I do not agree, Ignacy. It is not the amount of choices that reduces the leader problem in your game. You can have a game with just two choices at any time, and if they are made the way it is very hard to guess which one is better, the people will argue anyway. And vice versa, you have lots of choices, but some are sure better and some worse. They have to be, otherwise you made pointless game (if choosing any way leads to the same result). In optimal case, there is some "peak" similar to gaussian curve, and the leader (experienced player that wants the players to beat the game) still have to ensure players choose one of the choices in the peak, and prevent them doing the choices from the tails.In fact, it is mostly the randomness that may reduce (not kill) the leader problem in the game. Because of three reasons:* First, it is a bit harder to do the math. Not that it is impossible, or that the optimal solution does not exists, and not that randomness is the only way how to achieve it, but it is easiest way from the development point of view, and it fits the theme anyway, so why not.* Secondly, it is harder for the leader to prove he was right. Even if he was right, objectively. The randomness causes that sometimes a better move ends worse, or a bad decision has the best consequences. That does not mean it was not a bad decision, it is just more difficult for the player that understands it to prove it to a player that doesn't. This reduces the leader problem mostly for highly competitive groups (and from your posts, it seems your groups probably incline there), as "proving the point" is important for them. There are also trully cooperative groups where the leader may be accepted without needing to prove, just because people know he plays the game better. But even here, although the players know it was just bad luck, it is a bit bitter to see that risk that was the statistically best failed, and thus leader can incline to promote the best choice a bit less.* And the third point, important mostly for those "cultivated" cooperative groups is, that it is easier for the leader to accept worse decision. I mean - for the groups where the leader uses his knowledge of the game just to the extent to ensure that everyone has fun. If there are two actions, and one grants you 5 wood and the other 6 wood for the same cost, then the leader suffers if players choose the worse one. If there is an action that gives you 10% chance to get 10 wood and an action that gives you 20% chance to get 6 wood (and if you do not need wood badly right now), the second one is statistically better the same way as in the example above, but it is much easier to "say okay, why not, try it" if a player wants to choose the worse one. Of course, there are some limits - if a player wants to go for an action where he has 1% to gain 20 wood instead, the leader would probably warn that player it is not very wise.
Oh, luego he visto que llegó Vlaada y le contestó esto:CitarI do not agree, Ignacy. It is not the amount of choices that reduces the leader problem in your game. You can have a game with just two choices at any time, and if they are made the way it is very hard to guess which one is better, the people will argue anyway. And vice versa, you have lots of choices, but some are sure better and some worse. They have to be, otherwise you made pointless game (if choosing any way leads to the same result). In optimal case, there is some "peak" similar to gaussian curve, and the leader (experienced player that wants the players to beat the game) still have to ensure players choose one of the choices in the peak, and prevent them doing the choices from the tails.In fact, it is mostly the randomness that may reduce (not kill) the leader problem in the game. Because of three reasons:* First, it is a bit harder to do the math. Not that it is impossible, or that the optimal solution does not exists, and not that randomness is the only way how to achieve it, but it is easiest way from the development point of view, and it fits the theme anyway, so why not.* Secondly, it is harder for the leader to prove he was right. Even if he was right, objectively. The randomness causes that sometimes a better move ends worse, or a bad decision has the best consequences. That does not mean it was not a bad decision, it is just more difficult for the player that understands it to prove it to a player that doesn't. This reduces the leader problem mostly for highly competitive groups (and from your posts, it seems your groups probably incline there), as "proving the point" is important for them. There are also trully cooperative groups where the leader may be accepted without needing to prove, just because people know he plays the game better. But even here, although the players know it was just bad luck, it is a bit bitter to see that risk that was the statistically best failed, and thus leader can incline to promote the best choice a bit less.* And the third point, important mostly for those "cultivated" cooperative groups is, that it is easier for the leader to accept worse decision. I mean - for the groups where the leader uses his knowledge of the game just to the extent to ensure that everyone has fun. If there are two actions, and one grants you 5 wood and the other 6 wood for the same cost, then the leader suffers if players choose the worse one. If there is an action that gives you 10% chance to get 10 wood and an action that gives you 20% chance to get 6 wood (and if you do not need wood badly right now), the second one is statistically better the same way as in the example above, but it is much easier to "say okay, why not, try it" if a player wants to choose the worse one. Of course, there are some limits - if a player wants to go for an action where he has 1% to gain 20 wood instead, the leader would probably warn that player it is not very wise.Así que ya sabéis, Vlaada dice que Ignazy está equivocado. Palabra de Dios... te alabamos señor.
Y a mí que tanto el mensaje de Ignacy como el de Vlaada me parecen simplemente un intercambio de ideas en el que cada uno argumenta su punto de vista de una forma más que correcta...No sé, no veo por ningún lado (y nunca lo he visto en las veces que he leído a Ignacy) una falta de modestia, sino simplemente un punto de vista hacia el que decide orientar su juego.
Cita de: Lochi en 31 de Julio de 2015, 11:49:28 Y a mí que tanto el mensaje de Ignacy como el de Vlaada me parecen simplemente un intercambio de ideas en el que cada uno argumenta su punto de vista de una forma más que correcta...No sé, no veo por ningún lado (y nunca lo he visto en las veces que he leído a Ignacy) una falta de modestia, sino simplemente un punto de vista hacia el que decide orientar su juego.Opino igual, de hecho me parece un tipo bastante normal, humilde y cercano. Prueba de ello, en mi opinión, es la cantidad de diseñadores que colaboran con él en sus libros. Más que un Jose Mourinho me parece un Tito Vilanova o un Vicente del Bosque. Por poner en contexto, Ignacy y Vlaada son amigos.
Cita de: Borja en 31 de Julio de 2015, 11:53:59 Cita de: Lochi en 31 de Julio de 2015, 11:49:28 Y a mí que tanto el mensaje de Ignacy como el de Vlaada me parecen simplemente un intercambio de ideas en el que cada uno argumenta su punto de vista de una forma más que correcta...No sé, no veo por ningún lado (y nunca lo he visto en las veces que he leído a Ignacy) una falta de modestia, sino simplemente un punto de vista hacia el que decide orientar su juego.Opino igual, de hecho me parece un tipo bastante normal, humilde y cercano. Prueba de ello, en mi opinión, es la cantidad de diseñadores que colaboran con él en sus libros. Más que un Jose Mourinho me parece un Tito Vilanova o un Vicente del Bosque. Por poner en contexto, Ignacy y Vlaada son amigos.Sí claro, ya me imagino yo a del Bosque con un vídeoblog y un hashtag #AskDelBosque...lo mismito. Es el tío con más selfies de todo twitter y que habla más de si mismo que nadie pero es mega humilde.Sobre lo de Vlaada, yo no digo que se lleven mal, simplemente que le contesta y, en mi opinión, le deja a la altura del betún.PD: Ha habido un par de personas que me contaron que le conocieron en persona y que era bastante capullo pero eso también puede ser debido al estrés de Essen
Bueno, vosotros opináis que es modesto. Yo opino que tiene un ego que no cabe en tooooda la BGG. Ahí están sus sus tweets, vblogs, blogs, podcast y mensajes en los foros para que cada uno saque sus propias conclusiones.
¿En serio que en la época de las redes sociales tener un videoblog y usar twitter con el hashtag que te ha salido del nardo crear es considerado falta de humildad? :S :S
Autor
Tema: (Leído 50992 veces)
Inicio
Foro
Ezine
Ingresar
Registrarse
Webchat
Ayuda