Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

MB
Michael Barnes
September 24, 2020
318 0
B
boardgameinquisition
September 24, 2020
151 0
U
ubarose
September 23, 2020
1905 0
AL
Andi Lennon
September 23, 2020
429 0
W
whowhatwhycast
September 23, 2020
215 0
O
oliverkinne
September 22, 2020
826 0
JL
Josh Look
September 22, 2020
295 0
O
oliverkinne
September 18, 2020
667 0
O
oliverkinne
September 18, 2020
537 0

Bots Up Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
U
ubarose
September 17, 2020
596 0
M
mezike
September 17, 2020
612 0
B
boardgameinquisition
September 17, 2020
741 0
W
whowhatwhycast
September 16, 2020
537 0
W
WadeMonnig
September 16, 2020
830 1
AL
Andi Lennon
September 15, 2020
1309 0
×
Short Cut to Remote Gaming Forum (29 Aug 2020)

Since remote gaming has now become a significant part of how we play board games, we have added a short cut to this forum in the menu on the left.

Min-Maxing

More
15 Sep 2020 00:00 #314091 by oliverkinne
Min-Maxing was created by oliverkinne
So I looked at game theory, which is a huge...

When I play board games with my games group, I'm usually more competitive than I would otherwise be. I want to win and try to find the most efficient way to get the most points. However, I know that I'm not usually very good at spotting where the points in a game come from, unless maybe when the theme of the game is really good and guides me to victory. At the same time, others in my games group are usually very good and seem to approach games in a very analytical and victory points focused way. In this article, I want to look at how this type of approach might work and see if it'll help me learn anything from it.

Read more...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Sep 2020 08:53 #314092 by hotseatgames
Replied by hotseatgames on topic Min-Maxing
Great article! I don't often win games, and that's fine. I play primarily for fun, and if I win, great, if I don't, did I at least stop Tim from winning?

I don't enjoy the mental gymnastics required to plot out tons of options and repercussions. I usually focus on my short term goal in a game, with a long term goal in the background. I then will try to ascertain the goals of other players, and then decide if pursuing my own goals is more valuable than trying to stop their goals.

Games like Lords of Hellas and Root highlight this kind of play. I have felt like every other turn in Root has to be spent on ruining someone else's day.

Playing with people who over-think it (analysis paralysis) is SO not fun... winning the game is just not worth destroying everyone else's enjoyment.
The following user(s) said Thank You: ubarose, WadeMonnig

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Sep 2020 10:26 #314096 by Shellhead
Replied by Shellhead on topic Min-Maxing
Games that are won with victory points that can be obtained from multiple sources are sometimes called "point salad games." If you own a copy of a given point salad game, you could take some time to analyze the math behind each source of VP. What are the probabilities of obtaining a given type of VP, and what are the related costs in terms of resources or turns or risks? In some games, you may find that certain VP are more easily scored than others, and you should focus on those VP. Unless it becomes obvious to other players, in which case that should be factored into your estimates, possibly making less popular forms of VP now more reasonable. In other games, it may turn out that all the various sources of VP are well-balanced against each other, in which case you should pay closer attention to what your opponents are doing each game. Some of the classic euros have been analyzed to death on BGG, so you can possibly speed your analysis along by reading some discussion threads about strategy.
The following user(s) said Thank You: ubarose

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Sep 2020 15:07 #314101 by jason10mm
Replied by jason10mm on topic Min-Maxing
Stone Age is a victim of this, as you can thematically starve your villagers to death (or rather, force them to subsist off of stone, brick, sticks and gold) to focus on point earning huts and cards and win. But then you also have to have at least some awareness of what other players are doing lest someone score all the culture cards. Seven Wonders uses the drafting mechanism wonderfully to promote self interest versus denying an opponent a good card.

