MERLANDESE'S PROFILE

@Treason

Think of it in terms of building a car. There are a lot of complex things that make a car work, run smoother, shift better, handle easier, provide comfort, etc. etc. If you were to design a minimalist car, you'd strip away a lot of things. But, even so, you'd have a pretty complex device. The same could be said for locomotives or rocket ships! Tearing them down to "minimal" doesn't always mean "not complex." Sometimes is just means "the least complex."

I'm looking forward to the extended version! :)

author=Shinan
Ah man randomness is my favourite thing. So obivously I have another randomness-related question.

Random card draws. Getting x number of (deterministic) cards from a pool? (Where x is a number less than the number of cards in the pool)

I guess it's too random but it is barely different from random starting equipment.

That's a good question.

It falls in both categories whereas it both acts as an initial setting for the battle, but also as a way for luck to be a big factor on your potential. As the cards come closer to the end (and the battle furthers) you have a better idea of what cards you can draw, which makes a sort of risk management thing. And risk management is a valid strategy in itself, but this type still hinges on a bit of luck. If you have six cards left to pull from, and you hope to get Card 1, you might get Card 6 instead. You can see how that's not much different from rolling a D6.

So I'd personally advise against it, but if you have a great idea that can fulfill what we're looking for in the Judging Requirements that necessitates some deviation or another, why not? I won't disqualify a bit of randomness even if it's not what I'm looking for. I might ding it a bit, but maybe the other aspects of the game can justify the hell out of it. :)

I know we all have a bit of different opinions on what this minimal battles design constitutes, but I think that's going to work to all of our advantage. We'll get a lot of good ideas rolling through as our opinions differ. And, if we're lucky, we'll see what I personally hope to see from the contest: I'd like the concept of battles to be broken down to the very core, in the most simplistic way possible, then built up again with efficient strategy--that is, whatever direction it takes, each piece that's added holds a larger weight than a lot of common fluff you see in modern JRPGs. Interpretation is a little rough because it's a contest, but I think varied interpretation is what's going to get us the most effective results.

author=Hasvers
Shoobinator>

Concerning the enemies, here's my scale of values:
full AI (i.e. giving the enemies a way to choose actions because they are optimal) > minimal AI with randomization (some actions are more probable in some cases) > completely set patterns > completely random actions

I am willing to accept a measure of randomness in enemy behavior as a cop out from real AI, because AI is hard.

So no problem for what you're suggesting.

I don't know where Hasvers draws the line on this, but I personally don't see an issue of making the AI 100% random if you like. To me, the contest is about making a system, not an intelligent opponent for a system. AI may make the game harder because you have a worthy foe, but that's true of any opponent, flesh-y or otherwise. And if you have a series of dice rolls determine how an AI plays chess, or a brilliant chess master, neither determines the nature of the system chess employs. That is, even if my opponent randomly chose every move he/she made, I wouldn't say that the game of chess had any random elements within it.

So, what I'm saying is that although an intelligent opposition will help determine whether or not the system you create is good or bad in all of its respects, I plan to look at the system itself rather than whether or not the AI has been honed to perfection. If the AI is complete randomness and I win a lot because of it, that's fine so long as I can see the value a better AI would bring.

author=facesforce
EDIT: Namely, my worry is this: If there is no randomness what so ever, and all choices have practical predetermined actions, what is to stop a player from memorizing the best choice of moves? For example, in chess there are many extremely fast ways of winning. It is only because the human or AI can recognize the moves, and then choose a moveset that will assist them to win. But sometimes, they make mistakes.
I understand we are allowed to use a very minimal amount of randomness for the enemy behavior, but this is my worry.

You're going to have to figure that one out! It's actually my favorite and least favorite part of abstract strategy as a genre. It's truly a double-edged sword. With no randomness and no hidden info, battles are puzzles. They're equations that can be solved. Tic-tac-toe is a great example of this problem. But if you every play Five Stones or Connect Four, you'll realize they're the exact same core as ti-tac-toe while complicating themselves enough that players won't often ever reach the point of being maximally efficient in solving the game before their enemy.

What you're worrying about is exactly what you anyone who contemplates abstract strategy should be worrying about. And yet we have thousands of abstract strategy games that face this "problem" head-on and still feel deeply strategic.