Evolution vs. Intelligent GAME Design

[Hash]

Excuse the title but it struck me that the use of polls, player opinion and and playtesting is pretty much design by evolution (what works, what doesn't - try random mutation, is that better? Incorporated or discarded according to reaction of playtesters, polls of current players, reaction to game in marketplace etc.)

Inspired by the results of one of the many Polls that grace this thread from time to time, I've thought it would be interesting to discuss whether Polls are actually *that* useful in game design and whether any game that relies on that method for game development is doomed to extinction...

I would argue that polls on these forums are not the fairest of tests because, in addition to a limited sample of opinions on the forums (albeit far larger than any playtest group and at less risk of being dominated by a certain viewpoint), the opinions of *current* ACTA players isn't necessarily the best way to base game.

After all people who post here are likely to *already* like the game enough to want to play it regularly despite perhaps disliking some aspects of the game. The fact that the majority want to modify (hence V2) is generally reflective of wargamers in general...what was the last wargame you played that you didn't want to tweak and tinker with the rules at least a little?

My arguement is that if you continually revise a game edition based on the current population (game design by evolution and fan opinion) you will, imo, inevitably alienate some of those game fans by changing rules they like (and failing to change rules they didn't) and create and ever dwindling player population (or at least the player population playing the "latest" version of the game.) Furthermore, players leacing the game are likely to tell every gamer they meet who are interested that it's not very good (unless they're trying to sell their fleet to them )

That of course assumes you don't attract NEW players of course - hopefully as a result of the changes you have made...so the gamble with game revision is that you don't alienate too much of the existing fan base (no support for certain races ring a bell?) and, at the same time, add sufficiently new concepts, model, marketing and rules to appeal to a wider audience to encourage NEW players into the system.

Polls of the current ACTA playgroup are ill-suited to doing this because mainly they like the game already and just want to tweak it to their own preferences...what do you think? Do you agree that polls on these forums are of very limited value? What is a potential solution to encourage new players other than better marketing and word of mouth good words?

 

[cordas]

Nice bit of summation of polls there. Although I think you missed the point, polls just give people something to rant about 8) and occasionaly a spark might fly off that MGP find usefull enough to include in the game.

Whilst MGP is one of the more forward gaming companies in regards to taking in players input, I am sure they cherry pick the best and whilst they read it all ignore most of it.

 

[H]

You think to much man!

 

[Reaverman]

Very insightful Hash


BTW I saw a MGP demo game being played at Salute, Centauri (2 Vorchans, 1 Primus, and 2 Centurians) Vs Narn (1 G'quan, 1 Katoc, 1 Dag'Kar and Sho'Kos). Talk about inbalance :shock:

Later that day, I was in a BSG Demo. When one of the demonstrators, said how he played the MGP demo game, and how he was struck on buying a Centauri fleet. Becuase of its superior prowess against the Narn, and his resounding victory :shock:

 

[CZuschlag]

Hash,

I would recommend to you the excellent books, The Wisdom of Crowds, by James Surowiecki. The core conept is this: the opinons of a statistically large group of people, after you subtract standard background noise, are smarter than an elite few, no matter how clever. Particularly insightful examples are cited in geology and tectontic theory. It's stunning how much more the mass knows than any individual knows, and it IS accessible.

The other book is Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell. It's a book that takes on the rationales about why our first gut instict is usually right so often. He calls it "thin-slicing", but our application here is that smart people are far more perceptive with short snap judgment than with lengthy analysis; even if they cannot precisely tell you why something is.

Both of these books are applicable to the polls. They ask readers to make short, snap judgments and use statistical information (which could even go the extent of measuring background noise) that provide staggeringly powerful information on game balance that no game designed on earth can match.

Evulotionary design is the evolution. It's even the future. Consider the current reigning most powerful political predictor in the world, the Iowa Electronic Markets:

http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/markets/

which uses precisely the opinions of the average Joe -- backed by their money, so they can't try to distort the market itself -- to predict presidential elections. It has been frightfully accurate over the years, even down to predicting popular vote totals. Also, just a plan cool link.

All of us are wiser that one of us. And our gut feeling are all powerful indicators of wisdom. Experts out there (like me, I'm an IT professional) may cherish the idea that our specialization leads us to futher insights that the average person, but the mass of opinions' acuracy puts us in our place.

 

[Hash]

CZuschlag, many thanks - I will check out those books they sound like great reading.

I wouldn't want to extend my arguement to say that ALL polls are of limited value (indeed much of my day job relies on the interpretation of polls and surveys) or dispute the "wisdom of crowds" so to speak - but rather specifically, the reliance on a number of people familar with and who already biased in favour of enjoying the current game make for the best people to revise it.

Personally, I would be *greatly* in favour, for example - for ACTA V2 to be completely open to scrutiny to the wargames community, printed and circulated to game shops in leaflet form and discussed and debated amongst the entire active player forum but Mongoose have already indicated that large playtest groups are something they have tried in the past and found not to be as effective as they would wish it to be.

I must also admit that a mass "free" publication doesn't make the best commercial sense either!

 

[Right Hand of God]

having googled the wisdom of crowds, I found this

"The wisdom of crowds you say? As Surowiecki explains, yes, but only under the right conditions. In order for a crowd to be smart, he says it needs to satisfy four conditions:

1. Diversity. A group with many different points of view will make better decisions than one where everyone knows the same information. Think multi-disciplinary teams building Web sites...programmers, designers, biz dev, QA folks, end users, and copywriters all contributing to the process, each has a unique view of what the final product should be. Contrast that with, say, the President of the US and his Cabinet.

2. Independence. "People's opinions are not determined by those around them." AKA, avoiding the circular mill problem.

3. Decentralization. "Power does not fully reside in one central location, and many of the important decisions are made by individuals based on their own local and specific knowledge rather than by an omniscient or farseeing planner." The open source software development process is an example of effect decentralization in action.

