|
Wow great conversation and I enjoyed a referenced sequay to the mudlab.org piece.
A few key points I'd throw out.
No one mentioned Backgammon. While computers are now better than humans I bring it up more not for AI issues but as an example of ditributions of skill and wins. I iw as plying someone via computer who had a script running and was substituting the scripts moves, well the might be "cheating" but at least I'd have the joy of playing a game as best I could against a computer and depending on my "luck" (of dice) I could still win.
My skill would be competintg against a bot but the distibution of wins wouldn't be zero sum like chess... so still interesting but not really fair for the oponent to have "bragging rights".
Put skill differences, attribute and poseesion differences and you influence sot of "how lucky the dice were. In desgining the algoriths you can dampen or highten the luck. Luck in a single game of backgammon is pretty pronounced but dampened if loking for a winner with a first to 6 win s.
But really CronOs nailed it I think, we get down to issues of "how fast you type" vs "how good of a coder" you are...BUT.
Even in "real time" games there is balance and equilibrium recovery which in many senses makes the combat "turn based" albeit with overlapping turns.
If the waiting periods were doubled for all actions so that moderate typers could do just as well as the fastest typers would that make fighitng more deterministic that equally super fast fighters against each other?
I think the adrenalin rush is the dopamine boost from the unknown. And while some people want the most frantic paces others gain more adrenalin rush from a slight delay between anticipation and results.
I think, that " rush " of skill comes from your reactions and choices versus the opponent not really on how the oponent came to his moves.
Its only the ego, the bragging rights that are biased. and issues of "fairness" in regard to the stategic issues of what they get for winning. In the mind of the creator of the game its sort of arbitrary whether to favour eye hand coordination of the subscriber or the ostensible eye hand control of the character.
A deaf mud player should be able to play a character that hears well, shouldn't a slow reactioned player be able to play an extrondiarly dexterious player and have the players skills used optomally? Or should it?
It is about fun and while I want a generally real time game with awareness and quick witted responses part of the game but I'd be happier with fighting being a bit more backgammon like with maybe 10 seonds to move or lose your turn , wher it doesn't take long to think of a pretty good move but not like chess where a hasty move will often completely undo you.
How quick? How many options? while I'm a slow typer I do ok at ping-pong which is quick, and tricky, even though my eye hand coordination isn't all that good.
Within a real time fight system the nuances can be massaged by easy but less than optimum defences responces and slowing things so that those with average reflexes could play their characters to fuller potential.
|