Should ME Games Publish the Equations?

General
#1

Now that ME Games has the code & all, I wonder if we should request that they publish the equations used to determine the chances of success for various orders?

I don’t see how player ignorance of specific information regarding skill orders and such enhances the game. We have exact percentages for spell casting. We have exact values for army combat. As well as challenges. Assuming all variables about enemy strengths are known we can figure the exact percentage chance of winning a challenge, or the outcome of battle before it happens. Do these things detract from the game? Then why would an equation that could yield an exact percentage for a Threat or an Assassination or a Double (assuming all variables are known) detract from the game?

When players are using inaccurate or vague info the game is less strategic. A strategic decision requires the necessary information to make the decision. But as it is, players must spend hours of time gathering and analyzing data, making hypotheses, reading what others have to say, and debating the details before they can even come close to having the necessary information. Most players have better ways to spend their time (like PLAYING the game), giving the data dogs a severe advantage over the typical player. The lack of information, along with the severe advantage that some players have as a result of general ignorance, both make the game less strategic, and the less strategic the game, the poorer the gaming experience in my book, since this game is primarily a strategy game.

Any other opinions?

#2

It is the nature of military command that decisions must be made quickly in a fluid environment with inadequate and ,often, incorrect information. Some people have a flair for this and some people do not. GSI catered to the former.

Persons who lack this particular flair always want more information so that they can make an ‘informed choice’. If both commanders have this particular mindset then no harm is done. If only one commander has this mindset then he is liable to discover that Rommel has already gone around his flank and is rolling up his line-of-communication.

Harley has converted this game from a ‘wargame’ to a ‘strategy’ game. I’m sure it is in response to player demands, but I don’r like it by half. What you are asking, Christian, is FURTHER erosinons to the fog-of-war and a continual ‘dumbing down’ of the game

#3

Hi Christian

You dont really want the eqations, or so I think. Ed has said most of it, you will never be able to predict the exact outcome at any given time or situation. There is always the last 5%, like your warlord ____ losing a callenge againts a lowly emisary, it happens. It is the spice, no risk - no fun.

Loke/Holger:D:D:D

Hail Gauss

#4

Part of the strategy of the game, is dealing with the unknowns. It is the gamble of it that adds to it. What fun is it to know the outcome of every possible situation before it happens?

#5

Guys,

You are ignoring the point I made that having the equations does not remove all unkowns. Have any of you answered my questions about spells, challenges, army combat? How does knowledge of game mechanics with regard to these make the game any worse, or how would the game be better if we had only vague info about our army combat strength (ie we had no idea of actual troops strength but had to infer it) or character skills (instead of a number how about a description: “high, average, or low” mage/emi/comm/agent rank), or chance of success at casting a spell, etc? In all of these instances we have precise info of how the game works. In none of them do we have all the variables made known–we have to figure out or guess what the enemy has. In none of them do we have risk removed and we almost never KNOW the outcomes of battles because we rarely know for sure what the enemy has. We only have an idea of the likely outcome. In challenges and spells we have exact knowledge of how they work/ what our chances are…and yet you guys used these as examples of how the game is made more fun by not knowing the certainty of an outcome. You are only proving my point.

Chance is a part of the game and I like that. I don’t have a problem with my warlord losing to a lowly emissary. I would have a problem with not knowing that my chances of losing were slim, and if the only way to learn this was by inference through trial and error. The point I am getting at here is that chance is a worthless feature if you don’t have a fair idea of what your chances are. there is nothing smart or sexy about blindly stumbling through the game, as so many inexperienced players are likely to do for want of basic info. How is taking blind chances more intelligent, more interesting, more strategic, more fun, than taking calculated chances?

How is the game better because a few experienced players have a rough idea of what those chances are while others have to spend hundreds of dollars and hours of time gathering and analyzing game data or spend oodles of time talking to and reading the comments of more experienced players many of which are grossly misinformed anyway?

