Klube had
some thoughts about continuing to play past the point where you are losing. I'm starting a new thread because I'd like to discuss that
separately from any talk about about redesigning PlanetWars.
---------------------------
quote:
I don't like people resigning just because they are likely not to win. This really bugs me because I'm not JUST playing to win, I'm also playing to play, and ending the game before I'm done is just bullshit. I want to see some scorched earth like play, where people are playing losing games just to bleed the enemy to death. |
I sympathize with this view. Playing ZK is fun, so why not keep playing even if you're in a lost position? Why not do the very best you can with what you have left? Put up a good fight right down to the last 'bot! Make 'em work hard for the win and make 'em pay for every inch of ground!
... but then I thought more about it. I don't think that this sentiment, as good as it sounds, makes for a workable game design. The problem is this: once you're unable to win the game there is no other clearly articulable goal to pursue, and any such goal that you might set for yourself is inherently incompatible with the primary goal of the game.
Klube suggested that the losing player should try to maximize damage dealt and/or units killed, relative to damage taken or metal used or time spent. I could suggest some other goals:
(a) hold out as long as possible; (b) minimize the number of units / amount of econ / size of territory that the enemy has when your last unit is killed;
(c) make something big and dramatic that will go out with a bang (spam a deathball or nukes or dets etc). You could probably come up with more yourself. In fact, everyone probably has their own different idea about what to do when you've effectively lost the game but don't want to just up and quit.
But the game itself has only one goal:
destroy all the enemy units. Any of the above strategies are perfectly valid ways to do that. Some will be more effective than others in various situations, but none of them are
necessarily the "correct" goal to pursue. All of them are merely ways to accomplish the only true goal of destroying all the enemy units.
Case One: Suppose we settled on one of these alternate goals as the "correct" goal to pursue once you've lost. That would, however, also affect the way you play
before you've lost, and in my opinion that would degrade normal play by emphasizing some set of tactics over others
out of proportion to the degree which they accomplish the main goal of winning the game.
Case Two: Suppose instead we all agreed "Okay, exactly how you play once you've lost is up to you, but it's important that you keep playing. Don't give up! Keep fighting! It doesn't matter what you do but at least do
something!" Sounds good, right? But the problem is that at that point
you are no longer playing a game. Why not? Because you are pursuing a goal
that your opponent does not know and that your opponent is not trying to thwart.Once you've reached the point where you've clearly lost, you're no longer playing a game against your opponent. Instead, you're playing a game
with your opponent, and the game is "Hey, let's blow up stuff!". You're playing with toy soldiers.
Which is fun.
But it's not the game that people who signed up for Zero-K want to play.
---------------------------
Consider chess. Expert players will recognize when they are in a losing position - down several pieces, for example - and resign long before the game would be over if they forced their opponent to actually checkmate their king. But suppose instead you said
"Chess is fun! I know there's no way I can win because I'm down a queen and two rooks but let's keep playing anyway. I'll do the best I can with what I've got left!"... What, exactly, would you try to do? You wouldn't be trying to win; you know that's impossible. Would you try to draw the game out as long as possible? Capture as many pieces as possible? Put the king in check as often as possible? Capture the queen?
None of these have anything to do with the goal of the game. At best they are side effects. And if you decided to do any of them, your opponent won't try to stop you - he'll only do whatever is necessary to put your king in checkmate, and if that means allowing you to capture almost all of his pieces, well, so be it. He still wins.
---------------------------
I think you can get style points for playing on past the point where the game is lost. I think it can be fun for both sides.
But I also think it can be frustrating and annoying for either side. Consider the chess game. If you were winning and the loser wanted to keep playing just so he could try to capture your queen... or if you were losing and the winner wanted to keep playing right down to the checkmate...
... whereas all you wanted to do was get the game over with
so that you could play another game of chess...... wouldn't you be annoyed, too?
