Game Complexity

Go down

Game Complexity

Post  Nearco on Thu May 12, 2011 6:59 pm

This is more a thread for the benefit of the next LGT, but it allows some introspection.

Early on in R2, there was a brief discussion of complexity in the games. I stated that, ideally, our goal is simple rules, but complex situations. (R2 was an attempt at complex rules, for more rules-savvy players) I believe that, while it may not have been consistent, we have, in general, met this goal. I'll go through the games and state my own opinions, and I would appreciate some feedback.

Preliminary Game - Caterpillar Game: The rules were confusing at first, but were simple enough once you got your head around them. However, there were no complex situations.

Round 1 - Doubt Game: The rules were once again simple. Due to the addition of contracts, the game also allowed complex situations. The sheep contract was one such example, but there was also the "If I was a wolf" contract, which we adopted in future games.

Revival Round 1 - Taxpayer Game: Once again, simple rules. Due to the removal of an easy-win-strategy, as well as a near-infinite number of possibilities each player could take, it also allowed complex situations.

Round 2 - Liar Chess: Complex rules. Complex interactions. This was where we decided to implement the "simple rules, complex interactions" ideology.

Revival Round 2 - Liar Dice and Pistol Duel. Success. The rules were simple, and the backroom dealing was the interactions.

Round 3 - Auctions. Failure. The rules were simple, but the interactions were minimal at best. This was due to few people trying for the ideal outcome: win and make lots of money, but it was an outcome that we should have predicted.

Revival round 3 - Planets. I believe this was a success, but I'm not sure on the interactions. From what I could tell, it went pretty well.

Round 4 - Neutral Game. Success. This game would have failed if there was an overwhelmingly large alliance, which thankfully was not the case.

Revival Round 4 - Preliminary game: Battleship. I'm undecided on the status of the rules here. The basic rules are simple, but I'm finding the corner-cases to be a more worrying aspect.

Revival Round 4 - XXXX. Not telling you this one yet. Very Happy

Round 5 - XXXX. Not telling you yet. Very Happy
avatar
Nearco
LGT Dealer

Liar Game Skill : Game Design Miracle Worker
Posts : 944
Join date : 2010-06-22
Age : 33
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game Complexity

Post  Masquerade on Thu May 12, 2011 8:52 pm

Doubt Game was interesting. For the larger groups, more wolves were needed. When I play Mafia, I follow the rule of 1/4th of the players are Mafia, and round up or down based on what special roles are in the game benefiting which side to create as balanced a game as possible. It was a good ice-breaker, get-to-know-you type of game, which got people talking and giving each other the stink eye.

Taxpayer Game was easily one of my favorites (despite my ragequit). It was simple, but the hurdles were very apparent. It was definitely one of the most thought-provoking and hair-pulling games provided.

Liar's Chess just had the problem of extreme leniency with time. Moves needed to be limited to 24 hours, and the board could've been less massive. The complex rules were very interesting and, though it was a lot to digest, it helped that the game of chess was central and therefore made the rules less difficult to wrap your head around. I suck at chess. But I liked the possibility of cross-team backstabbing alliances. It didn't happen in our game, but I can't speak for the others. It was very thought-provoking because managing resources was a challenge. I play board games with complex rules, so this was a welcome change of pace... if it weren't for the fact that pace took several months.

Liar's Dice and Pistol Duel was nice. I liked the metagame points aspect of the round moreso than the actual games, since they were so basic. I liked the suspense of being live and waiting for things to unfold, even though it was hard to get people's schedules on track. The games were good, just nothing to write home about: the challenge was really only in reacting to someone's choices quickly and making a good decision, rather than going in with a plan.

Auctions was... meh. From my standpoint, there were minimal background dealings...

I didn't get to play Planets, but my reaction to reading the rules was "Wow. That sucks for them..."

Neutral Game was actually incredibly fun and thought-provoking. For me, it ranks alongside Taxpayer game.