Ed,
I knew you’d be opposed to this. Your point about Rommel is well taken, However, I think it misses my point.

You, ironically, are one of those playes who knows more about the inner workings of the game than most. Are you telling me that the game has been dumbed down for you because of your excess of knowledge and experience? Do you wish you knew less about the chances of a skill order succeeding? Are those of us who are relatively ignorant compared to you exercising our faculties more fully? On the contary, we are exercising our faculties LESS fully. That is my point.

How is the game any less of a fog-war if people all have access to the same information about how the game works? I want to play a fog-war, not be in the fog about how to play the game. We still would be forced to make command decisions without adequate or correct information. The fog war is still there–you still must have the foresight and intuition to know when and where to gather info about your enemy’s movements and such. You must still analyze incoming intel to make deductions or best-guesses. Understandoing the how the game works would ENHANCE this aspect of the game.

In the example you gave, would any commander go into the field without fairly exact information about how far a mortar can be launched for example–the technical stuff that is necessary to doing his job right? Similarly, as leader of a nation a playere should know that generally one should have 40 Comm to pull off a Downgrade order. How is the game improved by that player’s ignorance?

How is the game improved by players discussing and hypothesizing about how the game works rather than understanding how it works?

#6

I agree with Ed Mills completely. Not a sentence you will often read :stuck_out_tongue:

Without the fog-of-war aspect to the game, a lot of the enjoyment and anticipation will be lost. Personally I think far TOO much is already known about the equations etc. I would be all in favour of additional random elements being brought into the game - perhaps in the shape of variations in encounters, and indeed additional encounters.

Anything that makes you think hard and long, yet still leaves you unsure as to the actual outcome of events is to be applauded in my opinion.

Colin

#7

Christian, this is a sidebar to the real issue: But, the Rule Book’s detailing of spells, challenges, army combat etc is not totally accurate. How do I know that? From getting a bloody nose for the last 13 1/2 years.

Let us talk about “fairness”. From Real World stats (U.S. Army) if you can survive your first six months in a combat zone you are almost certain to survive the war. Is that ‘fair’? When you are thrown into a semi-random group of 25 persons it is virtually certain that at least one will be more intelligent than you. Is that fair? How about those who are more experienced or have a better skill set for the situation?

This game. as originally designed, is journey into the unknown. A long and enjoyable journey of discovery. Played this game a long time and I am still finding dark corners I don’t know anything about. When I started this game, Myst like, I blunder through the game, relying on common sense, a knowledge of Tolkien and an expanding experience base. It took me five years, at least, to become a competent player.

Take the same journey, Christian, you will love it.

#8

Christian

Take it this way, it is all probablistic anyway so even if you had the exact equations they are more than likely based on 100 sided die like rolemaster games…As for the whole enhancing the game yes the unknown element helps the game…if I knew the exact formula and all I had to do was plug in numbers …yes the game would lose a whole element to me. The element of adventure.

As for the rest of you guys…you do not get your point across more by calling people stupid.

#9

I wonder if most of you guys are reading me. Like I said, i am all for the fog-of-war. I having nothing against new encounters–I am all for that. Colin, I agree that “What makes you think long and hard yet leaves you unsure of the actual outcome of events is to be applauded…” None of this addresses what i am saying.

In a nut shell here is what i am saying: the game would be better if we had knowledge of the game mehanics because we would be able to plan strategies according to a more accurate understanding of the rules/mechanics and could take calcualted risks rather than blind risks.

You all have 2 objections: 1) you are afraid that the fog-war will be hurt. I ANSWER: I already showed that this isn’t true because the fog-of-war is about relying on your wits to gather the right info at the right time, to deceive your enemies, and to intuit or infer information about your opponents positions, none of which has anything to do with knowledge of game rules and mechanics. 2) You’re afraid that the fun would be taken out because all variables would be known. I ANSWER: Again I showed that this is untrue. Chance makes things fun, and knowledge of the relative risks only enhances that fun. You won’t be excited if your girlfried beats my stud in a challenge unless you knew that the odds of winning were slim. Address my arguments.

