is doubled only if you win with a goo), the Nash equilibrium can be absorbed simply by moving it around and the game will not break down.
<<
>>
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 I 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 on the edge, the player can hold the edge and then make a tsui move, leaving the first player to make a tsui 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 "If you think that bluffing and psychological reading are effective, it is because you are not able to calculate, and if you take data and calculate properly, you can win without such things", and that this is what he is saying about mahjong in the tsugyo.
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 something unobservable such as the opponent's intention in the decision criteria? Shouldn't the pattern match be "this move is likely to be good in this situation"?
<<
>>
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 victory point 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....
</body>
<comments>
<comment>
<username>Dubhead</username>
<body>Mr. Nishio will be strong even if he plays contract bridge... </body>
<timestamp>1241628487</timestamp>
</comment>
<comment>
<username>nishiohirokazu</username>
<body>No, I'm going to be mad at the play of the person I'm paired with (oh</body>).
<timestamp>1241631657</timestamp>
</comment>
<comment>
<username>Dubhead</username>
<body>I think one of the interesting things about games is that they are collaborative. Something like the difference between single player RPGs and MMORPGs. Well, I think it is not suitable for everyone. </body> <body>
<timestamp>1241632182</timestamp>
</comment>
<comment>
<username>tgbt</username>
<body>I have played Dynamite Nurse and Munchkin. I personally think it's very stupid and funny, so please give it a try next time.......................... </body>
<timestamp>1241672537</timestamp>
</comment>
</comments>
Hatena Diary 2009-05-06
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/Hatena2009-05-06 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.