(OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?

[PvK]

When playing a strategy game such as this one, do you prefer to know exactly what the rules, values, and formulas are that determine what happens during play?

Some players prefer to know what the formulas are, often so they can strategize against the game mechanics, and figure out the exact odds of success of failure in certain cases.

Some other players prefer not to know the exact formulas, for various reasons such as so that the mystery and illusion of reality Last longer, and/or so that players can't game the system and skill requires learning from experience how well different things work.

I'm also curious how many players prefer simple formulas to complex formulas for game mechanics. Do you prefer the movement system to be something like Movement = speed, or would you prefer something more like Movement = Inertia + Force(Friction)/(Vehicle.Mass + Crew.Mass + Cargo.Mass + Fuel.Mass) * Behavior(Driver.Skill, Driver.Caution, Traffic.Laws, Traffic.Density) * Terrain Modifiers * Weather Modifiers?

Similarly, some players may prefer to see actual data values for their units, equipment, terrain, and so on, so they can compare and choose the best of a type. Other players may prefer to be given vague and/or inaccurate estimates or descriptions, so there is uncertainty about how things will actually perform.

I'm posting this poll in each of several game forums, to try to get a feel for the opinions of the fans of different game types. If you like, you could take the poll in other games' forums. If you do, please answer what you would prefer for a game like the forum's game (which might or might not affect different people's answers. Someone might like simple game mechanics for one genre, but complex mechanics for another genre.)

PvK

[Cainehill]

I prefer not to have a clue - takes me back to the joyful old days, when I didn't have the faintest idea of whether a heavy crossbow or a wardog was any good, but I have the most vivid memory of opening fire on a hydra in my first ever game of AD&D, back in 80 or so.

Heh. Actually, I prefer to have a good idea of what things are supposed to do though. I mean - I read all the books cover to cover back then, and would lay awake at nights thinking of unconventional ways to use spells or items. Hard to do that if you don't have a good idea of what they're supposed to do. If things had had as ... vague a text description in RPGs as some things do in Dominions, it would have been difficult to rules lawyer my way to success and gory, er, glory.

Then again, in a computer game it's okay to have things a little less cut and dried, as long as you can still determine the deal via a reasonable amount of experimentation. This isn't always true of Dominions 2, in part because of the way the battles are resolved / shown.

[Crash]

For a game like this, I like some amount of vaguary or randomness thrown into things. It helps preserve the 'flavor' IMO and makes the game a little less like chess.

However, if stuff is too vague, it is hard to figure out what is broken balance wise and what isn't... so I can see the merits to something more concrete.

How's that for a preference

-Crash.

[Cainehill]

Crash said:
However, if stuff is too vague, it is hard to figure out what is broken balance wise and what isn't... so I can see the merits to something more concrete.

Exactly - without some decent amount of concrete information, it's also hard to say what's broken, period. The bugs / glitches in items and spells - for instance, the burning pearl granting full fire immunity when it shouldn't, wouldn't necessarily have been spotted without some level of concrete description.

[deccan]

PvK started a similar poll in the SEIV forums and there's been a bit more discussion there, so you might want to check it out.
(OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?

Poll results are fairly similar though, as I'd expect them to be.

[Skolem]

PvK
could you please explain what you understand by complex, there could be formula that albeit long, are easy to understand because they make sense?

[Zen]

Hrm. I'm the type of guy who prefers to have the common information concrete and availiable that doesn't give outrageous advantage to the studied, while the mechanics obscured.

Example: I like to know that my mage can cast Orb Lightning 8 times based on the rules of fatigue before he tuckers out.

I don't like to know that a siege is (str)*.45/Defense (x3.2 Mindless) etc.

I would prefer to have accurate generalities and steer clear of pure formulaic or the *Feeling* of needing to know the existing or unknown formulaic (as some feel the need to do).

[Evil Dave]

I think I'm in the same boat as Zen, but I'd phrase it a little differently. I want rules complex enough to make an interesting game (lots of tactical and strategic choices and plenty of replay value), but not so complex that deep understanding of the rules is the margin of victory.

[liga]

I like to know the formulas ... obviously (I'm always asking about that) but I prefer (at least in comouter games) complex dinamic so that knowing the formula is an help but not the solution to the problem.

As an example: I would like to know if the size alter the morale of a squads if the breaking number is 10-15 or 20 ... so probably I'll try to make squads of the right dimension ... but that is not enough to win ... also I lik to know how precision works ... if I know that is something like 2d6 + precision + a factor I like to know how the factor is realted to the distance ... so I know well which is the different between a 25 or a 30 range spell hitting at 10 ... I don't think this knowledge is the key to win the game

... any way ... good play!
Liga

[Chazar]

The hidden mechanics of the morale system is fine to me, since it is suffciently complicated to make it impractical to be learned from repeated experiments:

I think that the question should rather be what is a desireable factor for "successful" play: It seems proper to me that an experienced player has an advantage, but I do not like it if this "experience" can be obtained by simply assiduous experiments, e.g. I do not like the "wish" spell: "Wish" is certainly funny for SP, but would anyone use it blindly in MP? Certainly not! But acquiring the knowledge how "wish" functions requires no genuine insights, but just a large enough amount of time for solo play against a weak AI (or map modding expertise).

On the other hand, learning the morale system also needs time, but it still requires some thought, for the number of possible battle setups (troop compositions, placements & scriptings) is just too numerous. Thus there is no obvious way of experimenting. The only way to learn more about it is to gain some intuition by conducting a great variety of battles.

So I would want that all simple things are made easily available to save me the hassle to conduct boring experiments instead of playing the game. I do not want to tediously study the game before being able to play in MP! Or in more aggressive words: Anything that can easily learned from playing against a simple AI should also be easily accessible right from the start!