Perhaps a decent example is needed to illustrate what i am saying. Brian Mason did the hard work of gathering and analyzing data with regard to the ImprPop order many years ago. Most of us now use this info in the game. What you guys are saying is either A) we would be better off if this info were erased from our heads and/or B) we would be better off if every person had to do the same work that Mason did years ago.

Players can now use this info to plan out a strategy of economic growth among other things. I used this info when my capitol came under attack to I bump it up to from an MT to a City, thus thwarting the attack. I did not have sure knowledge that this would work. It was a calculated risk. For me, this knowledge has enanced my game-play.

My challenge to you is this: why would we be better off without Mason’s detective work available to us? Ed Mills has proposed an answer which i will address in my next post…

#10

Yes these are fair in a Laissaez-faire sense. Likewise it is also fair that it took you so many years to learn about the game and it will take me less because I have access to more information than you did…just like its fair that you got a big head start on the game over me. I have no problem with any of this. My issue is not with fairness, it is with what makes for a more playable, interesting, game.

I am already a fairly competent player, and my ignorance of the rules is outweighed by most players. I already have the advantage over most players in that arena. It is not an advantage I have any desire to keep. I prefer to beat my opponents with skill rather than winning because I have a greater store of technical knowledge.

Now, the discovery aspect I can truly appreciate. However, I prefer to discover things about the game-world, or to discover new ways of using the rules to my advantage, or new strategies that others might have overlooked. Discovering that I should have a combined emi + loyalty score of 70 in order to have good chance of succeeding wth my order is not the type of discovery that I would prefer to make on my own. This discovery requires very little creative thought because it is a matter of brute force stat analysis. The process of doing such accounting is not ne of the more enjoyable aspects of this game. Give me an adventure, a story or a new part of the world to explore. Debate strategies with me and help me discover some overlooked weapon I might use some day. These kind of discoveries are cool.

#11

Christian, it doesn’t matter what we say, or what we feel. You wont agree with us.

I prefer to beat my opponents with skill rather than winning because I have a greater store of technical knowledge.

Now, the discovery aspect I can truly appreciate. However, I prefer to discover things about the game-world, or to discover new ways of using the rules to my advantage, or new strategies that others might have overlooked. Discovering that I should have a combined emi + loyalty score of 70 in order to have good chance of succeeding wth my order is not the type of discovery that I would prefer to make on my own.

So ti is about what you want. What you feel would be fun for you. What about the new player that wants to discover things? What about the player that wants to strive forth and figure things out without getting it spoon fed to him/her.

Doing stupid things in the game is what makes it fun. A friend of mine once lost 3 starting dwarven characters (including Bain) to challenging dragons, 'cause they showed up on his pop center and he thought it was an enemy character, he didn’t know they were dragons. Now at the time that kinda sucks, but in retrospect, that’s very funny.

The game is a learning process, that is one of the things that appeal to people. I’ve been playing for years (since like 1993) and I didn’t know untill last year that a navy only moves 7 hexes unfed. Found that out the hard way, when a friend tried to sneak across to Dilgul and had holded for a number of moves. Sure it sucked because he fell short with his navy and we were unable to take the pop center and it was another 8 turns before we finally were able to. But that is part of the fun of experiancing the game.

I didn’t know that dragons fired off on the army and wasn’t available for the pop center. Found that one out 2 years ago.

I didn’t know till this year that a mage can use a combat artifact and a combat spell. I always thought it was one or the other 'cause you only got one message.

The thing is, almost all the game mechanics that are out there, are all player defiend, which is jsut working from experanice and every one of them isnt’ necissarly very acurate. They just happen to be what people have found to work most of the time.

Anyways, I’m sure you’ll refute everything I say. You want the game mechanics, but I know a lot of people that like having to figure parts of the game out themselves. There is enough information available out there.