Battleship is, well, Battleship. That's already a classic. We'll find out how it ends up going. Smile


So, if I had to rank these games (from what I've played):

1. Taxpayer & Neutral... although Neutral was managed way better than Taxpayer.
2. Liar's Chess
3. Liar's Dice & Pistol Duel
4. Doubt Game
5. Auctions
avatar
Masquerade
Not a Player

Liar Game Skill : that certain je ne sais quoi
Posts : 160
Join date : 2010-06-23
Age : 30
Location : Miami, FL

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game Complexity

Post  Xanatos on Fri May 13, 2011 1:16 am

i think doubt game, with the proper dealing and time, could be one helluva xat game, real time ya know?

i hated the tax payer game, which says something about how good the game is, easily the game i liked playing the least.

liars chess doesnt need anymore said about it, we all know the obv rule improvements there.

Dice and pistol duel were well constructed well dealt, plus theres the future alternative to play dice differently with the elimination of dice in a longer version of the game (last man standing). the intensity, and im not kidding here but the quality dealing, all added to pistol duel as a BATTLE as opposed to mere game.

i agree with masq on auctions, i didnt do any backroom deals, i did have a strategy and it wasnt random! but then again i dont mind changing it up with a game like that and i enjoyed planning for auctions.

i didnt get to play plantets either but i think the rules were fair, its just bizarre how the game transpired. Those games where alliances have a factor, but dont necessarily equate to you winning are the best ones.

Neutral game was great fun, even though i got dumped early. if it was going to be included in a future tournament id suggest placing it closer to the start when there are more alliances of smaller groups, retrospectively i think tax payer game, when you;ve really gotten to know the other players and become friends with them, would be absolutely brutal later in the tournament.

battleships- eh, id have rathered to be randomly allocated a team and go from there but whatever. unless there are bulk abstainers this wont take long.

RR4- i think running multiple games at once amongst the playing group, while convenient, is ultimately running thin. I think to much attention was paid to time zones early on, and as a result u were consitently playing with and against the same names, battleships mixes it up this time round....but the better games are ones that involve the entire playing group (not counting liars dice and pistol duel which are different)

R5- awesome game, great way to finish the tournament. i was glad to see that alliances factored in zero here, just a pure game balancing luck, skill and psychology.
avatar
Xanatos
Final Round Player

Liar Game Skill : I'm good at Basketball :)
Posts : 644
Join date : 2010-06-22
Age : 26
Location : Western Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game Complexity

Post  Nearco on Fri May 13, 2011 1:39 am

Xanatos wrote:i think doubt game, with the proper dealing and time, could be one helluva xat game, real time ya know?

Something for the next LGT to consider :d.

Xanatos wrote:i hated the tax payer game, which says something about how good the game is, easily the game i liked playing the least.

What didn't you like? How could we have made the game better?

Xanatos wrote:liars chess doesnt need anymore said about it, we all know the obv rule improvements there.

Yeah... I think the better approach on that would be to not run it.

Xanatos wrote:Dice and pistol duel were well constructed well dealt, plus theres the future alternative to play dice differently with the elimination of dice in a longer version of the game (last man standing). the intensity, and im not kidding here but the quality dealing, all added to pistol duel as a BATTLE as opposed to mere game.

Thanks for the comments on quality dealing Very Happy I doubt LGT2 will be running the last man standing version of liar dice, since we already ran it, but the thought might interest them.

Xanatos wrote:i agree with masq on auctions, i didnt do any backroom deals, i did have a strategy and it wasnt random! but then again i dont mind changing it up with a game like that and i enjoyed planning for auctions.

I was expecting the game to go differently, to be honest. Nemesissy was the only one who clued on to the idea of making money and winning. I expected more people to try to do so.

Xanatos wrote:i didnt get to play plantets either but i think the rules were fair, its just bizarre how the game transpired. Those games where alliances have a factor, but dont necessarily equate to you winning are the best ones.

Went roughly as expected :d We suspected that there might be a winner, maybe even 2, but we also knew we would be offering multiple revival tickets. We wanted to put the money to good use before we cut off access to it for revival tickets.

Xanatos wrote:Neutral game was great fun, even though i got dumped early. if it was going to be included in a future tournament id suggest placing it closer to the start when there are more alliances of smaller groups, retrospectively i think tax payer game, when you;ve really gotten to know the other players and become friends with them, would be absolutely brutal later in the tournament.

Something we should have considered regarding position of games in the schedule. But yeah, other than that, it was a good round.

Xanatos wrote:battleships- eh, id have rathered to be randomly allocated a team and go from there but whatever. unless there are bulk abstainers this wont take long.

Why would you have preferred random? If we assume you have an alliance with 4 or more people, you want to divide them roughly equally, which probably won't happen if we randomly decided. If we assume you have a small alliance of 3 or less people, than randomization is swingier than ever. So, regardless of the base assumption, randomization is kinda bad.

Xanatos wrote:RR4- i think running multiple games at once amongst the playing group, while convenient, is ultimately running thin. I think to much attention was paid to time zones early on, and as a result u were consitently playing with and against the same names, battleships mixes it up this time round....but the better games are ones that involve the entire playing group (not counting liars dice and pistol duel which are different)

RR4 is lero's game, which is designed for a small group. I originally suggested making it one big game, but he didn't seem happy with the idea. So, instead we went with the "running multiple games" approach. I wasn't overly happy with it, but settled for "as long as, at this point, they have some control over who what happens."

Xanatos wrote:R5- awesome game, great way to finish the tournament. i was glad to see that alliances factored in zero here, just a pure game balancing luck, skill and psychology.

I can guarantee that all of that is, in some way, relevant.
avatar
Nearco
LGT Dealer

Liar Game Skill : Game Design Miracle Worker
Posts : 944
Join date : 2010-06-22
Age : 33
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game Complexity

Post  Xanatos on Fri May 13, 2011 1:52 am

What didn't you like? How could we have made the game better?

oh im a nice guy is all, like i said the game was fine, it just didnt please me to have such a direct influence on who is permanently eliminated from the tournament so early on.


Why would you have preferred random? If we assume you have an alliance with 4 or more people, you want to divide them roughly equally, which probably won't happen if we randomly decided. If we assume you have a small alliance of 3 or less people, than randomization is swingier than ever. So, regardless of the base assumption, randomization is kinda bad.

Just beacuse i enjoy not having control of who i play, its just a personal preference i guess to let fate decide.

thanx for the feedback on my feedback Wink
avatar
Xanatos
Final Round Player

Liar Game Skill : I'm good at Basketball :)
Posts : 644
Join date : 2010-06-22
Age : 26
Location : Western Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game Complexity

Post  Kie on Fri May 13, 2011 11:44 am

This looks like an interesting topic. I'll give some input too.

The Caterpillar Game
=================================================
The Caterpillar game could have been better. The yen transferring killed it, of course. The yen transferring wasn't so much the problem as how players were scored though. The potato aspect was completely ignored during the game. If that were what was scoring players, those with the most could have lost and people would have been inclined to actually... compete.

I would have made several rounds, similarly to how the Neutral Voting had. People with the highest potato count would be eliminated every round. At the start of the new round the potato count would be reset and the game would continue on, retaining the tournament match-up setup. When only two players remained, I would have their yen compared to determine the winner, counting only the yen that the players original made themselves.

By the way, I still really liked the route you guys originally took with the video explanation, etc. I thought it was kind of cool. I also liked the real-time aspect. Private chats were going all over the place during it. It was hectic behind the scenes, which is always fun.

Doubt Game

=================================================
I liked the idea of Doubt game, but it seemed a bit imbalanced to me. The wolf had a smaller chance of surviving as the sheep could kamikaze bomb through everyone until they found who the wolf was while the wolf was on a 24 hour timer. There was also the shepherd who made things even tougher with their extra life. At the same time, I think my group figured out who the wolf was only because it was a forum game (We narrowed it to 3 people based on forum activity around the start of the game and attacked them all.. Well, the last attack was 50/50 because I was killed by someone else immediately). Also, people were able to lose as soon as the game started. I think I prefer if players are involved until the very end. This as a game in a real-time chat room could be fun too though. However, I also didn't like the instant kill part. I want to have a chance to act before I am eliminated in games (Because I was allowed to vote in the Neutral Voting game, I didn't mind it there).

The Taxpayer Game
=================================================
The Taxpayer game was ok, I guess. It worked well with an alliance since so many people were going to survive. I would have preferred it if everyone in the game was still weary of trusting each other though, you know? I don't have much else to say about this.

Liar Chess
=================================================
I was only around for a few turns in Liar Chess, so I don't know much and I cannot see the outcomes because they are still hidden. It did go on for months though and required some prior knowledge of chess. Chess itself can already be a long game.

Liar's Dice / Pistol Duel
=================================================
I actually participated in Liar's Dice as a stand-in because an entire group of opponents was missing for a player. I had to play the game as it was though, since it had turned into a 1 vs. 1. I'm sure the behind the scenes aspect would have been great.

I didn't play Pistol Duel, but I watched a similar game when a group needed to decide on their king. I like pressure the game put on players.

That Auction Game

=================================================
"The rules were simple, but the interactions were minimal at best" is a good enough summary for me. A plus is that alliances couldn't rule the game outright, but this game was as if each player put a letter in a mailbox at different times of the day. No one else existed until the end.

That Planets Game
=================================================
Call me a masochist if you want, but I liked planets. The only part I dislike is this one: "We already preempted that no one would get through. As much as you guys think you stood a chance of 4 people getting through, we knew otherwise." The rest was fun... or maybe I just had too much fun writing stories for each of my moves. The game should have had some sort of way to win, even if it were only one player.

Neutral Voting
=================================================
Neutral voting was good enough in my opinion. There seemed to be two large groups controlling the game though. To make it more interesting, I would have replaced each player's name with letters, forcing the players to deduce who people were with their voting before attacking. You would have a list of players to choose from, including "Player A", "Player B", etc. You'd vote "Player A" with the results remaining in the original format, showing the names. Not even the players would know their own identities until they figured them out. That would be pretty neutral in an additional way too!
avatar
Kie
Not a Player

Liar Game Skill : N/A
Posts : 13
Join date : 2011-01-24
Age : 27
Location : USA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game Complexity

Post  Forli on Fri May 13, 2011 2:57 pm

Hey, everyone! This is a truly interesting thread, and I'd really like to post my thoughts here. Let's see...

Caterpillar game

I was still a player on those days. The video was certainly nice and it gave a pro look to the Dealers, but it was really hard to understand the rules to me, as I'm not a native english speaker. But with some subs, it would have been really nice. Still, maybe the video was not the best choice for a xat game, but it would have rocked for a board game.

About the game, it had really simple rules, adn it was easy to made a foolproof plan, even with the small time given to think. You simply needed to ask your partner to go max pot and share the prize. But hey, as you didn't have a lot of time to talk, it was some kind of a challenge and it was nice. I personally had fun there.

But yeah, the yen transactions killed it, as it became a popularity contest. Also, Adam.

Doubt Game

I think Doubt is a nice concept, with simple rules and theme, but it had three mayor screw ups.
First: We did it as a board game. It should have been a xat game, just like the original game.
Second: Groups were too large. Smaller groups would have definitely improved the outcome. Something about 8 players groups would have been nice, with 2 wolves.
Third: The money system was poorly designed. This was my fault, as I simply presented the game concept, with no money system. I improvised something while writting the rules, and it went wrong. Players would simply win money if the stood at the right team. This, combined with the fact that there were a lot of sheeps per wolves, made it obvious that the best strategy was to simply aim for the most likely wolves and Doubt them in an orderly fashion. If I had put some more thought into it, it would have been a really nice game.

At the time, I had currently played that game at msn, with groups of six to nine players. Only the player who caught the wolf got points. Or the wolf if he won, obviously.

Taxpayer game

I thought it was really nice, although maybe a little bit too math oriented for some players. The Collector voting gave the game a nice strategy touch and it was a good combo of a complex money system and simple interactions.

I myself had a lot of fun at the playtest. I tried to proof that the first Evader had a chance of winning and it came out nicely.

Nearco's best game in my opinion.

Liar Chess

Well, I think this was a really well thought complex game, but it didn't work out as a board game. Still, it ended up being A LOT worst than it could have, as players tended to take a week to answer and stuff. And active players felt frustrated by those who weren't, and became inactives themselves, so it was a horrible circle.
But still, I think it had the most high level rules in the Tournament, and perhaps it would have been an excellent game for the manga.

I personally enjoyed everyone learning how to play chess before the game and stuff. Having Xan and Glass coaching was really cool, I think. They did an awesome job.

Liar's dice & Pistol Duel

Having the players face each other in 1 vs 1 battles was a good idea by Lero (If I recall correctly), and perfectly timed in the Tournament. Liar Chess forced players to play as a team, and then the Revival Round made the whole team face each other. I think we scored there.

Alright, Liar's dice, Nearco's game. I didn't playtest this one, though I've always wanted to. It looked really nice to me before we actually played it in the Tournament, but I must admit I thought players wouldn't like it as much as we did. Luckily I was wrong.

Pistol Duel, Lero's game. This was the simpliest game in the whole Tournament. It was even simplier than the Caterpillar game. And still, it was really intense and fun. I sucked at it on the playtest, though. Nearco kicked my ass.
Pistol Duel was great because it was a simple concept known to all: A Western like duel. At that really gave the players the feeling they were actually in an all-out battle with their opponent.
In my opinion, Lero's best game so far.

Auction Game

At first, I found the rules really confusing (I didn't take part in the developing of this game, so I found out what was it about at the sime time players did). As I understood what was it all about, I had a lot of trouble following the game from the outside, so I gave up and simply waited to see who won.

So yeah, I can't really comment here.

Planets Game

I kinda liked it. Not the best game ever, but it was good enough. It was the first game were timing was as important that strategy, which was a good change. Still, I didn't like at all the fact that it was possible that no player won. I mean, yeah. Their fault for not playing it good, but still... the game should cover every possible aspect.

I didn't help develop this one neither by the way. I don't even know who's game is.

Neutral Game

We developed this game back then when I was still Dealing. I liked how it turned out to be, and I'm pleased that players liked it too. Neutral Game had one big issue, though: A big alliance could have screwed it up. It didn't happen, thanks God, but it could have.

As a matter of fact, when I ran a playtest of this game, it turned out just like that. Half of the players allied and made one player won, then splitted the profit. Yeah, dumb and boring strategy, I know, but they argued that the rules "suggested" it.
I needed to make a twist to the game so it could work regardless of what players decided to do. Basically, I used a closed voting system instead of an open one. Also, I allowed negative votes.
Overall, this meant that, for example, no player could get more than +5 or -5 votes. If someone plus-voted someone with +5 votes, he would end up having -5 votes, and viceversa.

I think that's it. Oh, and for the record, yes: I am actually watching every game.
See ya later, guys.
avatar
Forli
Ex-Dealer

Liar Game Skill : Chessboard thinking
Posts : 331
Join date : 2010-06-23
Age : 27
Location : Argentina

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game Complexity

Post  Cryselda on Fri May 13, 2011 3:39 pm

Yay Forli!!! We love youuuu! <3 =D

And other then the things that everyone else has already pointed out, I feel that that games were mostly alright if not good. I think the problem is mostly that there were alliances or that not everyone is very cold hearted. Seeing as almost all of us met here and socialised some of us werent as ready to just betray an ally if it would benefit us. I know quite a few instances where the game could have taken quite an interesting turn had we looked more for ways to benefit ourselves and not the whole group we were in. (Not as much of an issue for the newbies lol, but still.)

Aaand Im not all that great at strategy and such so Ill just go before I say something stupid. xD
avatar
Cryselda
Final Round Player

Liar Game Skill : ...
Posts : 594
Join date : 2010-06-25
Age : 26
Location : U.S.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game Complexity

Post  Xanatos on Fri May 13, 2011 4:21 pm

a mention from forli =D awesome ^^

i think as kie might have mentioned (its 5am...i aint re-reading SHIT!) a tournament based off points determining the victor keeps people on the site, and inactives simply fall behind rather than taking up numbers. still i think this style of tournament is more impressive to win.

also congratulations to Forli, Nearco and Lero for developing and dealing such great games.

also the video explanation (at midnightish for me) was the coolest thing ever with the xat going nuts, brilliant atmosphere.
avatar
Xanatos
Final Round Player

Liar Game Skill : I'm good at Basketball :)
Posts : 644
Join date : 2010-06-22
Age : 26
Location : Western Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game Complexity

Post  Leronira on Fri May 13, 2011 4:32 pm

Really, you guys thought that the video was a good idea? The only reason I didn't continue it was because I thought that the reaction to it was rather negative... but I guess I could throw together another video or whatever for the final round. Or next tournament.

Also, thanks for posting again, Forli-kun. Very Happy
avatar
Leronira
LGT Dealer

Liar Game Skill : Simple Explainations
Posts : 463
Join date : 2010-06-13
Age : 25
Location : Liar Game Office

View user profile http://liar-game.forum-motion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Game Complexity

Post  Nearco on Fri May 13, 2011 7:51 pm

OK... Lots of replies... This is what I get for doing that whole sleep thing.

Caterpillar: Yen transactions killed it, yeah. And then there was the whole Solario as a player thing.

Apparently videos are hightech things that we should see about making for the remaining rounds. Got it.

Doubt game: Forli covered most of the stuff here.

Taxpayer game: Kie, didn't 2 people leave because they didn't trust the other players? I am happy with how that game turned out.

Chess: The length killed it more than anything else, but the inactivity was also a major problem. I'd have a fair few changes to make to it if I wanted to repeat it: Making the King position a committee would be high on my agenda. And possibly replacing chess with something less time-consuming. Liar Checkers, anyone?

Auctions was my failed idea.

Planets was initially gonna be a team game that would have winners and everything. But then, due to a bunch of events that I tried to be prepared for but Lero didn't let me, we had to change things. So, you got what you saw, and, well... yeah...

Neutral game: As Kie said, it was too large groups fighting it out. There was a bit more to it, and if you chat me up on msn, I'll fill you in, but yeah.
avatar
Nearco
LGT Dealer

Liar Game Skill : Game Design Miracle Worker
Posts : 944
Join date : 2010-06-22
Age : 33
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game Complexity

Post  Dysania on Fri May 20, 2011 9:54 pm

Okay, I figured I'd step up to the mark now and throw my best input in, for the benefit of the greater good. Accio tl;dr:

Caterpillar game was, I suspect, better off as a ice-breaker. We were all in small groups, and the best thing we could do was test our strength but also broker token deals with each other. Mine was the last group to go (following 2 rounds of yen transfers, these were prohibited in the last one)- and though i had a brilliant plan (involving the cunning deployment of potatoes), it never came to fruition cos the girl I was coupled with proved to be a bit of an idiot.

I couldn't get the vid to load back then, but the idea was badass.

Doubt game, i dunno. I think it wasn't big enough. The snakes sat up and paid attention, yet.... There were snags and imbalances, but whatever. The thing is supposed to be a bit top-heavy, and for what it was, I think the different groups played it in different ways, which considering the Caterpillar fiasco, was chuffing amazing.

I playtested Taxpayer, and got hung out to dry. Par for the course, eh? Regardless, I loved it. It had the balance between individual play and overall groupthink, and enough second-guessing to keep it interesting, without having to resort endlessly to guesswork, or dressing it up to the nines with fancy add-ons. Which was positive.

Liar Chess. Well, this is a contentious one. I think the bigger issue here was not that it was so protracted, but that the best thing to do was for my whole team to give their maximum coinage to a select individual, who was then responsible for thewhole game. This was optimal tactically, but then it descends into Regular Chess problem where the others on the team have diddly squat to do until it ended. Ironically, I think it led to all sorts of unexpected meta-battles when the game was passé that were not expected: logic fell away to psychological warfare. If the game has nearly run its course, why not push to grab what you can, whilst you can?

Liar's Dice was amusing, because it involved random numbers behaving in counter-intuitive ways. The dealers thought the generator was borked, but getting seven or eight 6s over twenty dice was totally natural, if a little weird. I disliked how my MSN tripped me up, but it was fast-paced and claustrophobic. The dropouts/inactives/no-shows made things fucking awkward too: those that did make the effort in my group gave it their all.

Pistol Duel... the thing that bothered me with this was the foreknowledge that people had played this game in xat a billion times over in the past.... and I wasn't one of them. I felt really kinda disadvantaged, not gonna lie.... yet it also reinforced the All-To-Play-For psyche. I really remember the to-ing and fro-ing of discussion behind the scenes, how people were tallying up the numbers and watching the fixtures and scores... it honestly felt like a horse race, and that's not an easy atmosphere to generate.

Dutch Auction. I loved the concept, but as people have already mentioned... there was scarcely any talking going on. I distinctly trying to message a few people just to get some dialogue going; I strongly recall the likes of Xan and Aki being all "...eh? There's nothing to discuss though, lol", and though I didnt really get it at that moment, they were totes right- people just had to take a punt. Oh yeah, and Furby screaming at me in PM to "stop being so goddamn retarded" and accept he was going to win this alone. He didn't. Lulz. The most (only?) interesting thing that I recall looking back was Masq's Wacky Shop... which i'm glad he dreamt up, because at least there was SOMETHING to react to. There's so many ways you can react to nothing, but planting an idea in a person's head is a good way to at least send a jolt of electricity buzzing through the group. People did what they willed, but it was heightened a bit. Perhaps. It could have been higher still.

Planets. I saw that and winced. Eight planets meant eight chances to win money, but the resources were few and the balancing game was gonna be cut-throat. People tried, but it was tough. Was it an attempt at getting many revival tickets? Who knows. I wouldn't dream of accusing the LGT of anything so scandalous. Gotta keep an open mind about all of this Wink But there was no disputing it was a death match, and all those in that contest didn't know how many revival tickets were on offer... so I'm glad I'm one of the 7 who survived to be honest; I dont think i could have hacked the tension!!

Neutral Voting. Was deceptively intense, as a player. It was one of those games I didn't like much when I saw it, but it turned out to be pretty smart. Also liked the All Or Nothing mentality it instilled in everyone's brain: win this game at all costs. It sorta reminded me of one of those booby traps where the walls/ceiling slowly draw in on you... which I believe was the intention: don't drag your knuckles on the ground, stand upright and push for that slot... and I think everybody did. And even those who thought their game was up early had a chance to shine through the gaya effect.

Battleships - Eh, it was okay. I remember this being discussed in the Suggestion Thread wayback, but kinda being poo-pooed.... so i like how it made a cameo in a really disguised way: there was no money to play for, but it afforded you come control over the group configuration. Xan stated he wanted to leave it to chance, though I suspect it ultimately comes down to personal preference.

Chun - I'm not going to pass judgment on this just yet. I think the end result of only a trio of winners is forbidding, though not totally unforewarned. There was a big hint in the previous revival round, after all. The pressure is now on to perform, and the final message is in place: you can't rely on other people to hold your hand for you any more. You've got to make the big plays yourself.

So yes, I like how the game has gone from being volatile and open-ended to concise and almost surgical. There's been games for everybody, and not everybody has the same strengths. The tourney went beyond just being about numbers, or about logic, or about swapping votes and yen. We've gone from different seedings, to everybody being in one group... and the group having atmosphere and history, but not enough to completely suppress anybody who wants to try and kick out. It's had its own sliver of an essence which, on the whole, has largely been present. And I hope the coming round continues the upward trend in the way it deserves to.
avatar
Dysania
Final Round Player

Liar Game Skill : I can put my entire fist in my mouth! =D
Posts : 226
Join date : 2010-06-26
Age : 32
Location : Scotland

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game Complexity

Post  Lespar on Mon May 30, 2011 8:08 am

Hey guys here's my thoughts.

While the success of the games is open to opinion i think the area where there was the largest room for improvement was the management of inactives. There were many methods attempted:
1- punishment via a fine
2- changing of the rules mid game to accomodate
3- real time games
4- some sort of activity test before the game (i think).

The second option was the source of a lot of conflict while the first didn't really do anything except punish players who forgot to go online for a few days (or went on holiday). The third option limited the possibilities in the games and also required a lot of scheduling and rescheduling for only a few contestants.
From what i read, the fourth option worked the best, but that may have been because it was implemented when most of the remaining players were quite active.

The method of dealing with these inactives is up to LGT2 but it's definitely worth putting a lot of thought into how they're going to do it.



I'd also like to know why you decided to place fines on contracts. When I was playing the games the contracts were a source of infinite possibilities but they were always too expensive to be worthwhile.


