Skip to Content
 

Resolution system - determinism vs. randomized

18 replies [Last post]
Tue, 03/27/2018 - 23:32
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011

Okay so I have a combat system which uses "probabilities" in determining who is the winner of a wave of attacks. What happens is that each "city/lair" has a certain amount of "Guards" (light-side) and "Monsters" (Shadow-side) which are White Wooden Cubes and Black Wooden Cubes respectively.

The White and Black Cubes go into a Grey pouch (and with Champions and Underlings the Attacks and Defense values get compared to see what modifiers are added to the pouch). All that works great and (not perfect but...) does the job nicely of adding probabilities to the equation.

In a three (3) wave attack, three (3) cubes are RANDOMLY chosen from the pouch. The winner is the one with the best 2 out of 3 (White or Black). Again all this works and is good.

Now where I need some help... How to "resolve" combat(?!)

What I mean is say 2 White vs. 1 Black cubes were drawn, the victor is WHITE. Now I need to find a system about how to resolve this successful attack (assuming White was Attacking Black).

The problem revolves around "determinism" and "randomization".

And it's very deep... Because with the "randomized" system, I'd roll a custom d6 and then that would indicate the "resource" which is LOST/removed from the Black Player's Tableau of resources on one specific card. (Note: which card to remove the rolled "resource" is yet ANOTHER problem... Who chooses???)

In the "deterministic" version, either player chooses to remove that one "resource". But it seems dumb and here's why:

  • If the Winner of the attack chooses, he will MOST of the time choose to defeat the opponent's WEAKEST "resource" and cause the most damage to the opposing player's Game Engine.

  • If the Loser of the attack choose, he will do the OPPOSITE most of the time and choose the LEAST effective "resource" which will minimize the amount of damage to his own Game Engine.

So I'm a bit STUCK with the "randomization" being random and relying on good or bad luck (so to speak) or "determinism" which either way seems in a way pointless... either the most amount of damage or the least.

Does anyone have any other ideas that I could explore? I mean perhaps there is a middle ground and I just don't see how to implement it.

Feel free to ask questions if you feel that I have not explained sufficiently the nature of the issue.

Again Questions/Feedback/Comments are all welcome...

Top
Wed, 03/28/2018 - 05:42
#1
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
It might be simple

How about letting the victim select 1 (or more) resources that are not to be touched. Then let the winner select from the remaining choices.

Top
Wed, 03/28/2018 - 07:55
#2
let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Random

I don't see an explanation as to why you dislike the random system. To me, the way you describe it seems just as fair as any other system, it provides legitimate risk to both factions involved (which increases the significance of combat encounters), and seems quicker than player choice methods.

What's of most value to you in your combat system (as the designer, that is)? Will allowing player choice in damaged resources add to this?

Failing that, I have a suggestion. If you use a deterministic system, then you could have players "ante up" the resource they elect to have depleted if they lose. Then draw cubes from the pouch to sort out the result. Again, this cuts down on time and adds risk and loss to combat encounters. It also likely doesn't force the winner of the combat to choose a less-exciting result, since the choice is made already.

You could also default to reduce the loser's most-plentiful resource, whatever that means in your game.

Top
Wed, 03/28/2018 - 10:51
#3
Fri
Offline
Joined: 09/06/2017
Resources on the board

You could come up with a way to get the resources on the board and then if your forces occupy a spot (via movement or battle) get those resources. Two ways that I see to do this is either have locations produce (like Agricola) or workers on a location produce (like Scythe). If you went with the locations produce strategy maybe production decreases after a battle occurs on that location.

I want to note that this idea comes directly from Scythe and give credit to Jamey Stegmaier.

Just a thought fell free to disregard, use, or improve upon.

Top
Wed, 03/28/2018 - 12:56
#4
Jay103
Jay103's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
Or..

If you win 2-1, the loser gets to choose the resource. If you win 3-0, the winner gets to choose the resource.

Top
Wed, 03/28/2018 - 13:34
#5
Fri
Offline
Joined: 09/06/2017
Ransom for champions and underlings.

Suppose that the champions and underlings have a ransom value. Then when they are defeated in combat the defeated player can/must pay a ransom to get them back.

Top
Wed, 03/28/2018 - 15:36
#6
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Hmm...

X3M wrote:
How about letting the victim select 1 (or more) resources that are not to be touched. Then let the winner select from the remaining choices.

Then the player will ALWAYS choose his MOST VALUABLE resources. How the resources work is "relatively" simple:

  • There are 3 Basic resources: Yellow (Riches), Blue (Fame) and Red (Influence)

  • Then there are 3 Advanced cards: Orange (Nobles), Purple (Champions) and Green (Boons)

The "Nobles" are most valuable (in terms of the Engine) and "Champions" are the most valuable (in terms of Combat). So a player would probably select these two (2) to "protect" and make combat relatively unimportant.

Example #1: How you make "Orange" = "Yellow" + "Red" (and sometimes an additional Yellow or Red). So those cards use the basic resources to "enhance" the cards in play (Your Tableau).

Pre-selecting doesn't really help either: both players will choose their most common resource and therefore combat will have the least impact. It may speed up the game – but it does nothing to solve the problem.

In this game, I didn't want "dice". Because I was trying to make it more competitive... So I was looking for a more "deterministic" option...

However in the "Randomized" path, I came up with the idea of custom 2d6s. Each dice has 3 colors (Yellow, Blue and Red) and then White/Black, Player Chooses and Opponent Chooses. That's six (6) options. When the dice are rolled, just as before the "colors" MIX, choices get picked and White/Black trumps.

Example #2: If Player #1 rolls "Yellow" and Player #2 Rolls "Blue" therefore "Yellow" + "Blue" = GREEN. The losing player would need to choose to discard a "Green" resource.

But I'm not really happy with that solution because it's too "Random".

@Jay103 idea is somewhat interesting in that it is still deterministic. But explores the attacks efficiency. 2-1 weaker victory than 3-0 stronger victory. The weaker victory allows the losing player the option to choose and the stronger victory allows the winning player to decide.

It's pretty simple, deterministic and variable too... I'll have to consider this solution more carefully.

Anyone else have ideas/comments to add to this discussion???

Many thanks for your responses... I will continue to ponder on the various solutions available to me. And see what the end-result of that process is...

Top
Wed, 03/28/2018 - 16:17
#7
Fri
Offline
Joined: 09/06/2017
Pay resource according to cards on top of pile.

You could have a deck where each color is represented by 5 cards. Players would draw these cards and place them face up into a number of piles ( 2, 3, or whatever is appropriate). After a battle the losing player pays the colors that are currently on top of the piles. Maybe the number of piles can increase as the game does on to help bring the game to a conclusion. I am not sure what would trigger players to draw and place a new card or cards.

Top
Thu, 03/29/2018 - 00:00
#8
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I agree this could be an option

let-off studios wrote:
Failing that, I have a suggestion. If you use a deterministic system, then you could have players "ante up" the resource they elect to have depleted if they lose.

Hmm... Yes an "ante" could be something that might occur. And my feelings on this is whatever the Attacker declares as ante, the opponent must do the same, either on the same level OR higher.

Because everything is tied to the engine... All things can be computed.

So say the Attacker "antes up" a Green token from one of his green cards. Green = Yellow (1) + Blue (2) = 3 pts. This means that the opponent MUST ante up a minimum of 3 pts. The combinations may vary like 3x Yellow (1) = 3 pts. for example. It doesn't have to be the SAME type of resources, only the same total point amount.

Purple is worth 5 pts = Blue (2) + Red (3). It is the priciest "resource" on the table and it signifies "Champions/Creatures".

As a bit of a variation, you could target a 6 point (Black or White) cube which are the "Guards/Monsters". They vary from city/lair and can cost less in many instances. But for the sake of COMBAT, I would make them a 6 point "resource" and the opponent must poney up 6 pts.

@Let-Off thanks for suggesting this idea. I really like it because of the fact that it's all about "choices". Making good/bad decisions is an intrinsic part of the Engine... Same goes for combat resolution. I wanted something that could flexible enough that allowed players to compete on the SAME level, but the rewards be different (depending on each player...)

Thank you very much, this to me seems like the most logical solution.

Cheers!

Top
Thu, 03/29/2018 - 00:12
#9
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
As a quick note...

I wanted to add, this sort of "Ante" mechanic could allow HIGHER stakes of "gambling" (Well in theory)...

The question is HOW HIGH can an "ante" go UP???

If the TOP-MOST resource is 6 points, maybe 10 points might be the maximum that a player could engage his opponent.

Since the odds vary each time a cube is REMOVED ... it kind of balances the whole random selection process. What I mean is if there are 6 White Cubes vs. only 4 Black Cubes, and a White Cube is drawn as the First Victor... The odds DROP to now 5 White vs. 4 Black... Making it closer and more difficult to win the battle very EASILY.

I will think about the "gambling" aspect ... because it sort of intrigues me. I like the idea of being able to take greater risks for higher rewards. This to me sound like great decision making and you do it with probabilities that get harder to control (as seen in the example above).

Definitely onto something "interesting"! It attracts me much like "Poker bluffing". Taking risks might make for more interesting table chatter in which players "talk around the table during a match-up"...

Cheers!

Top
Thu, 03/29/2018 - 08:23
#10
Jay103
Jay103's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
I still like mine :) However,

I still like mine :)

However, if you want to add a new element to the game for gambling, I can’t really argue :)

Top
Thu, 03/29/2018 - 13:06
#11
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
It was a good idea too!

Jay103 wrote:
I still like mine :)

I think your idea was really good too... But I kinda wanted "higher stakes"... And some way to wager and manage the risk.

Jay103 wrote:
However, if you want to add a new element to the game for gambling, I can’t really argue :)

It has nothing to do with the quality of your suggestion. It was first on my list until I re-read all of the threads and began addressing each one. And the "Ante up" drew me because it allows players to make tough decisions and sometime take HIGH risks.

How high – IDK yet. This will be determined during playtests. Right now I am just working on getting the "mechanics" to work together and bring everything to a cohesive unit.

Update: I like the idea about "ALL-IN" and some valiant act to risk it all for Victory! And of course you could LOSE even IF the odds are in your favor. It really adds like a "Poker" element to the game and that impresses me.

I could definitely picture some "high stakes risk takers" during tournament play. Of course this is just fictitious and the odds are not great that I reach the level of "tournament play". But we can all probably picture what I mean! LOL

Top
Thu, 03/29/2018 - 14:04
#12
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
How high is high enough???

questccg wrote:
The question is HOW HIGH can an "ante" go UP???

If the TOP-MOST resource is 6 points, maybe 10 points might be the maximum that a player could engage his opponent.

Since we were talking about the "Ante up" and I was quoting points here and there... I think a simple formula should be:

  • From one (1) to three (3) cubes. Total the points and that's the Ante.

  • Which means that the opponent needs to counter with one (1) to three (3) cubes depending on the nature of the original wager.

Again it all relies on the point value of the cubes wagered. I think this sounds to me very realistic and not too far-fetched either. And I might add a "restriction":

  • You cannot use "Guards/Monsters" on the offensive, only on the defensive. This makes the 6 point cubes (White & Black) more valuable but only when responding to an attack not initiating one.

Again this sounds reasonable and makes common sense. But playtesting will reveal if this is really an accurate assessment... TBD!

Top
Thu, 03/29/2018 - 14:11
#13
Jay103
Jay103's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
Just for clarity, I was being

Just for clarity, I was being serious.. not offended in any way. The "ante" suggestion added a new element, and if you think that's a good addition to the game, you should absolutely go with it.

I think I said in my bio here somewhere that I'll almost always go for the simplest mechanic I can design. Not everyone needs to do that :)

Some notes on the concept of "ante" vs. "bet", based on how poker works:

An ante is a mandatory wager. A general bet is one made by your choice. So the mechanic you're talking about might look something like this:

Both players put up 5 points worth of resources (or an amount based on something concrete, but not a player choice).

The attacker then makes an additional wager of N points worth of stuff.

The defender can either concede the battle (and lose the ante), call (by matching the attacker's wager), or raise (by matching and adding more, at least as much as the wager itself, so you could raise 5 to 10 but not to 6).

If raised, the attacker now faces the same choices and it goes back and forth until a call or a fold/concede.

On a call, resolve the battle with the bag of tokens.

The total wager is capped at whatever the players have, EXCEPT that a player who can't meet the ante automatically loses the battle (and whatever resources he has)

Top
Thu, 03/29/2018 - 14:59
#14
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
To clarify...

Jay103 wrote:
Some notes on the concept of "ante" vs. "bet", based on how poker works:

An ante is a mandatory wager. A general bet is one made by your choice.

Yeah I think the idea is to have the "Attacking" party decide on the size of the wager (from 1 to 3 cubes). And then the "Defending" party can decide based on a point total what they want to risk in the encounter (think battle).

I don't want to go through the whole process of "Poker" which is as you stated an "ante" followed-up by a sequence of "wagers".

The "ante" in this case is what the "Attacker" is willing to RISK during his attack. And the response is what the "Defender" is willing to equal (or go higher) in terms of the counter wager...

So it's not like in Poker, it's a bit simplified to introduce determinism and add some excitement in the "risk" category.

Top
Thu, 03/29/2018 - 15:25
#15
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Strategic Depth

Jay103 wrote:
...I think I said in my bio here somewhere that I'll almost always go for the simplest mechanic I can design. Not everyone needs to do that :)...

The "Ante solution" (for lack of a better term) just ADDs a layer of "decision-making"... If anywhere in this WIP I can introduce MORE Strategy or strategic depth, the for the most part that's what I'll tend towards.

Because ultimately MY goal is to give players the feeling that they have "choice" and "meaning-full" decision making from how to build their Engine, and obviously how to use it during combat (and of course at resolution).

It's not just the point of simplest solution is the right one. In my boat, I look for solutions that will "enhance" the experience. And one constraint was that I was looking for a "deterministic" solution.

While it's true that 2-1 the opponent chooses and 3-0 the player chooses may be simple... It doesn't quite capture the element of "risk". It's a bit "luck-prone" even though it is also based on probability too.

Whereas the "Ante solution" gives players a chance to look at their cards and then the opponents and figure out how to best defeat the opponent and do "reasonable" damage. In all other situations the choice is one of the two extremes: most damage, least damage. In the "Ante solution" a player RISKS some "resources" given the odds he feels he will be victorious.

So it's a "middle-ground" solution... How far are you willing to go? How much do you feel comfortable risking in trying to be victorious???

Top
Thu, 03/29/2018 - 15:42
#16
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Another aspect

One thing that I think I was trying to "focus" on is "risk-taking" betting like 3 Purple Cubes = 15 points and you are risking your "Champion's" life. And this is rather risky... but you could "storm the lair" and defeat the "Monsters" guarding it and ... be gloriously victorious!!! An EPIC battle of Legendary proportions! LOL

Anyways I'm sure you understand what I mean

Top
Thu, 03/29/2018 - 16:29
#17
Jay103
Jay103's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
So what happens if the

So what happens if the defender isn't willing to take the risk?

Here's the version without any raising:

Ante is mandatory, aka "what the defender loses if he concedes", and then the wager is on top of that. If the defender agrees, then the stakes are "ante + wager" on both sides. If the defender concedes, defender loses "ante".

Top
Thu, 03/29/2018 - 20:46
#18
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Here is an example to better understand

Jay103 wrote:
So what happens if the defender isn't willing to take the risk?

Let me try to explain it "as if a real battle was to occur"...

So the first thing that happens is the "Attacker" declares what "Champions" and "Boons" he is going to use to raid the lair. "Champions" are Purple and worth Blue (+2) and Red (+3) = 5 points. The a "Boon" or two are Green and worth Yellow (+1) and Blue (+2) = 3 points (let's assume 2 for this example) = 6 points.

In Total the "Attacker" is using 11 points to make his attack.

(For this example, let us assume a lair is about to be conquered)

The Defender has no "Creatures" available to play, and therefore has no "Treasures" he can use to boost his defense. He must rely on his last remaining "Monster" Black (+6) + "Infamy" Blue (+2) + "Servitude" Red (+3) = 11 points (some remaining resources).

"Monsters" have default stat of 5 Defense. The Attacker's "Champion" has +4 Attack and is using +2 Attack (Boons). for a total of +6 Attack.

+6 -5 = +1 (White Cube) gets added to the gray pouch. In addition each City/Lair adds their respective cubes (White or Black).

So say White = +3 Guards and Black = +1 Monster.

The result would mean 4 (White) vs. 1 (Black)... Because it is impossible for the Shadow side to win (4 vs. 1), the lair is therefore CONQUERED!

It might seem a little "complicated" but as you play, the mechanic will become smoother with each battle. It's harder to explain than actually do (when playing). I know this because in my head the resolution happens much faster than having to explain each step in detail...

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut