Challenge: Improve Rock/Paper/Scissors
- Thread starter teknoarcanist
- Start date
Re: spinner. Missed the pointhaloinverse said:I'm not sure that would actually change anything... if the order of the symbols and the order of the scores remains constant, then rotating the alignment of symbols and scores would not structurally change the game - (whateverA) would score three points still beats (whateverB) would score two points, whether (A=rock, B=scissors) or (A=scissors, B=paper). It'd be like swapping just the names of pawns and rooks in chess, but keeping all the other rules the same - the resulting game would play the same as chess, even with eight "rooks" which move one step forwards and capture one step diagonally.teknoarcanist said:
With only three options for throws and only one distinct value per symbol, all possible orders of throws are rotationally symmetrical to either (3 > 2 > 1 > 3) or (1 > 2 > 3 > 1). Hence, the game and its inverse.
...unless you meant three *independent* spinners? That way, you could have a result like (Rock=3, Scissors=3, Paper=1) for a given round, which *would* be strategically distinct from (Rock=3, Scissors=2, Paper=1).
If there were *five* symbols (as in Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock), rather than three, then you would have 24 possible non-rotationally-symmetrical rearrangements of scoring (from among 1,2,3,4,5), instead of 2. But that's harder to fit into 20 words.Remembering strategy, counter-strategy, and counter-counter-strategy for any of 24 possible 5x5 score matrices in use in a given round would be pretty badass.
It's about manipulating the players, not the game. Obviously it doesn't change the base mechanics of the design -- but it keeps players on their toes, every time the 3-point symbol changes. There IS a long-term skill level and an interior mental game going on behind successive games of RPS; this introduces a complicating factor to THAT.
GODDAMMIT!onewheeled999 said:
Ninja'd. Guess I shouldn't be surprised with something as popular as the Big Bang Theory though.
Have you ever actually tried playing this? I have, and once you get it straight in your head it's remarkably easy, but adds a lot more chance to the game. Basically the things Sheldon outlined are about true, and this version adds enough variance to not be overwhelming but give it more chance.
Unless you're such a nerd you can't get away from Spock.
I do not believe there is a way to improve the game. Adding additional gestures adds complexity without altering the depth or actions; such things just make the game more difficult to play. Altering the way the game is scored does not change the way in which the game is played. Altering the penalty is similar in that the actual game itself remains the same.
Noted. Considering that humans are terrible at being unbiased and/or random, along with the emotional associations with the symbols (i.e. aggression/precision/passivity), I can see how such a non-structural change of the game could alter the "head game" played alongside serial RPS.teknoarcanist said:Re: spinner. Missed the point
While I agree with most of your other points, I (and mathematical game theory) disagree with you on this. By assigning different values to won rounds using a given symbol AND having a set total score to reach, the players have more of an incentive to try to win with higher-scoring symbols (and avoid losing against higher-scoring symbols). I maintain that this does add an extra element to the second-guessing of standard RPS - achieve more points quickly, but in a risky (and possibly predictable) fashion, or score fewer points more reliably against your opponent's high-point strategy? If you have 4 points vs. your opponent's 8, are they now less likely to throw Rock(3), since they need only 2 points to win? Are you more likely to throw rock, because you're so far behind, and does your opponent know (or falsely think) that?Eclectic Dreck said:
Head-games aside, scored RPS *is* demonstrably mathematically different than "flat" RPS. A perfect player in flat RPS (perfect as in no exploitable weaknesses) would throw all symbols with equal frequency. RPS with (1,2,3) scoring has an optimal random strategy of (1/3, 1/6, 1/2). With human (non-random) players, this would lead to parallel strategic second-guessing that would run in parallel to the aforementioned emotional second-guessing.
Incidentally, this game can be simulated (without the ten-point limit) at http://people.hofstra.edu/Stefan_Waner/RealWorld/gametheory/games.html - enter the following values into the matrix, and click "Play Game":
0 -2 1
2 0 -3
-1 3 0
(Positive = your score, negative = opponent score)
Apparently, the computer plays ideally randomly, until it detects your strategy (and then crushes you.) Try to get +10 before the computer gets you to -10.
Easy. Every time you lose, you get a finger cut off. Now that would increase the difficulty, wouldn't it?
Simple. have everyone say either rock, paper, or scissor before they shoot. A bluff round, so to speak.
18 words.
Also, you could do this with "rock paper scissors lizard spock" from Big bang theory, if you wanted more possibilities, or with the chakra elements from naruto if you wanted more chances for ties.
18 words.
Also, you could do this with "rock paper scissors lizard spock" from Big bang theory, if you wanted more possibilities, or with the chakra elements from naruto if you wanted more chances for ties.
Sirlin has actually done some interesting stuff on this topic. Just search his site (sirlin.net) for rock paper scissors. He also integrates this discussion into the larger form of fighting and strategy games.
Any way, the simplest way to mix it up, as others have said, is to just add different values of reward to each gesture and make sure the length of play is long enough to allow player VS player psychology to come into play as well.
Any way, the simplest way to mix it up, as others have said, is to just add different values of reward to each gesture and make sure the length of play is long enough to allow player VS player psychology to come into play as well.
It'd work if Cockroaches could actually survive radiation.Drakmeire said:
But since they can't, Nuclear Bomb either wins or ties with Nuclear Bomb.
I would remove paper because it isn't manly enough and doesn't appeal to the young male demographic. It's called streamlining guys and by removing paper I think that we can all agree that it proves that I'm the real genius here.
Also, the optimal game would be for both players to do rock which means that the optimal game would always look like bro fists. If one player ever does scissors then the bro fist rock player can use whatever non politically correct insult they want to declare their win.
Also, the optimal game would be for both players to do rock which means that the optimal game would always look like bro fists. If one player ever does scissors then the bro fist rock player can use whatever non politically correct insult they want to declare their win.
Sirlin's RPS article (and the concept of Yomi (the strategy, not his card game)) seems very familiar to me, though not his website. I dimly remember (but cannot find with site search) articles on Gamasutra years ago regarding RPS as a generalization of systems in other games (and vice versa), which Sirlin probably either also read and then developed further, or was the original author of.
