@ChristiJunior @NEETzsche
Exactly why I don't play multiplayer outaide of friends only sessions. (with rare exceptions)
I want to explore the game, not just insta-loose, unless I spend 100 hours learning meta and copying first 20 minutes of each game with autistic precision.
I think chess is best comparison. If You offer to switch location of 2 figures, casual players will accept it, because the essence of the game is the same.
But when you offer it to a tryhard, they start raging, because it nullifies their 2000 hours on learning each combination.
@NEETzsche @ChristiJunior
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtgZKwK6C3U
The single best joke in futurama IMHO. And kinda relevant :D
There are alternate gamemodes people play nowadays, such as 3 checks and you're out, so I don't think it's that way, it's just that teleporting pieces is hardly even chess anymore, all the theory is down the drain
@MercurialBlack >there’s chess 960 where the whole thing is that the positions of the starting pieces arw randomized so you can’t rely on opening memorization. But yeah point still stands.
Um sweaty, the proper name of that is Fischerandom chess. 😏
@NEETzsche @ChristiJunior @MercurialBlack
I am starting to get a strange feeling that you like chess a lot more, then I expected when writing my original remark...
@LukeAlmighty Oh no, I’m not that into chess. It’s mostly memorization and that is something I’m severely lacking in. I did tinker with some chess engines, though, as part of game theory courses in university.
Chess is only memorisation in the first few moves, the strategy and tactics can be incredible, but that opening theory isn't interesting to learn, although losing the people I played with probably played a much larger role in losing interest
@LukeAlmighty There’s a distinction to be made between game complexity and game depth, and it can be related to how solved a game is. Game complexity is how many details you need to keep track of in order to play the game well. Game depth is how many viable paths to victory there are without them being such due to dumb luck.
Most people regard games being solved when you can know the objectively correct answer at any point; that’s a classic game theoretical conception of how solved a game is.
However, as people’s understanding of a game improves, they approach solution in this sense without actually arriving at it. See chess, for example. It isn’t solved but if you think people know nothing about how to play chess well, you’re an idiot. This idea of a partial solution is well-understood as the current meta in most games.
But a lot of games have these really complex systems where if you run the numbers there’s a single correct answer and it’s obvious once you do that. Those games are shallow, even if complex. That’s bad game design. The best game design has a low complexity and a high depth.
Case in point for good game design (low complexity, high depth): Go, Texas holdem, Magic Case in point for bad game design (high complexity, low depth): League of Legends, Hearts of Iron, Yu Gi Oh
tldr don’t conflate complexity for depth
@ChristiJunior