Puerto Rico has such an optimized path that I've played with folks who get very agitated when you DON'T pick the obviously best role card (best role for you and letting them anticipate the round and their pick as well) and instead pick a card that marginally helps another player more or serves your own goals in a sub optimal way. They will screech "kingmaker!!!" and wring their hands but really it is just a player living more in the moment than they.

Some games MUST be played this way though, like all those Friedmann Friese math games, as the game optimization aspects ARE the game, and efficiency engine building is basically the sole goal. Making a pretty city arraignment in Power Grid is meaningless.

Min-maxing is most objectionable (to me anyway) when it compromises a storytelling game or a RPG. Things like dump stats, picking weapons, items, or spells purely for their in game effects, or wonky skill choices that seem to be contradictory just to push a bonus as high as possible. Some of those games may have a "winner" to justify this behavior but usually the games are more about the trip instead of the destination, it is the players mindset to "win" at all costs.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gary Sax

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Sep 2020 15:23 #314102 by Shellhead
Replied by Shellhead on topic Min-Maxing
By coincidence, I started reading Chapter 17 of the fan-written Book of Learning for Magic Realm. Magic Realm is an incredibly complex board game that is also a point salad game. Unlike most point salad games, Magic Realm requires the player to secretly select their VP goals from five possible categories: Gold, Spells, Great Treasures, Fame, and Notoriety, before starting the first turn. Failing to hit a given VP target earns you negative points in that category, while points in a category that you didn't choose aren't as valuable.

Chapter 17 gives specific recommendations for VP goals for each of the 16 characters. For example, the Druid can read magic and is immune to curses, so he should prioritize VP from Spells. The White Knight is a monster killing machine who should emphasize VP from Fame. The Black Knight is very effective against human opponents, so he should focus on Notoriety. And yet all characters should seek points in more than just one category, because it's difficult to score high enough with just one category. But all of this advice is conditional, possibly affected by number of players in the game, map layout, and specific characters played by opponents.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Sep 2020 15:28 #314103 by jason10mm
Replied by jason10mm on topic Min-Maxing
Stuff like that should just be baked into the game IMHO. Require those classes to take some specific end goals and fewer electives if it is that obvious.

Certainly some games are broken with just a few vastly superior strategies but for most there are optimal ways to play but enough chance in the system that anyone could still win with a baseline amount of competence.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Sep 2020 17:27 #314108 by Shellhead
Replied by Shellhead on topic Min-Maxing
I have only played Magic Realm once so far, but it does seem reasonable to either make specific VP goals inherent to each different character, or else give players the freedom to opportunistically pursue any flavor of VP that is available. The real mistake is that the Magic Realm VP calculation is horribly complex. You assign five points to the five categories of VP at the beginning. At the end of the game, you compare your goals with your actual results, except that the goals are expressed in small whole numbers, while your actual results are initially calculated in numbers that need to be converted to compare with your goals.

For example, you might assign 2 points of VP goals to Fame. But every 10 points of Fame gained in the game gets divided by 10 when comparing with your goal, so you need to gain at least 20 Fame to meet your goal of 2 VP in Fame. Notoriety is divided by 20, Spells are divided by 2, and Great Treasures count on a one-for-one basis. Gold is divided by 10, after subtracting the gold cost of your starting weapon and armor. Then there is are penalty points for missing each goal and bonus points for exceeding each goal. I found an online VP calculator and use that instead of wrestling with the math.

Some Magic Realm players ignore the VP system completely, and instead use the fan-made Book of Quests. Each player picks a Quest at the start of the game, and the first player to complete their Quest wins the game. However, the Quests replace the complexity of the VP system with other rules and complications.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gary Sax

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 Sep 2020 10:21 - 17 Sep 2020 10:24 #314189 by Sagrilarus
Replied by Sagrilarus on topic Min-Maxing
One of the things that I personally look for in games is enough slurry in the running gear to allow you to play the game your own way, with your own personality being in the mix. Min-Max is fundamentally Mr. Spock gaming, which as far as I'm concerned is every bit as tedious as the character was.

Your personality can shine through when there are sufficient options and enough uncertainty about them that you have to play the odds a bit, or hope to convince other players to go along with your approach in order to succeed. This can be co-op or competitive, doesn't matter. But when luck is removed from the game, especially post-decision luck, Mr. Spock shows up (or, more to the point four or five Mr. Spocks show up, all sitting at the same table and all concluding the best correct move together as a committee) and at that point I can go get drinks for everyone while they decide what I do with my turn.

So "Min-Max" to me has become an epithet, a way to insult a game as not terribly engaging or thought provoking. Given the inevitable discussion of "point salad" which followed on in these comments, that design approach is an attempt to make the decision space big enough to prevent other players from having significant impact on how you proceed, in spite of there being more or less zero post-decision luck in the game.

This is about removing luck from games, particularly post-decision luck. Designers have been working their way deeper into the thin end of the envelope because they're chasing the "gamer" market. Designers that let luck happen suddenly find they can create a game where one way to earn one point -- e.g. first one across the finish line -- is sufficient for everyone to have fun. The design space opens up and things blossom from there. Plenty of games to choose from in this part of the market.
Last edit: 17 Sep 2020 10:24 by Sagrilarus.
The following user(s) said Thank You: ubarose, Shellhead, mezike, mc, Andi Lennon

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 Sep 2020 10:59 #314190 by Shellhead
Replied by Shellhead on topic Min-Maxing
Acquire uses cash instead of VP, and everybody liquidates their stocks for market value at the end of the game so it's just an exercise in counting the money. The min-maxing comes in with the disparate prices of the seven hotel stocks. Tower and Luxor are the cheapest stocks, while Imperial and Continental are the premium stocks. All other things being equal, you are better off buying shares of Imperial and Continental because they will probably be worth so much more in the endgame. Fortunately, there is more to the game than this simple min-max calculation. Companies grow or possibly get merged into other companies based on tile play, and all tiles are randomly drawn. Players hold their hand of tiles in secrecy, but must play one every turn. So it's possible that Imperial and Continental may never grow and instead keep getting merged into other corporations for small payoffs. It's also sometimes crucial to hold a controlling interest in a given stock, and that can be more valuable than the stock itself during a merger.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 Sep 2020 16:14 #314244 by jason10mm
Replied by jason10mm on topic Min-Maxing
There are plenty of games that have no luck, just pure interplayer strategy. Something like the worker placement Lord's of Waterdeep does really have any luck (unless you consider random card order to be luck) but there are multiple paths to victory both in pursuing a strategy yourself and denying an opponent points they need. I'm not sure I consider this min-maxing, just good play.

To me min-maxing is sacrificing play FUN for the sake of play optimization, though a game that forces players to make nothing but hard choices can be a valid game design as well. And there are certainly players that derive lots of fun out of wringing every last bit of game mechanic optimization out of the system regardless of in game thematic consequences. Most games probably require min maxing in order to function else a player is essentially wasting their turn (either through disinterest, novice play choices, or deliberate sabotage of another player despite knowing it is a suboptimal move for themself).

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 Sep 2020 17:27 - 18 Sep 2020 17:27 #314247 by ubarose
Replied by ubarose on topic Min-Maxing
People think I don't like games where you can math out how to get the most points because I'm bad at math. The actual reason I don't like them is because:
  1. I am good at math
  2. Arithmetic is boring
  3. You don't really have a choice, you just have the illusion of choice

As Sag points out, you need some element of the unknown to begin to make these sorts of games interesting. The best games are the ones where the other players are the primary uncontrolled variable (i.e. what other players do impacts you in a significant way).Throwing in a little randomness that can be quickly calculated or intuited with some basic knowledge of probability adds drama and fun.
Last edit: 18 Sep 2020 17:27 by ubarose.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gary Sax, Sagrilarus, mezike, Jexik, hotseatgames, birdman37, Erik Twice, WadeMonnig, Andi Lennon

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.173 seconds