Quick thoughts on the game:
- Liar chess and taxpayer seemed to benefit a large alliance too much for backstabbing to be worthwhile.
- As other have pointed out, Doubt was kind of imbalanced.
- I'm not sure if much happened behind the scenes in Auction but it seemed like a lot of people just sort of took a stab at it and hoped it worked out.
- Planets was sort of similar to the auction.
- My opinion of all the minigames (dice, shooting, numbered tiles) was that luck was too large a factor although i didn't participate in any of them.

Lespar
Not a Player

Liar Game Skill : free cookies
Posts : 136
Join date : 2010-07-13
Age : 24
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game Complexity

Post  Nearco on Mon May 30, 2011 6:50 pm

Inactivity was a pain to deal with, and I hope that LGTv2 is better at dealing with it than we are.

Fines on contracts was a requirement simply because otherwise, we'd be swamped by contracts. I did try to push for free contract usage for most games, but Leronira never liked it. Also, it was one of two ways to make the money you got from previous games relevant, the other being revival tickets.

The difficulty in making a game that encourages interaction but doesn't give a "largest alliance wins" problem is insane. Taxpayer was my best shot, although Pistol Duel, Liar Dice and Chun achieved the goal pretty well by splitting things down into teams of 4/2. Taxpayer's playtest actually had an alliance that backstabbed, oddly enough.

I have commented on this before, but now Chun has been added to it. In each case, the games were won by things other than luck. I'm not certain about every game of Pistol Duel, but there were a fair few games where the players agreed to the results beforehand. Furthermore, there was at least one game won because Player A knew before the game what Player B would do, due to observations made on Player B's personality. Round 1 win. Liar Dice was full of backroom dealings, since we gave them a week to prepare. Chun ended up having some alliance vs alliance involved, as much as this made Leronira unhappy. While doubt was inbalanced against the wolves, the people who won there did not suicide bomb hoping to win. In each case, they were highly certain of the wolf's identity.

Dysania told me not to respond to his post until something had happened, but I see no reason to respond to it. I have read the whole thing, but I've addressed most of it to him either in person or in one of my previous posts.
avatar
Nearco
LGT Dealer

Liar Game Skill : Game Design Miracle Worker
Posts : 944
Join date : 2010-06-22
Age : 33
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game Complexity

Post  Dysania on Mon May 30, 2011 7:07 pm

Nearco wrote:Dysania told me not to respond to his post until something had happened, but I see no reason to respond to it. I have read the whole thing, but I've addressed most of it to him either in person or in one of my previous posts.

Oh yeah, i forgot i said that. That was for completely different in-game reasons, rather than direct commentary about commentary. XD



now Chun's over..... well, to me, I wasn't certain about it at the beginning. It seemed very much a gambling game to begin with.... by which I mean a game that opened up with a shitload of luck. But that was not the be-all and end-all of it.... because the first half of Chun game essentially set the pace for the second half, which reminded me a little of a game of bridge. You're trying to fulfil a certain amount of tricks/stop your opponent from taking a certain amount of tricks. It wasn't quite as logical as bridge, naturally: it's Liar Game, but the tiles left in your hand essentially determined what you could/couldn't do, and what you should/shouldn't expect in the endgame. And note how every Table's game came down to the final few rounds? Even Table C, which was determined on the turn of Rd8 essentially- didnt actually come to pass until Rd10. Also, every table's game was tight. That was neat.

What I didn't like, though, was that there was always gonna be inevitable second-guessing of opponents. It's not to my tastes personally. And though there's some degree of manipulation you can do by talking with them, if they don't wanna share what they're doing, they're not gonna share what they're doing. Again, inevitable. But the tourney's not meant to be catering to our likes, per se, plus the game was hardcore dramatic, so full credit to the designers. =)


Also, @Lespar: agreed inactivity issues were a bitch that needed to die in a bear trap. To give credit to the dealers, though, it's an easy thing to overlook, especially when much of their energy in the early weeks/months were more directed at Adam-swatting.
avatar
Dysania
Final Round Player

Liar Game Skill : I can put my entire fist in my mouth! =D
Posts : 226
Join date : 2010-06-26
Age : 32
Location : Scotland

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game Complexity

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum