Wow, this is an old thread. I'd forgotten entirely about the bot argument. Since it's already been subject to thread necromancy, I'll figure I'll finish it. =P
The other argument presented is that the actions of the bot are within the confines of the rules of the game. This is true, but would you want to play poker with someone who had an odds calculator with them even if they played their hands according to poker rules?Playing against the person with the odds calculator isn't any different from playing against a very good player who can determine the odds on the fly. If you don't want to play against the calculator, then you don't want to play against the expert either, as both are functionally the same from your perspective.
Many board games, particularly in complete information games, suffer from this simple problem: the odds are calculable from the extant information of the game. Thus, someone who can keep track of all of this information will be able to perfectly calculate the odds of success for any given option for all players. As this information is available to all players, any player can calculate these odds by observing the state of the game. Many games break down at this point: there is no incentive to not make these calculations, and indeed it would be foolish to ignore them. All players act with full knowledge of the odds of all actions, and the game thus devolves from the abstract into its true and simple core.
Without the calculators, you are testing two skills: skill at the core of the game, and skill at the information-management aspect of the game. In most cases, the latter is far more important than the former, and mastery of it is critical to expert play. Contests between players of differing skills end up testing not the core game itself, but instead simply the information aspect: someone who can calculate the odds faster or more accurately will typically win regardless of another player's skill at the core of the game.
The calculator removes this computational aspect of the game. It is no different than playing against a highly skilled (at information management) player. You should also be using a calculator at this point, but you are free not to.
You have to decide what you want to test. Is this to be a game of calculating the odds faster than the other players, or is it to be a game of making decisions based upon those odds? You should never shy from playing against a player who has mastered the superficial aspects of a game, for in doing so you will learn a great deal more about the core.
In World of Warcraft, leveling and accumulating gold are trivial. They cost time and nothing more. They in and of themselves are a game which is trivially and immediately solvable. There is more to the game beyond that simple abstract, such as raiding. You have to decide: do you want WoW to be a test of the most trivial aspects possible (time spent?), or a test of something more?
By attempting to deny other players the tools which allow them to remove the cost of interacting with the trivial, you are making the game as a whole more trivial.
Why would anyone care if someone else avoided trivial work? The answer, usually, is a sense of entitlement coupled with a small amount of repressed shame. "I worked for these levels, so you should all do the same." "I deserve these, since I spent my time and effort on them. You cheapen my by not having spent such time and effort." "Deep down, I resent the fact that I spent time on something that you were able to skip: I resent you resourcefulness; I resent you proving to me that my time was spent on the trivial."
Comments
Samurai X: Trust and Betrayal
Excel Saga
Gundam SEED
Galaxy Angel Z
Voices of a Distant Star
The other argument presented is that the actions of the bot are within the confines of the rules of the game. This is true, but would you want to play poker with someone who had an odds calculator with them even if they played their hands according to poker rules?Playing against the person with the odds calculator isn't any different from playing against a very good player who can determine the odds on the fly. If you don't want to play against the calculator, then you don't want to play against the expert either, as both are functionally the same from your perspective.
Many board games, particularly in complete information games, suffer from this simple problem: the odds are calculable from the extant information of the game. Thus, someone who can keep track of all of this information will be able to perfectly calculate the odds of success for any given option for all players. As this information is available to all players, any player can calculate these odds by observing the state of the game. Many games break down at this point: there is no incentive to not make these calculations, and indeed it would be foolish to ignore them. All players act with full knowledge of the odds of all actions, and the game thus devolves from the abstract into its true and simple core.
Without the calculators, you are testing two skills: skill at the core of the game, and skill at the information-management aspect of the game. In most cases, the latter is far more important than the former, and mastery of it is critical to expert play. Contests between players of differing skills end up testing not the core game itself, but instead simply the information aspect: someone who can calculate the odds faster or more accurately will typically win regardless of another player's skill at the core of the game.
The calculator removes this computational aspect of the game. It is no different than playing against a highly skilled (at information management) player. You should also be using a calculator at this point, but you are free not to.
You have to decide what you want to test. Is this to be a game of calculating the odds faster than the other players, or is it to be a game of making decisions based upon those odds? You should never shy from playing against a player who has mastered the superficial aspects of a game, for in doing so you will learn a great deal more about the core.
In World of Warcraft, leveling and accumulating gold are trivial. They cost time and nothing more. They in and of themselves are a game which is trivially and immediately solvable. There is more to the game beyond that simple abstract, such as raiding. You have to decide: do you want WoW to be a test of the most trivial aspects possible (time spent?), or a test of something more?
By attempting to deny other players the tools which allow them to remove the cost of interacting with the trivial, you are making the game as a whole more trivial.
Why would anyone care if someone else avoided trivial work? The answer, usually, is a sense of entitlement coupled with a small amount of repressed shame. "I worked for these levels, so you should all do the same." "I deserve these, since I spent my time and effort on them. You cheapen my by not having spent such time and effort." "Deep down, I resent the fact that I spent time on something that you were able to skip: I resent you resourcefulness; I resent you proving to me that my time was spent on the trivial."
Seriously, the thread resurrecting needs to stop.
Thread resurrecting rocks. XP