Games on auto pilot

just a Q,

how would label Chess?

auto pilot or not. And if so why or why not please :)

(me is a Chess person)

um I'm not sure

We're kinda drifting off topic slightly but yeah I have to also disagree with the perception of strategy not really being a factor, I play MTG fairly regularly with my family and friends in a big 10 person slugfest every week or so, and deck changes and even just a few cards can effect the entire games and everyone in it and their playing style, and the luck of the draw and the WAY you play a deck (one game you might be cautious and focus on defense, the next you might play crazy reckless and wipe out 2 or 3 players in the first 10 turns) is THE impact on any of the games we play.

I play the same self-built custom deck (from just about every expansion) I've played for almost 5 years now, mostly black specializing in global enchantments and universal damage - I have a short attention span for MTG so my deck is built to screw everyone, including myself, and deal massive amounts of damage to everyone, including myself, and destroy a select few creatures, but includes just enough replenishment, disenchantments, life gain and direct damage to keep me in the game, if I'm not focused on, so I can continue to shorten the game. This strategy and my mood (and how much the other players want me out) has different effects each game, and surprisingly, I've WON far more games than I ever dreamed, even though I built the deck SPECIFICALLY as a spoiler to just pummel ALL players and cause plans to go awry. Sometimes though I just get bad land or useful card draws and die in the first few turns.

In fact, the LACK of "autopilot" in MTG is part of why I don't really like playing it as much as other games - it requires constant multi-directional attention, at least for the way we play it - I haven't played a one-on-one game of MTG in probably 7 years.

I think the highest auto-pilot game I have seen so far is "Pay Day" where the only thing you can chose is if you buy or not an "offer".

On my point of view MTG is not an auto pilot. There is always a breach to exploit, or a strategy to use. Still, it happen sometime that you have some mana shortage, or the opponent has stronger monsters than you.

Making each card has 2 use increase strategy. Forexample, in "duel master" you can either keep a card to play it or sacrifice it to use it as mana for the rest of the game. Sometime you are not sure if you use it for more mana or keep it to cast it later. So it allows you to think a lot.

Finaly, the number of deterministic and randome element in your game can influence this. You must keep the correct balance. Look at the "Deterministic VS random" thread for more information (in fact a lot of info)

I don't think your game will be an auto pilot one, but here are some suggestions.

1- Make different battle ground for strategic oppening. For example, land units, air units, sea units. This mean that you can get stronger in a field and weaker in another.

2- Give your cards special abilities. It's a bit like dual usage. For example a unit could be used to attack, but it could also be used for something else. It's like tapping abilities in magic.

3-Another idea that i used for another game: In my game, each turn you accumulated N+1 token where N is the number of token accumulated last turn. So the more turn you wait the more token you have. You start at 1 token and than 2 and 3, etc.

When you decide to use these tokens, reinforment arrives. You echange all your tokens for units. So the strategy is that if you ask for reinforcement too much time, you won't get many help each time, if you wait for a long period of time, you will get more reinforcement.

So the strategy is: do I use it now or do I wait later. The example above might not suit exactly to your game, but It is just to give you some idea.

I haven't played any CCGs, so I'm not familiar with this problem as it pertains to CCGs specifically, but some options for making decisions more difficult might include:

--Restricting the number/type/location of plays per turn.

--Making the outcome of plays somewhat uncertain, possibly by simultaneous play

--Allow for cards to combine as "combo attacks" or "resource sets", so that holding back a card hoping for a matching card that makes it more powerful may be viable.

--Give cards a different cost structure, so that choosing a "wimpy attack" is cheaper than "mega attack", but also may be desirable in certain situations.

--Somewhat connected to the former, introduce attrition effects so that the obvious strategy isn't always to store up for the mega-attack.

--Introduce mini-incentives for successful attacks, so that landing a "wimpy attack", while doing less damage, gives you some other (small) reward.

Without knowing more specifics, it's hard to make more specific and useful suggestions, but perhaps these might be helpful. Some may be things you're already doing.

Are you actually having a problem with tactics in your game being too obvious, or is this just something you're worried about based on past experience with CCGs? If it's the latter, I'd probably hold off on trying to solve this problem until you're sure that your game has it. It may very well not.

Good luck,
-Jeff

Am I missing something?

Seo

That is a good explaination zaiga.

You can balance the relationships (there are mathematical equations, which I wont go into here - unless asked :wink: ) with an odd number, however if you use an even number one or more of the options will be dominated (not worth using) and one or more may be dominators (only worth using).

Needless to sy it would not be worth your time and effort (and money) to develop dominated options.

I am reminded of Rock Paper Scissors Spock Lizard:
http://www.samkass.com/theories/RPSSL.html

And of Rock Paper Scissors Spock Lizard Match Phoenix:
http://www.mithrandir.com/RockPaperScissors/RockPaperScissors.html

5 and 7 parts, respectively.

-- Matthew

Not exactly. I am reading a book called "Game Architecture and Design" (it is mainly about computer games but it's section on game balance is usefull here), published by Coriolis.

