There is no problem with the Sequential RPS game. It is a functional game. I was showing that game to show that in S-RPS, there is no real notion of a "counter tactic". The argument was that if a game does not have a system of "counters" then it does not fall into the category of RPS systems and is not compatible to the description that for a game to be tactically balanced, it must have a "counter" for every tactic.
In the same way that tic-tac-toe is. Valid, but ultimately solvable.
Based on the time limit, it becomes a game much more about physical skill and execution than in out-thinking your opponent. The game isn't about out-thinking your opponent, it's about out-reacting your opponent.
Generally when people talk about counters and whatnot, the hidden assumption is that the game is either simultaneous, real-time, or has some level of hidden information.
Counters in sequential, perfect-knowledge games are basically boring, as the game becomes essentially a sequence of counters, exactly as it is in S-RPS.
Could you clarify your reason to assert that counters in a sequential game is boring? How is that related to the topic of tactical balance?
What do you say about Chess and Go? They are also sequential. Did you intend to dictate that they are boring? How is that related to the topic even if they are boring? Or did you intend to say that there is no counter in Chess or Go (that you would refer to those moves as something other than "counters")?
Could you clarify your reason to assert that counters in a sequential game is boring? How is that related to the topic of tactical balance?
What do you say about Chess and Go? They are also sequential. Did you intend to dictate that they are boring? How is that related to the topic even if they are boring? Or did you intend to say that there is no counter in Chess or Go (that you would refer to those moves as something other than "counters")?
Actually, I said that counters in sequential, perfect-knowledge games are generally boring. Chess and Go do not have "counters" per se. There is nothing in either game along the lines of "rock beats scissors." If your assertion is that counters are insufficient for an interesting sequential, perfect-knowledge game, I'd happily agree with that statement.
Any sequential, perfect-knowledge game is theoretically solvable. We're close to doing so with Chess, although Go is probably quite a ways off. This isn't my opinion, it's math :) Sequential, perfect-knowledge games need to have a high degree of complexity to be beyond trivially-solvable. Chess and Go work because generally you manipulate the state of the game more so than simply responding to a move with its immediate "counter."
RPS is a double-blind game. Turning it into a sequential, perfect-knowledge game fundamentally changes the nature of it, so doing that as an example of why counters are insufficient is a bit of a strawman. By adding the time limitation, you solve the problem in what can be considered one of two ways of doing so: Either by turning it into a skill-based game, or alternately by having the time limit be low enough that the game essentially becomes a double-blind game again.
Saying that a mechanic useful in double-blind games isn't sufficient because they don't work in a sequential, perfect knowledge game doesn't really say much. "Fixing" the problem by effectively turning the game back into a double-blind game doesn't really prove a lot, either.
I may sound a bit argumentative here, but I'm actually really enjoying this conversation. Take it as a fun bit of mental sparring, rather than a flame war :)
I don't think we are talking about things at the same plane. In my perspective, the words, "interesting" or "boring" have no relevance in the discussion. The topic is just to define Tactical Balance, we are not talking about whether Tactical Balance is good, good to have, fun to have, etc... We don't care what effect it has on the player or whether the player likes it, because they are unrelated to its definition.
"Counter"
In your definition, a counter is not a result of intelligent decision but learned reflex based on knowledge. Therefore, in your definition, Chess and Go do not have counters. I don't think that we need one fixed definition for "counter", but I do not share your definition. In my definition, Chess and Go have counters. For example, if I see that my opponent's course of action requires its Knight to move to E5, I could nullify its course of action by moving my pawn to F6. In my set of terminology, this move is a counter. I would define a counter like this:
Counter An action intended to interrupt the opponent's course of action after the opponent's course.
The difference between the definition of a counter and a tactic is that a counter necessarily interrupts the opponent's course of action, while a tactic could in principle and practice allows the opponent's course of action to continue. For example, if the enemy is charging with cavalry, and the decision is to fight head-on because you determined that your infantry has sufficient morale to defeat the cavalry, then this decision qualities as a tactic, but there is no counter present. There is no interruption to the opponent's intended course of action.
Another example about counter: Suppose your opponent put you in checkmate in 3 moves. You saw that, but you do nothing to prevent its pieces moving in the the checkmate position. Instead, you move your own pieces to a checkmate position in 2 moves. In this case, the opponent obvious cannot complete its course of action because he lost, but your course of action is not a counter. The situation is a Race. The decision to Race or to Counter are both Tactics.
So far we have counted three types of Tactics: Copy, Counter, and Race.
I think that Tactical Balance has to do with the balance between these Tactic types. For example, if player A has access to two types of Tactics, and player B also has two types, then the game is Tactically Balanced. I am approaching to say that Balance is achieve even if both sides have only one dominant type. When that happens, perhaps we could just say that the game is not Tactically Diverse, but it is Balanced. (Note that although I have just listed Copy as a tactic type, it is not a valid tactic in most games.) I don't want to go into this direction because it may not be easy to count the number of tactic types supported by a game.