4. Aggregation. You need some way of determining the group's answer from the individual responses of its members. The evils of design by committee are due in part to the lack of correct aggregation of information. A better way to harness a group for the purpose of designing something would be for the group's opinion to be aggregated by an individual who is skilled at incorporating differing viewpoints into a single shared vision and for everyone in the group to be aware of that process (good managers do this). Aggregation seems to be the most tricky of the four conditions to satisfy because there are so many different ways to aggregate opinion, not all of which are right for a given situation.

Satisfy those four conditions and you've hopefully cancelled out some of the error involved in all decision making:"

I would argue that this forum does not meet the criteria set out in 1 and 2 and that MGP has in the past pandered to those who scream loudest, look at how the rules for fighters have swung one way and then the other over since the original rules, as such I would respectfully submit that MGP does not meet the 4th criteria.

As for the 3rd, Matt is our centralised omniscient farseeing planner, so I guess we don't meet that one either.

If we don't as a group, meet any of the 4 criteria laid down then I don't think the Wisdom of Crowds is a valid arguement in this instance.

 

[Right Hand of God]

having googled the wisdom of crowds, I found this

"The wisdom of crowds you say? As Surowiecki explains, yes, but only under the right conditions. In order for a crowd to be smart, he says it needs to satisfy four conditions:

1. Diversity. A group with many different points of view will make better decisions than one where everyone knows the same information. Think multi-disciplinary teams building Web sites...programmers, designers, biz dev, QA folks, end users, and copywriters all contributing to the process, each has a unique view of what the final product should be. Contrast that with, say, the President of the US and his Cabinet.

2. Independence. "People's opinions are not determined by those around them." AKA, avoiding the circular mill problem.

3. Decentralization. "Power does not fully reside in one central location, and many of the important decisions are made by individuals based on their own local and specific knowledge rather than by an omniscient or farseeing planner." The open source software development process is an example of effect decentralization in action.

4. Aggregation. You need some way of determining the group's answer from the individual responses of its members. The evils of design by committee are due in part to the lack of correct aggregation of information. A better way to harness a group for the purpose of designing something would be for the group's opinion to be aggregated by an individual who is skilled at incorporating differing viewpoints into a single shared vision and for everyone in the group to be aware of that process (good managers do this). Aggregation seems to be the most tricky of the four conditions to satisfy because there are so many different ways to aggregate opinion, not all of which are right for a given situation.

Satisfy those four conditions and you've hopefully cancelled out some of the error involved in all decision making:"

I would argue that this forum does not meet the criteria set out in 1 and 2 and that MGP has in the past pandered to those who scream loudest, look at how the rules for fighters have swung one way and then the other over since the original rules, as such I would respectfully submit that MGP does not meet the 4th criteria.

As for the 3rd, Matt is our centralised omniscient farseeing planner, so I guess we don't meet that one either.

If we don't as a group, meet any of the 4 criteria laid down then I don't think the Wisdom of Crowds is a valid arguement in this instance.

 

[Ripple]

Probably drifting out of my depth here but...

Having people who are familiar with a design suggest improvements is an important step. We know what hasn't worked in the past, we've tried a few other things, and most of us have played other games and can see what might work here. Someone unfamiliar with the game ends up doing the reinvent the wheel routine.

Second is that polls let folks who don't want to post extensively put up their opinion with being attacked for it. In some cases anonymous voting helps get a better view of what folk really think. Of course you are also subject to someone tanking you poll that way...but still, if you can watch for the spikes you should get a good overall feel of what you online players feel.

Ripple

 

[Apachex]

I think the biggest problem with responding to this forum is that you are responding to the vocal minority. The people who post here the most are people with well developed notions of how things should be. It is also more "fan-boy" than typical player oriented.

As the MGP BTB have stated in the past, they make more EA ships because they sell the best. Everytime a new EA ship gets posted the boards scream with rage over the amount of attention given to "The home team." So does MGP respond to the vocal fan base or their sales base?

I stopped posting here for the most part because there is nothing new going on. I look at maybe 1 in 10 threads now if they interest me. When I do look at the threads I notice it is the same few people everytime. This forum is dominated by a handful of prodigous posters, and perhaps a score or more infrequent posters. If decisions on the game are made by this group, then it is little better than a large unverified playtest group.

 

[Burger]

As one of the "vocal minority" I have to say, that no ideas or suggestions I have ever made, have got into the rules (as far as I know) :lol:

I've asked some really awkward questions, many of which would hardly ever come up in actual play (example), and even had a few of them put onto the official FAQ... which is achievement anough for me... I like to close loopholes before they are used against me

As for the bigger picture, I think that we do have quite a variety and good cross-section of the player base on these forums... as you can tell from the frequent conflicts! But, we are like the Minbari... when we are all in agreement (see Armageddon Sagittarius, S&P Troligan etc) it is a sure sign that something is wrong.

 

[Locutus9956]

Well the only thing that I've specifically winged about thats been listened too really is the Warlock going back to War (it is apparently in 2nd Ed (though I was by no means the only person to raise this point ).

The only other real winges I can recall going into the rules are big things that eveyrone commented on like the Arm/Tourney Saggitarius, the weak SFoS Vorlons and Shadows and the 3+ dodge whitestar (personally I didnt actually find the SFoS whitestar that bad, sure it was good but never really struck me as being any nastier than alot of other raid level ships)

 

[lastbesthope]

I ran a successful campaign to get more White Stars in the ISA fleet box, originally it was to be 8, I campaigned for 9, tried for 10 in one side comment, and we got 10 in the box.

Power of harassment knows no bounds :lol:

LBH