In theis section is has an example why an even number of option wont work:

There are 4 units. Archer, Socrcerers, Barbarians and Warriors

Archers beat Warriors, tie with Scorcerers and are beaten by Barbarians
Warriors beat Barbarians and Scorcerers and are beaten by Archers
Barbarians beat Archers and are beaten by Scorcerers and Warriors
Scorcerers beat Barbarians, tie with Archers and is beaten by Warriors

Without going into the math too much:

The net payoff must be 0 (as it is a zero sum game). If a win is considered a 1, a tie is 0 and a loss is -1 and we add all the values for each unit together we must get 0.
As an equation A+W+B+S=0 (uppercase for the payoffs)

Now the total frequency of using the units is 1 (we have to select one).
As an equation a+w+b+s=1 (lowercase for the probabilities)

It gives a range of solutions for the probabilities:
Archer:Warrior:Barbarian:Scorcerer 1/2:0:0:1/2 and 1/3:1/31:1/3:0.

These state that the Archer will always be used (so it is not a choice to use it) because there is no strategy that colud afford to leave it out. Also if I play and equal number of Archers and Scorcerers then you can't win by fielding barbarrians and warriors (you might tie though). This make 2 units unnessesary (and therefore wasted development and money).

There are ways that this system could be made to work, but only if certain units had abilities outside of the combat (and thus no included in the combat balanceing), or a more uncertainty to combat (hidden infomation only available to that unit - ie the scorcerer might weaker but be able to cast spells that make it stronger for a while, but that would need it's own balanceing).

Archers beat Warriors, tie with Sorcerers, lose to Barbarians
Warriors beat Sorcerers, tie with Barbarians, lose to Archers
Sorcerers beat Barbarians, tie with Archers, lose to Warriors
Barbarians beat Archers, tie with Warriors, lose to Sorcerers
In this situation no one could win the game, as one player can always force a stalemate. This stalemate would only be short lived as the end result would be that small fluctuations in the position of either player would be masively amlified, this would make luck the deciding factor in the game and any strategy becomes almost usless (this also ties in with the runnaway leader situation and the role of randomness in games).

The combat table does not have to be even if an odd number of options/units/etc.

Take for example a system that I am working on (for a computer game):

Fire Elementals beat Air Elementals and Earth Elementals but are beaten by Astrals.
Air Elementals beat Water Elementals and Earth Elementals but are beaten by Astrals.
Water Elementals beat Fire Elementals and Earth Elementals but are beaten by Astrals.
Earth Elementals beat Astrals but are beaten by Fire, Air and Water Elementals.
Astrals beat Fire, Air and Water Elementals but are beaten by Earth Elementals.

This combat table at first seems very imbalanced. It would appear at first glance that Earth elementals are not much use (as everything but Astrals beat them).

However if I initially played just Fire, Air and Water Elementals then all you would have to do to beat me is play Astrals. The only thing I can do is to then play Earth Elementals. This shows that the earth elementals are an nessesary part of any optimum strategy and therefore worth the development time and are a valid choice in the game (it would be worth useing them).

If you want to avoid any "best chioce" situation (which isn't a real choice at all) then you must create a situation where there is no best choice (obviously :roll: ).

If you were to include a unit just for "flavour" (eg The Elvish Knight has the same statistics as the Human Light Cavalry, but is only available to Elves) then you can get away with even numbers.

So this two pairs of unit types would not lead to a more diverse army, but to a less diverse army (unless extremely careful balanceing takes place).

This might be causing some confusion:

To requoate:

I see your point about it bening less flawed as your example would be easier to balance than the one from the book.

Luck may not just be a roll of the dice, it come in as the choices that a player and their opponent makes as well as board layout, curent position of playing pieces, etc (you get the picture).

The loosing player must rely on chance (bad moves made by the leading player while making good moves themselves) to end their loosing streak, and even then they would have to be seriously bad moves made, especialy towards the middle or late game. The game would essentualy decided from the early game and the rest is there to achive the victory conditions.

Without knowing the exact details (as this is just theoretical) then the losing player may only achieve victory in a very limited number of situations (many of which are completely out of there control as they rely on the bad choices of their opponent rather than their good choices). This would make the game seem more of an autopilot of game as the scope of useful choices are eliminated.

Attibuted to Sid Meier (of the Sim City fame):

Using a Scissor-Paper-Rock type of system, that balance is part of the system, and to break it (it is possable) is harder to do.

As a designer I would rather spend my time thinking up interesting units than repeatedly testing a mechanic that may break in some untested situation.

As a player I would rather my skill and stratigic choices determine wether I would win or loose (I know that with equally skilled player then chance would ceretainly come into it).

(Having said that, I've got a game that uses exactly this "four suit cycle" because it was the simplest way to implement the idea. It doesn't play (quite) on auto-pilot since the players have hands of cards so they do choose which one to play, but it can feel pretty close at times. This turns out not to be a problem with this particular game, in which it's the very "deterministic" nature of the theme that makes it work...)