#12

great response above,
no point in trying to sway a guys opinion when you can just dismiss him. then toss 6 paragraphs trying to change his stance. then you finish strong again.( sorry, i found the structure of your response funny)
yes, i think the combat formula should be laid bare. you still have to make a few rough guesses, and if a battle is that close, then tactics( important), relations( huge), equipment, fixed defenses and spells could make a difference. in a specific game, we are concerning ourselves with a battle where the victor has a small number of troops remaining. so we are talking about a small faction of army vs army combat. lets move to the realm of the practical. pick a current game, where the winning side had fewer then 20% of its starting troops remaining after combat. its a small % of the total army combat in the game. often, one side knows defeat, before the first blow is struck.
concerning other types of combat, honestly, how many times in a game do you see an attacker bounce off pop center walls, when its not a suicide siege? usually its an inexperienced player. ( that 3 dwarves vs dragon thing is pretty damn funny. hasn’t everybody been in that position from everyside at least once?) there is always a random roll on pop center threats and such. theres a ton of solid data on challenges, so i think its much ado about nothing here. challenges have a great impact when its a suprise challenge. what the hell was elrond doing in that hex, and why didnt i double scout before sending maben in? thats more experience vs inexperience. i think to my first game in the late 1980’s. double scout? i wanted 40 point commanders! man, was i young and foolish. now i’m old and foolish. oh, run withthat when you respond to this post.
on the reverse, yes, i think dragon responses, and both the primary and secondary artifact values should be randomized. clearly swords should be primarily combat artifacts, but you can wheel around secondary powers here too… you want fog of war with a real impact, wouldn’t it be a bummer when everybody fought over the ring of wind, to find it a mage 10 if they didnt research artifact. smaug decided to have leucrauths personality(or mine) for a game. theres fog of war with a far greater impact in terms of game play. giving hidden pop centeres a 1 hex drift from there traditional established points, including native armies in there native pop center being hidden. now, you are cooking with fire. actually, revealing pop centeres has gotten a lot harder since game start. BRAVO!
complicate the market program, since thats very important to a game between equal teams. funny how the designers what 13 years ago, got the importance of economics right. tip of the hat in the direction of florida
more interesting, respectfully submitted to the above respondants, older more experienced guys seem to want the mysteries kept mysterious, and newer players want formulas revealed. its not a matter of right and wrong, but thats not a suprising result, is it? anyway, its just a board for chat, and i’m curious how this will develop with a greater diversity of respondents.
the real nice thing is that the harly reads these boards, as witnessed by the comments attached to the new 4 age stuff recently posted. you gotta admit, thats never a bad thing when the game moderators listen in on the paying customers bantering. take everything i wrote above with a grain, no a brick, of salt. everybody has a viewpoint, and should be treated with respect. you don’t win converts by clubbing people, make them see and accept your point. sometimes, you do have to club them.
sm

#13

no point in trying to sway a guys opinion when you can just dismiss him. then toss 6 paragraphs trying to change his stance. then you finish strong again.( sorry, i found the structure of your response funny)

I wasn’t trying to sway his opinion. I stated that I wouldn’t be able to. Then I just explained my feelings on why not having the mechanics laid out was enjoyable for me. It wasn’t to convince him, 'cause I don’t feel like I can. It wasn’t to debate the point with him, it was to express how I felt about the topic. I feel that Christian feels very strongly about his opinion and wouldn’t be swayed easily.

The way I ended is the truth. From reading the way he has written, I am certain that he can, and most likely will refute everything I write. That isn’t a bad thing, I just felt the desire to write a bit about my feelings on the matter.

#14

Odd how only one half of most arguments always pulls the “but you don’t understand what I’m saying” bit. Mirror mirror on the wall…

#15

Hi,
I can quit understand you Christian, why you want more information about the game.
When you start a new game you’ll meet players who know something you don’t and you probably knows something they don’t, those are mayby not writen down on papers or at least can’t be found on the net.
As you mention in one of your letters you want to win with skill insted of better knowledge.
I know harly are trying every time a game are up to put similar players on both side so there will be fair figth, for exsample I’m playing in game 66 where we have 5 newbies on my side and I know FP have the same and in that game the newbies are asking lot of question and we vet. are trying to help them the best we can as we have already been there but still they don’t always listen to us as they want to try something and thats fine by me.
“It’s a bit parent’s trying to raise there child”.
My point is you learn somethink new in nearly every game you are playing from other players both your friend and enemies.
You’ll side will have one player at least with the same experince as Ed or close so in the end it all gomes down to skill from your side and your teammembers.

Cheers,
Ben

#16

If some of the people that play in the games are going to have this knowledge from their access to the code then I feel it should be released into the public domain. Genie is out of the bottle

#17

From what I have been told some people at one of the FTF events got access to the code to study the market manipulations. I also think the GM’s would have access to the code when they work on the computers, so it’s not like it’s something new thats only just occurring. Knowing the combat calculations isn’t going to help you because I feel there is still some sort of “randomising” factor involved. “A battle plan never survives the first contact with the enemy” in other words “**** happens!” :rolleyes:
I had a combat where as Rhudaur in a 12V12 grudge my army with a dragon fought a numerically smaller Arthadain force which should not have been capable of reducing my army to the point where it disbanded but still managed it. No arties used, no combat spell and from the description of the combat they wern’t well armed or armoured, even putting them is steel in the combat calculator I had and giving them 100 morale I still had 200 troops but my army had still been disbanded. When the question was put to the GM all we got back was, “put it down to the mysteries of combat.” You will never or rather should never now the outcome of a battle before it is fought, in fantasy as in real life, there are too many things that can, and do go wrong. :wink:

Regards Herman
Corsairs 33
Woodmen 64
Sinda 68

#18

Christian;

Absolutely not! This game is supposed to have an element of uncertainty in it. That is the way it was written. There is no reason to expect that your characters if they were real people would know exactly the outcome of every task they are about to attempt. Therefore you should also have to take calculated risks. Knowing the equations takes out the risk and makes this simply a game of number crunching. This is a game that simulates war. In war there is much uncertainty and risk taking even guessing. If that excitement was removed I for one would stop playing immediately and find some other avenue. I suspect that I am not alone.

#19

From what I have been told some people at one of the FTF events got access to the code to study the market manipulations. I also think the GM’s would have access to the code when they work on the computers, so it’s not like it’s something new thats only just occurring.

Note not one of our events. Where was it? The one before last FTF there was a big discussion on the Sunday about the Market and how some people thought that a certain team knew the algorythm but we’ve not given it out. As players I think our team has a decent appraisal of the market from play and chatting to other players but that’s as close as we’ve got - ie playing the game.

As for GMs access to the code - at present we don’t need to do this so we don’t even though we do have access via GSI (which we own). It would give us an unfair advantage playing the game. Should we ever look at the code then we’ll inform you guys before playing (as we do for games that we are playing in). Our programmer (non-GM) has access to the code and is converting it at present. It’s quite possible that we’ll have one of the GMs look at the code in the future (for specific information say an edit needs the information)- but we’ll inform you should that occur.

At present we have no plans to release the code (or equations that are not already available) in any format. The game was designed with certain concepts, that I broadly agree with. Some orders are automatic - so you know if they work, eg 215. Some will always work given the right situation (eg 408/710 - you have to be your own pc for this to work and there are some other constraints) and others are percentage rolls to work - that can be estimated in the course of play, eg 615, 525 etc. There’s almost always an alternative to going for a % play (using a Bridge term) to one that is guaranteed to work and that’s part of the skill (and beauty) of the game.

Clint (GM)

#20

I agree with Ed.
We don’t need to know everything about the actual equations used. There is enough info on the web that most newbies should be able to get a handle on the main mechanics of the game. If you have a question about your character’s actions or your teammate’s character actions, normally there is someone you can ask that probably knows the answer. And yes, I am one of the ‘old timers.’