Game Design

That's for every game. Game theory is a thing.

if you dont have friends and play with the faggots at the hobbystore sure.

or if your "friends" are the only odd faggots who will hang with you sure


tldr; only if you and your friends are fun hating powergamers

>>43953832
You mean only turn based games because other games involve an element of physical ability. Also, are you sure you're using "game theory" correctly?

Is there an optimal set of strategies for chess or go? How about Warhammer, or Civilization?

The point is that most games, even if there are theoretically optimal strategies, are far too complex for them ever to arise in real play. I even doubt that for Connect 4, a solved game, there is a human player who can play it perfectly.

And what about purely random games, like Snakes and Ladders? Though I guess that you could argue that the single strategy is by definition optimal.

From a game theoretic perspective, the answer is no, though I can't think of a simple example off the top of my head. But there are specific conditions a game must meet in order for there to be an optimal strategy. A game with scoring determined by a fractal has no optimal strategy, for example.

On the other hand, if you allow players to have what are called mixed strategies (that is, they choose randomly from among their set of optimal pure strategies), and if the game is finite, and the scoring obeys some mathematical rules that most games do, and the number of players is finite, then there will always be an optimal case.

>>43953976
Physical ability still requires memorizing strategies and weighing possibilities. This is why people practice and study opposing team in sports.

Game theory applies to mean of reaching an optimal end. It's going to be relevant in any conflict.

>>43954094
Totally intrigued by what you said about fractal scoring. How does that work, and how does it prevent optimal strategies?

>>43954094
I've been trying to grasp what exactly it means to be "skilled" in games like Chess and Go.

I could always take the easy route and attribute it to the mysterious force known as "gamesense".

>>43954329

New anon to the thread, and I've got a FIDE rating that hovers around 2000ish, so while I'm no match for a titled player, I'm considerably stronger than a casual.

Skill in chess is primarily a mixture of calculative ability (how many moves ahead can I work out with precision in most situations?) + "instinct" (coming up with the best or at least a good move when you either cannot calculate the position or are too pressed for time to do so).

You supplement said "core strength" with memorization of certain common positions, usually common openings and endgames, especially pawn and pawn and rook endgames.

>>43953789
Yes.

If this is a general game design/theory thread, I've got a question that's been stumping me.

For a campaign skirmish game like Mordheim or Frostgrave, what would be ideal way to prevent snowballing, aka when a player keeps winning matches and gets more rewards to buy better gear and dudes which leads to winning more matches.....

I've been tossing around a list of some solutions to this and I'd be interested to see what /tg/ thinks of them.

>All characters level the same. Mission rewards just go to winning the overall campaign.
>A wargame like unit cost cap.
>Scenarios become tilted against the winning player, like neutral bandits would attack the winning player than others or the winning player deploys in a worse location.
>Losing players can offer the winner a chance to handicap themselves in exchange for more rewards or victory points if they still win.
>Forced warband retirement after hitting a treasure or exp cap.
>Allow/encourage players to permanently voltron into a single player while keeping gold and treasure levels relatively even.

Thoughts?