So I think that the following statements are true:
1) Knowing that every move has a counter is not enough information to say that a game is tactically balanced.
2) A counter does not need to exist for every move for a game to have tactical balance.
3) The existence of counters can be an essental component for the tactical balance of a game.
The Zombies vs Humans is an example of statement (3). In that game, the dominant tactic for the Zombie player is to counter the course of action of the human player, and the dominant tactic for the Human player is to Obfuscate the plan so that the Zombie player would make a wrong counter or fail to recongize which threat to counter.
Obfuscation is the fourth tactic type. Obfuscation is intentional hiding of one's course of action by increasing the possible values for parameters needed to determine the course of action. For example, suppose there are two paths that you could take to attack village A. Path 1 leads only to A, while Path 2 leads to A, B, or C. In this context, choosing Path 2 has the effect of concealing your course of action. That is a Tactic, and it is fundamentally different from the other three mentioned.
The fifth type of tactic is Deception. Deception is the use of actions with low correlation to a course of action to hide that course of action. For example, you gather your tanks near town A, but you in fact attack town B, and withdraw the tanks at A without doing anything. This is also a tactic.
The sixth type is Baiting. Baiting is the offering of underdefended target for the opponent to capture in order to create an opportunity to defeat the opponent. In this definition, it does not matter whether the bait is obvious to the opponent. The opponent could see the "hook" and still decide to take the bait (as the opponent could decide that the hook is too weak to capture itself).
Seventh type: Ambush. Ambush is the position of threat without the opponent's knowledge and wait for the opponent's presence within attack range before attack, in order to minimize the time the opponent has to retreat.
Eighth: Taunt. Taunt is an encouragement of opponent action for factors non-essential to the nature of the conflict.
There are quite some tactic types to list. Most of these have nothing to do with a RPS dynamic. Do you think that Tactical Balance is related to the balance in the number of Tactic types that a player can employ? For example, if, in a game design, player 1 can deal significant damage by: Ambush, Obfuscation, Copy, while player 1 can only deal significant damage by Racing, would you say that the game is not tactically balanced? Is this enough information to say so?
What if Player 1 can only deal significant damage by Ambush, while Player 2 can only deal significant damage by Obfuscation? Is it balanced? Is there enough information to determine?
Yeah, we're definitely not talking about the same thing. To get more of an idea of where I'm coming from, I'd suggest reading up on game theory (as in mathematics).
When I posted about Sequential RPS, you thought that I posted it as an example to say that RPS is not "sufficient" and it needs to be fixed. But that was not the meaning of the example.
Quote:
Any sequential, perfect-knowledge game is theoretically solvable. We're close to doing so with Chess, although Go is probably quite a ways off. This isn't my opinion, it's math :) Sequential, perfect-knowledge games need to have a high degree of complexity to be beyond trivially-solvable. Chess and Go work because generally you manipulate the state of the game more so than simply responding to a move with its immediate "counter."
This is correct but irrelevant. I didn't comment on it because the statement is correct but irrelevant and a bit vague. In the context, it does not matter whether we are discussing the tactical balance in Tic-Tac-Toe or in Tag. We don't need to judge how complex or how deep a game is to define tactical balance.
Quote:
RPS is a double-blind game. Turning it into a sequential, perfect-knowledge game fundamentally changes the nature of it, so doing that as an example of why counters are insufficient is a bit of a strawman. By adding the time limitation, you solve the problem in what can be considered one of two ways of doing so: Either by turning it into a skill-based game, or alternately by having the time limit be low enough that the game essentially becomes a double-blind game again.
Saying that a mechanic useful in double-blind games isn't sufficient because they don't work in a sequential, perfect knowledge game doesn't really say much. "Fixing" the problem by effectively turning the game back into a double-blind game doesn't really prove a lot, either.
This is where the comments do not apply to the example.
I think at some point we need to restrict the channel of communication when the players are playing the game. For example, playing an RTS with chatting can be tactically different from playing it without chatting. It is possible that even if a channel of communication is mutual, one side of the game would be benefited much more than the other side. So opening additional channels of communication for both sides does not imply that the situation would remain tactically balanced. For example, one side is concerned with hiding its identity, so additional channels of communication could be harmful for that side but beneficial to the other. If the two sides are competing under the same goal, then balance would remain with additional channels.
Additional channels could reveal the handicaps of the players. For example, if you could search the profile of a player that you had never played before, you might find that this player does not use exploding dolphines because it is against his religion. That could prompt you to do nothing to defend against that tactic. So in that case, you have this advantage over the opponent due to the additional channel. The situation is unbalanced but the game could still be balanced.
