17 ms·

How to play with people who are better than you

216 points by vo2maxer 7y ago

igor47 7y ago
the author is focused on finite games, which are games that you play to win. but it's interesting to think about applying the same logic to infinite games, where the goal is to keep playing forever. For instance, capitalism is a game that most players assume we'll just keep playing. How do you deal with some players having an advantage? Currently, the advantage only compounds (literally, ie compound interest). What if instead, the game became more difficult for those players, as discussed in the article?
- adjkant 7y ago
  I think you're basically describing egalitarianism, correct me if I'm wrong. I'd recommend Rawls as good philosophical material on the subject. Always been how I view the world personally and I think people underestimate how much of it could be compatible with free markets and a good deal of general and important freedoms. Of course that's a much longer debate. To get back to the point, what the author describing is also egalitarian. I think people are generally more interested in it with a game because of the finite setting. Golf handicaps are a perfect example that would have fit well into the article. People get more wary as the scope expands.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    There are also a variety of other perspectives worth reading; I found Tony Smith's Beyond Liberal Egalitarianism. Marx and Normative Social Theory in the Twenty-First Century (Brill, 2017) to be a great counter-point to both Rawls and Nozick.
- cirlesquarebook 7y ago
  Is capitalism actually assumed to go on forever though? The idea of a post scarcity society isn't new. Hell, Marx's presentation of how communism would arise was largely rooted in the idea that capitalism would increase efficiency to the point that it would no longer make sense to follow its model any longer.
  - a_imho 7y ago
    Make sense to who? I don't think the beneficiaries of a particular setup are incentivized to challenge the status quo.
- michaelscott 7y ago
  To continue the game theory tilt, the problem with making the game harder as the player advantage increases is that it disincentivises the player from seeking advantage at all. In the theoretical game of "capitalism" this sounds like a good idea, but in the real world a government that imposes these kinds of game restrictions through something like taxes only forces the advantaged players to pull out of the "game" completely (a nett negative for those reliant on their advantage long term) and move their advantage to another "game". This isn't necessarily a bad thing though, so long as the vast majority of players still in the game have enough resource to continue playing comfortably.
  - Kbelicius 7y ago
    > but in the real world a government that imposes these kinds of game restrictions through something like taxes only forces the advantaged players to pull out of the "game" completely (a nett negative for those reliant on their advantage long term) and move their advantage to another "game". This would be true only if profits are the only motivation for humans to do anything... and that is not true. Also, currently, there is no other "game".
    - michaelscott 7y ago
      Okay, I'll clarify with an example: Apple is a company, and they care about the growth and general value of themselves as a company. Let's say this can be measured as their NAV (simplistic I know, but it suffices) which is what the market will assess them on. Profits absolutely are the motivation for Apple, as with most other companies that make up the microeconomy of what I'm calling here a "game", or nation/jurisdiction (because each jurisdiction has a different set of rules for the game, called the jurisdictional law). Unlike other companies, though, Apple has now grown to a size where we can say that they have a very strong advantage in this "game", the American market, but there exists a strategy such that they're able to maximise their reward output by switching "games". Since they're a rational player they do so, and switch their tax jurisdiction, or "game", to Ireland, who plays by a different set of rules. This isn't a perfect example because I don't think the United States penalises companies based on their performance through tax, but if Apple is already doing this in such a situation what would happen if the United States did implement a progressive tax rate on companies [0]? Now consider how many individuals rely on the existence of Apple within the American "game", and how many may or may not be affected by a full move out of said "game" (again, a silly example I know, but I hope it makes the point clear). [0] The US may actually do this already and I'm just not aware of it. If so, feel free to correct me.
- pyrale 7y ago
  Life is not a game, and capitalism is not consensual like playing a game is. I don't believe, for instance, that farmers suiciding after losing their farm should be likened to sore losers.
dorkwood 7y ago
I never liked the idea of explicitly changing the rules in order to make a game more fair for new players. If you become accustomed to changing the rules whenever you find yourself outmatched, and then find yourself in a situation where the rules can't be changed for whatever reason, then you're not going to enjoy yourself. It's much more enjoyable for everyone, in my opinion, to play by the same rules as the group, but judge your own performance by a different set of rules that you keep in your own head. Maybe try to beat your own previous score, or set yourself a personal challenge -- something like "take one of my opponent's pieces" or "make the longest word in the game". It's entirely possible to enjoy playing a game that you have little chance of winning, it just requires some creativity.
- larnmar 7y ago
  I wish more people would take this lesson to heart, not just in games but in life.
- asplake 7y ago
  Changing the rules mid game is not what’s being described here. Rather it’s redesigning games such that a equilibrium of sorts lasts for longer even in the presence of mixed ability, sustaining engagement for longer
- 2muchcoffeeman 7y ago
  Many boards games attempt to make things fun even if you’re losing. One of the best games for this is Concordia, where you don’t count up the points until the end. You always feel that you have a chance. Once you get fairly good however, you can scan the board state and do some rough guesstimating to see who is in the lead. Other games can be quite brutal. You make one wrong move and you know you’re in for 2.5 hrs of pain and there’s nothing you can do about it.
  - arrrg 7y ago
    I’m not sure what to think about this obfuscation tactic. Lost Cities is a simple two-player card game where you have to take risks in laying out your cards with incomplete information. In the end the points are tallied up. The calculation is somewhat complicated (or at least the number of points you will get are not immediately obvious at a glance), to the point where my partner and me both frequently thought we had clearly lost, but after tallying up the points it turns out we had won (or were at least much closer to winning than we thought). I like the game but that somehow feels, well, at least weird. Especially since I first played this game on my phone. There is this really lovely implementation of it as an app that’s a real joy to play and feels very tactile and pleasant to use, much like the physical game. But one important difference is that the points are tallied up and shown for both you and your opponent as you play. That to me makes the play at least feel more involved and more calculating. It feels quite different and I think I like it better but maybe that has also something to do with the game being very quick and it also tends to be well balanced. If I had to suffer through long stretches of time knowing I will lose … well that might be different. Link to the board game: http://riograndegames.com/games.html?id=126 http://riograndegames.com/games.html?id=126 Link to the app: https://lostcitiesapp.com https://lostcitiesapp.com
dragontamer 7y ago
Playing with people who are better than you is easy. Just accept they're better than you and keep losing. Decide if you are comfortable with your current skill level or not. If you want to get better, train up. If you are happy with your skill level, then keep losing. That's fine, and I think its healthy to decide to place limits on your skill. Skill is an infinite treadmill: you can continuously get better at pretty much any subject from now till the end of time. Deciding when to get off the treadmill is just as important as deciding to stay on. > Games of skill are less appealing if you know a certain person will always win. I disagree. I will always lose to Magnus Carlsen in Chess. I will always lose to my friends in (insert any FPS game here, I'm bad at all of them). I will always lose to Mew2King in Super Smash Bros: Melee. My inability to defeat the greatest players of a subject does NOT make the game less appealing. Indeed, I often times seek out the challenge of stronger players, especially when I'm explicitly trying to get better at the game. Losing constantly by playing vs players who are better than you provides a learning experience. You should find other players you can win against of course: you'll never learn to win if you keep losing. But losing teaches you what bad-habits you've formed from playing vs weaker players. I think that's the key: losing all the time is unfun. But I can definitely take "losing for a whole week" or "losing for a whole month" in a row, especially if its for training. Finding players of lower skill, equal skill, and higher skill, is important.
- newqer 7y ago
  Git Gud
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
  > If you want to get better, train up. This doesn't mesh with why lots of people play things. It's play. It might just be a nice way to pass the time. I would rather play basketball against someone my level than Steph Curry playing all out. I'm not playing to win or even to get better (getting better is fun, but isn't the point). I just want to have fun. For many kinds of play, if you have to train for it, you may as well play something else.
  - earenndil 7y ago
ggm 7y ago
No mention of go and it's handicap system. I once watched 12 year old Japanese girl wipe the floor with an Australian friend with ranking in the Australian go scene, in a go club behind Tokyo station.
- 2muchcoffeeman 7y ago
  Maybe you decide not to care about starting at the same level. That’s usually an easy fix. The strategy game Go, for example, gives weaker players extra stones on the board to start, allowing both players to try their hardest and feel like they have a chance of winning.
  - ggm 7y ago
    Before posting I tried word search in my tablet browser and missed it. I guess in the game of criticism I just.. lost.
    - fredoliveira 7y ago
      But why would you even try going for criticism of an article before even reading it?
      - ggm 7y ago
        I speed read. I didn't see go. I went word search for go, didn't find it. But, a fair comment. Critique demands care.
        sethammons 7y ago
        Is speed reading just skimming?
        munmaek 7y ago
        Speedreading is something used by delusional people who think that reading is just inputting words as fast as possible. Slowreading (taking your time to fully understand and reflect on what you read) needs to become a thing. But that isn't as ~distinguished~ as saying "I can read at X words/min" or "I read Y novels/year". Skimming is useful, because you don't necessarily want to read an entire page if you're looking for one thing. Wikipedia pages are an example of where you might want to skim until you find the relevant section you're looking for. In fact I skim many articles on HN to decide if they're worth reading or not. If they are, then I go back and slowread the entire thing before making a comment.
anonymousDan 7y ago
I always thought that was one of the nice things about golf. The handicap system means you can have a wide variety of skill levels playing in the same competition with everyone having a reasonable chance of winning.
- beefield 7y ago
  Personally, I find that stupid. If you want a chance to win, do not play against Tiger woods but play against your peers at your club and have different tiers so that the better players seek to not play in the games where the not so good ones play.
  - cableshaft 7y ago
    Well, sometimes a local league just isn't that big. Like I remember when I was in a bowling league as a kid that was just whoever signed up to be in it at that one bowling alley. We had a guy in the league that eventually went Pro and I remember watching him score his first perfect 300 game in person way back then, but there was people like me that were just ok. I think the highest my average got up to was around 130, but i can't really remember. I know I had a 197 game once. In contrast, the future Pro's average was something like 230 (I think), a full 100 points difference. But my team would sometimes play against the future Pro's team. I'm pretty sure his team always creamed us, even with the handicap, but the handicap at least made it so we were able to beat other teams that were significantly better than us. And if we consistently played well enough we were beating other people our handicap would change. It made it so there was actually some tension from both sides, and a desire for both sides to play as best as they could, instead of the obviously better player to maybe let things slip a tiny bit or for us to get frustrated and just toss the ball down there without trying. It also made it so you didn't have a teammate that got too sore if your skill levels were significantly different. Like if I was actually terrible but was paired to be on a team with someone decent, they wouldn't hate me because I would always make us lose a matchup. Instead my handicap would make it so we could still be somewhat competitive. Granted you were ultimately always competing with yourself, trying to get a better score, but it's another layer that adds to the fun of the game. I haven't been a part of a league in at least 25 years, but sometimes I miss it. And even in this setup there's still tiers. Like it's not like anyone ever said "yeah, let's send this average for a kid player to a professional league championship and see how well they do!", but there's different skill levels for the players in every tier as well.
sparsely 7y ago
Bananagrams is a word game based on scrabble which has a really elegant catch up mechanic which comes so naturally out of the rules you barely notice. If you are behind you will tend to have more free tiles which don't require large rearrangements, making it easier to see new words. (This breaks down slightly with big skill differences or if you are way way behind but in most cases works perfectly)
- catacombs 7y ago
  Bananagrams is a great game, especially for people who want to improve their word-generating skills for a slower game of Scrabble.
Tepix 7y ago
This is an interesting topic that came up recently. I like playing the board game Othello. Whenever I get the chance I will try to teach people the game. I don't let them win. I of course tell them what good moves are (and why). Perhaps I should lose on purpose to get them hooked? PS: One of the cool aspects of Othello is that it looks like if both players play a perfect game, it ends in a draw.
mjfl 7y ago
People who can't play games against people who are better than them are over-competitive and lazy! It's more fun when you play against skilled players, you learn more! I've never understood that personality trait, and I love losing at Dominion!
- viraptor 7y ago
  It really depends on a game and skills difference. It's one thing to lose against someone just putting in effort to win and making many better decisions. (like dominion) It's another when you lose because the opponent knows the game so well you can't do any meaningful actions. For example, playing your first few games against someone experienced in a fighting game like Smash is pretty pointless. You likely won't land a single hit and won't learn anything. That's also my threshold for fun. The more you can artificially minmax the game, the less fun it is for me. I'm happy to play Scrabble, but if the opponent spent time learning the dictionary rather than expanding their vocabulary, I don't see the point.
- munmaek 7y ago
  It really depends on how good the player is. I have played people in smash where the skill gap was so wide I could have just put my controller down and it wouldn't have made a difference. I literally lost a match in a tournament where I didn't, couldn't, touch the enemy once. I was probably the lowest seed in that tournament, he was the #1 seed, and was one of the top 5 players of the game. I normally like playing better players because it forces me to learn and stop using lazy habits that work on worse players, but it's hard to learn anything useful when I'm getting crushed so bad like that. Instead, reflecting and continuing to play with people near my level until I improve enough to revisit that player is a better option for personal growth.
  - pkamb 7y ago
    Which version of Smash was that?
    - munmaek 7y ago
DomreiRoam 7y ago
One feature i like in go (weiqi , baduk) is that you can have an handicap system so it is possible to enjoy a game with a weaker or stronger adversary.
shultays 7y ago
(disclaimer I am not a good chess player) In high school I was playing chess with someone better than me and my plan was to trade equal pieces as much as possible because I am bound to make worse/stupid mistakes than more he does and because of that I wanted to move end game as fast as possible. It actually worked and it ended in tie! I still remember the end game, it was amazing http://prntscr.com/q5z36e http://prntscr.com/q5z36e (it was roughly like this, can't remember exact positions) I was white, I think the last move was I moved my pawn and declared tie
- learnstats2 7y ago
  This is closely related to the chess strategy of 'simplification'. If you are 'winning' (here this works for your idea of winning), it's good to trade pieces to get to the end game quicker while retaining the advantage.
bitL 7y ago
"With ‘fairness’ built in, everyone has an equal chance of winning without compromising their playing style." This must be a joke, right? What's the point of playing games? To feel good about oneself?!
- Juliate 7y ago
  The point of playing is ... playing. :) It's the journey. Not the win or loss.
  - bitL 7y ago
    So if I use a random number generator as an "advisor" for my part, am I guaranteed to win regardless? Like a social club where everybody gets to win and with it their own medal and certificate? In other words, playing = socializing, performance, tricks, effort being meaningless?
- viraptor 7y ago
  It changes the benchmark, but you still have to be good enough for your level to win. You don't get the wins for free. It's still fun and it's still challenging (if implemented correctly). It also allows the stronger player to improve.
- ProZsolt 7y ago
  This is a poor choice of words. It should be "everyone has a chance of winning". I really like playing board games and because of this, I'm usually the better player when playing with my family. With the balances, I still win most of the time because of the better strategy, but the others still win enough time that they keep playing with me.
Kaibeezy 7y ago
In grad school, I had access to a pool table and played nearly every day with a classmate who was already highly skilled. We were very competitive, and soon equally matched. A couple of years later, after going separate ways, we met up at a pool hall. After a few games, it wasn’t even close. Neither of us had played much for a few years. The difference was my friend’s sharp skills had deteriorated, whereas my advantage had often been from taking “creative” higher-risk/higher-reward shots—a “skill” that didn’t suffer as much from lack of practice.
vnorilo 7y ago
The handicap in Go [1] works amazingly well. I have had enjoyable games with dan-level players despite being at best conversant at the game. That said, I've also enjoyed such games immensely with no handicap, despite no prospect of winning at all. In most games you can have some partial success and psychological reward despite losing the game. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_(go) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_(go)
- Doxin 7y ago
  The thing that makes go fun for me even while losing is that if you lose the whole game you've still got a lot of smaller skirmishes that you've either won or learned from. Losing a skirmish in go makes it very easy to go "Well what should I have done differently here?" and come up with a good answer. It's different from a game like risk in that way. If you lose a skirmish in risk there's basically nothing you can learn from that since the amount of random involved just obscures any influence you have yourself. At the end of a game of risk I'm sat there having no idea what I did wrong, and no idea how to do better next time.
tachion 7y ago
Everything else aside, Welcome Collection is an awesome place! If you're art/architecture nerd, make sure you visit to see their kinda famous stairs, they can look like that from certain angles: https://www.flickr.com/photos/149993730@N05/32374727987/in/dateposted-public/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/149993730@N05/32374727987/in/d...
YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
As an aside, if you play games competitively and you want to get better you should _always_ seek better players to play against. That's how you improve your game: you set the challenge just above your current level. The "just" part sorts itself out because players significantly more advanced will not find it very challenging to play against someone much weaker, so you 'll get fewer games against them anyway. Another thing is to play people you don't know and find new playing partners often. That helps you avoid getting stuck in a rut.
thunderbong 7y ago
This is probabley a bit off topic, but for me, the James Carse book, "Finite and Infinite Games" is the last word on all games! https://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/1476731713/ https://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/...
kstenerud 7y ago
"Snakes and Ladders requires a level of manual dexterity" This seems an odd thing to say. The only "manual dexterity" you need is to be able to throw the dice.
- cableshaft 7y ago
  I design board games and play a ton of them, and this threw me also. I don't see how the author thinks there is manual dexterity to Snakes and Ladders. A Dexterity game is a category of board games, and they all involve your ability to physically manipulate components in a way where you could potentially screw it up by misjudging the action you take, is my understanding. There's no way to throw dice in a way where it doesn't give you some sort of result, even if it's not the result you want. If that's all it took to be a Dexterity game, than tens or hundreds of thousands of games with dice in them are now Dexterity games (and currently on sites like BoardGameGeek, they're not).
DrScientist 7y ago
It's about game balance and design. If I was to play tennis against a professional, it wouldn't really be tennis, it would be a game of 'can I get anywhere near to returning their first shot'. I'd have to play that 'mini-game' for a long time before I could play proper tennis with such a person ( where tactics of the rally come in ). Obviously in reality the professional player would ease up - cos actually just hitting balls and watching me pick them up isn't fun for them either. Some games are more naturally balanced that others - computer game designers often put huge effort in this area. Really successful games like football ( soccer to some ) have great balance built in. That's why the FA cup has small teams occasionally beating big teams - to score a goal, you typically have to win a series of reasonably balanced encounters - even Messi can be tackled by me.
- WhompingWindows 7y ago
  You think you can tackle Messi without committing a foul? Keep in mind he's a stereotypical small striker, very high speed and acceleration, he dodges world-class athletes routinely...
  - DrScientist 7y ago
    By no means every time, but actually sometimes yes. If you look at professional teams, most of the time defenders win the 1:1 battle. That's why in 90 minutes a win of 3-0 is a good score! Obviously in an actual game, it's more complex than that - a lot of defending is about denying opportunity to shoot rather than out and out tackling. I reckon I could get in the way on occasion... Remember the attacker has the disadvantage of having to move the ball, not just run, while the defender is free to move without the ball. That's, in part, what creates the balance.
    - oAlbe 7y ago
      This reminds me of that viral survey that went around not long ago asking people if they thought they could win a set against Serena Williams and the result being a huge amount of responders saying yes. Unless you played soccer at least semi-professionally in some small league team for at least some part of your not so distant past, there is just no way you are gonna win a 1v1 with Messi, either by committing a foul or not. If you watch some scrim games during the off season, you can find games were a top tier team plays against minor-er league teams, and you can see the difference in skills. It's like they play two different games.
siffland 7y ago
Years ago i used to go bowling with a few friends, i would get like 80 or 90 points and they would get around 225ish. Several months later i was up to getting around 200 points per game. Granted it was all for fun, but just playing with them made me a better bowler (i have not been bowling in a decade now so i would probably be getting around 100 points again). So yeah i lost, but it made me better. As long as you are aware of your skill set vs. someone else's and you wont let it consume you i don't see it as a bad thing (assuming the other player is not a complete jerk).
- mochomocha 7y ago
  How do you know your increase was specifically because of them and not practice only?
  - TheGallopedHigh 7y ago
    Likely observing how they handle specific situations, how their technique is etc
- phailhaus 7y ago
  Not sure if that's the same thing, because each bowler plays in complete isolation from their competitors. It's much harder to improve in competitive games in which playing against stronger players makes it harder for you to practice your own skills.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jhanschoo 7y ago
> Non-orthogames do tend to involve certain skills that players need to have or share in order to play (Snakes and Ladders This confused me for a bit. Snakes and Ladders is an orthogame; one selects a winner based on agreed-upon rules.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
WhompingWindows 7y ago
Starcraft is an incredibly challenging game. I've been playing SC:RM, that's a remastered version of Brood War, the original expansion for SC1. The MMR system is not great because there aren't many players with which to find an even match, so I often get SPANKED in 3-4 minutes, especially by Protoss, with me playing Terran. Still, there is nothing so instructive as a spanking in a balanced game. If I played 100 games vs that guy... There are little roadblocks the whole way that I can learn and conquer, which would RARELY be exposed by another bad player on my own level. Here's all the ways you need to play in a TvP gasless expand build: can you scout their base with an SCV? Can you identify it's ranged-dragoon 2gate (and not reaver drop or early 3rd or DT rush or air rush)? Can you get your bunker up in time to prevent the goon rush? Can you repair the bunker constantly with the right number of SCVs? Can you do all this while teching to siege mode and tanks? Can you keep those tanks alive if Toss dives with 4 goons to pick the tank? Can you then get your third base up, which is just as technical as holding the initial goon rush? Playing vs way better players than you is the fastest way to improve, but it's also the most ego-crushing, so you simply need to leave ego at the door and acknowledge your skill-set is lower and your experience is lower. Great lesson for life!
chadlavi 7y ago
Dang, that game Yogi sounds very fun, but doesn't seem to be available in the US.
vsyu 7y ago
Interesting take! I know a bunch of people who don't like to play games because they think it's stressful and put too much pressure on themselves to win, therefore games aren't "relaxing." But I always think playing with people who are better than you make you smarter even if you're losing. And though it all, at least you're still learning and bonding.
kleer001 7y ago
Seems out of the scope of the article which was mostly about constructed board games, but I would have loved a mention of the most fundamental and ancient form of game... wrestling, aka rough housing or rough and tumble play. https://cognitioneducation.me/2013/07/25/a-time-and-a-place-for-play-part-2/ https://cognitioneducation.me/2013/07/25/a-time-and-a-place-...
izzydata 7y ago
I find that it is more relevant for people to learn how to play with people that are worse than them. Not everything needs to be a competition and the goal is't inherently to get good at things that are for fun.
jerednel 7y ago
you need to be crushed in order to know what is possible. but you should also go against people who are similar/worse than you. ranking systems are good at that. jiu jitsu is a good example of this. the belt rankings indicate experience/skill and give you an idea of where people are in training. if i just steamroll day-ones it is helpful to a degree. people of similar experience will give me a good fight that will allow us both to make mistakes that we can both capitalize on. but if i get manhandled by higher ranks i can see the possibilities and get ideas for piecing together holes in my game.

216 points by vo2maxer 7y ago

the author is focused on finite games, which are games that you play to win. but it's interesting to think about applying the same logic to infinite games, where the goal is to keep playing forever. For instance, capitalism is a game that most players assume we'll just keep playing. How do you deal with some players having an advantage? Currently, the advantage only compounds (literally, ie compound interest). What if instead, the game became more difficult for those players, as discussed in the article?

adjkant 7y ago
I think you're basically describing egalitarianism, correct me if I'm wrong. I'd recommend Rawls as good philosophical material on the subject. Always been how I view the world personally and I think people underestimate how much of it could be compatible with free markets and a good deal of general and important freedoms. Of course that's a much longer debate. To get back to the point, what the author describing is also egalitarian. I think people are generally more interested in it with a game because of the finite setting. Golf handicaps are a perfect example that would have fit well into the article. People get more wary as the scope expands.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  There are also a variety of other perspectives worth reading; I found Tony Smith's Beyond Liberal Egalitarianism. Marx and Normative Social Theory in the Twenty-First Century (Brill, 2017) to be a great counter-point to both Rawls and Nozick.
cirlesquarebook 7y ago
Is capitalism actually assumed to go on forever though? The idea of a post scarcity society isn't new. Hell, Marx's presentation of how communism would arise was largely rooted in the idea that capitalism would increase efficiency to the point that it would no longer make sense to follow its model any longer.
- a_imho 7y ago
  Make sense to who? I don't think the beneficiaries of a particular setup are incentivized to challenge the status quo.
michaelscott 7y ago
To continue the game theory tilt, the problem with making the game harder as the player advantage increases is that it disincentivises the player from seeking advantage at all. In the theoretical game of "capitalism" this sounds like a good idea, but in the real world a government that imposes these kinds of game restrictions through something like taxes only forces the advantaged players to pull out of the "game" completely (a nett negative for those reliant on their advantage long term) and move their advantage to another "game". This isn't necessarily a bad thing though, so long as the vast majority of players still in the game have enough resource to continue playing comfortably.
- Kbelicius 7y ago
  > but in the real world a government that imposes these kinds of game restrictions through something like taxes only forces the advantaged players to pull out of the "game" completely (a nett negative for those reliant on their advantage long term) and move their advantage to another "game". This would be true only if profits are the only motivation for humans to do anything... and that is not true. Also, currently, there is no other "game".
  - michaelscott 7y ago
    Okay, I'll clarify with an example: Apple is a company, and they care about the growth and general value of themselves as a company. Let's say this can be measured as their NAV (simplistic I know, but it suffices) which is what the market will assess them on. Profits absolutely are the motivation for Apple, as with most other companies that make up the microeconomy of what I'm calling here a "game", or nation/jurisdiction (because each jurisdiction has a different set of rules for the game, called the jurisdictional law). Unlike other companies, though, Apple has now grown to a size where we can say that they have a very strong advantage in this "game", the American market, but there exists a strategy such that they're able to maximise their reward output by switching "games". Since they're a rational player they do so, and switch their tax jurisdiction, or "game", to Ireland, who plays by a different set of rules. This isn't a perfect example because I don't think the United States penalises companies based on their performance through tax, but if Apple is already doing this in such a situation what would happen if the United States did implement a progressive tax rate on companies [0]? Now consider how many individuals rely on the existence of Apple within the American "game", and how many may or may not be affected by a full move out of said "game" (again, a silly example I know, but I hope it makes the point clear). [0] The US may actually do this already and I'm just not aware of it. If so, feel free to correct me.
pyrale 7y ago
Life is not a game, and capitalism is not consensual like playing a game is. I don't believe, for instance, that farmers suiciding after losing their farm should be likened to sore losers.

dorkwood 7y ago

I never liked the idea of explicitly changing the rules in order to make a game more fair for new players. If you become accustomed to changing the rules whenever you find yourself outmatched, and then find yourself in a situation where the rules can't be changed for whatever reason, then you're not going to enjoy yourself. It's much more enjoyable for everyone, in my opinion, to play by the same rules as the group, but judge your own performance by a different set of rules that you keep in your own head. Maybe try to beat your own previous score, or set yourself a personal challenge -- something like "take one of my opponent's pieces" or "make the longest word in the game". It's entirely possible to enjoy playing a game that you have little chance of winning, it just requires some creativity.

larnmar 7y ago
I wish more people would take this lesson to heart, not just in games but in life.
asplake 7y ago
Changing the rules mid game is not what’s being described here. Rather it’s redesigning games such that a equilibrium of sorts lasts for longer even in the presence of mixed ability, sustaining engagement for longer
2muchcoffeeman 7y ago
Many boards games attempt to make things fun even if you’re losing. One of the best games for this is Concordia, where you don’t count up the points until the end. You always feel that you have a chance. Once you get fairly good however, you can scan the board state and do some rough guesstimating to see who is in the lead. Other games can be quite brutal. You make one wrong move and you know you’re in for 2.5 hrs of pain and there’s nothing you can do about it.
- arrrg 7y ago
  I’m not sure what to think about this obfuscation tactic. Lost Cities is a simple two-player card game where you have to take risks in laying out your cards with incomplete information. In the end the points are tallied up. The calculation is somewhat complicated (or at least the number of points you will get are not immediately obvious at a glance), to the point where my partner and me both frequently thought we had clearly lost, but after tallying up the points it turns out we had won (or were at least much closer to winning than we thought). I like the game but that somehow feels, well, at least weird. Especially since I first played this game on my phone. There is this really lovely implementation of it as an app that’s a real joy to play and feels very tactile and pleasant to use, much like the physical game. But one important difference is that the points are tallied up and shown for both you and your opponent as you play. That to me makes the play at least feel more involved and more calculating. It feels quite different and I think I like it better but maybe that has also something to do with the game being very quick and it also tends to be well balanced. If I had to suffer through long stretches of time knowing I will lose … well that might be different. Link to the board game: http://riograndegames.com/games.html?id=126 http://riograndegames.com/games.html?id=126 Link to the app: https://lostcitiesapp.com https://lostcitiesapp.com

dragontamer 7y ago

Playing with people who are better than you is easy. Just accept they're better than you and keep losing. Decide if you are comfortable with your current skill level or not. If you want to get better, train up. If you are happy with your skill level, then keep losing. That's fine, and I think its healthy to decide to place limits on your skill. Skill is an infinite treadmill: you can continuously get better at pretty much any subject from now till the end of time. Deciding when to get off the treadmill is just as important as deciding to stay on. > Games of skill are less appealing if you know a certain person will always win. I disagree. I will always lose to Magnus Carlsen in Chess. I will always lose to my friends in (insert any FPS game here, I'm bad at all of them). I will always lose to Mew2King in Super Smash Bros: Melee. My inability to defeat the greatest players of a subject does NOT make the game less appealing. Indeed, I often times seek out the challenge of stronger players, especially when I'm explicitly trying to get better at the game. Losing constantly by playing vs players who are better than you provides a learning experience. You should find other players you can win against of course: you'll never learn to win if you keep losing. But losing teaches you what bad-habits you've formed from playing vs weaker players. I think that's the key: losing all the time is unfun. But I can definitely take "losing for a whole week" or "losing for a whole month" in a row, especially if its for training. Finding players of lower skill, equal skill, and higher skill, is important.

newqer 7y ago
Git Gud
6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
> If you want to get better, train up. This doesn't mesh with why lots of people play things. It's play. It might just be a nice way to pass the time. I would rather play basketball against someone my level than Steph Curry playing all out. I'm not playing to win or even to get better (getting better is fun, but isn't the point). I just want to have fun. For many kinds of play, if you have to train for it, you may as well play something else.
- earenndil 7y ago

ggm 7y ago

No mention of go and it's handicap system. I once watched 12 year old Japanese girl wipe the floor with an Australian friend with ranking in the Australian go scene, in a go club behind Tokyo station.

2muchcoffeeman 7y ago
Maybe you decide not to care about starting at the same level. That’s usually an easy fix. The strategy game Go, for example, gives weaker players extra stones on the board to start, allowing both players to try their hardest and feel like they have a chance of winning.
- ggm 7y ago
  Before posting I tried word search in my tablet browser and missed it. I guess in the game of criticism I just.. lost.
  - fredoliveira 7y ago
    But why would you even try going for criticism of an article before even reading it?
    - ggm 7y ago
      I speed read. I didn't see go. I went word search for go, didn't find it. But, a fair comment. Critique demands care.
      - sethammons 7y ago
        Is speed reading just skimming?
        munmaek 7y ago
        Speedreading is something used by delusional people who think that reading is just inputting words as fast as possible. Slowreading (taking your time to fully understand and reflect on what you read) needs to become a thing. But that isn't as ~distinguished~ as saying "I can read at X words/min" or "I read Y novels/year". Skimming is useful, because you don't necessarily want to read an entire page if you're looking for one thing. Wikipedia pages are an example of where you might want to skim until you find the relevant section you're looking for. In fact I skim many articles on HN to decide if they're worth reading or not. If they are, then I go back and slowread the entire thing before making a comment.

anonymousDan 7y ago

I always thought that was one of the nice things about golf. The handicap system means you can have a wide variety of skill levels playing in the same competition with everyone having a reasonable chance of winning.

beefield 7y ago
Personally, I find that stupid. If you want a chance to win, do not play against Tiger woods but play against your peers at your club and have different tiers so that the better players seek to not play in the games where the not so good ones play.
- cableshaft 7y ago
  Well, sometimes a local league just isn't that big. Like I remember when I was in a bowling league as a kid that was just whoever signed up to be in it at that one bowling alley. We had a guy in the league that eventually went Pro and I remember watching him score his first perfect 300 game in person way back then, but there was people like me that were just ok. I think the highest my average got up to was around 130, but i can't really remember. I know I had a 197 game once. In contrast, the future Pro's average was something like 230 (I think), a full 100 points difference. But my team would sometimes play against the future Pro's team. I'm pretty sure his team always creamed us, even with the handicap, but the handicap at least made it so we were able to beat other teams that were significantly better than us. And if we consistently played well enough we were beating other people our handicap would change. It made it so there was actually some tension from both sides, and a desire for both sides to play as best as they could, instead of the obviously better player to maybe let things slip a tiny bit or for us to get frustrated and just toss the ball down there without trying. It also made it so you didn't have a teammate that got too sore if your skill levels were significantly different. Like if I was actually terrible but was paired to be on a team with someone decent, they wouldn't hate me because I would always make us lose a matchup. Instead my handicap would make it so we could still be somewhat competitive. Granted you were ultimately always competing with yourself, trying to get a better score, but it's another layer that adds to the fun of the game. I haven't been a part of a league in at least 25 years, but sometimes I miss it. And even in this setup there's still tiers. Like it's not like anyone ever said "yeah, let's send this average for a kid player to a professional league championship and see how well they do!", but there's different skill levels for the players in every tier as well.

sparsely 7y ago

Bananagrams is a word game based on scrabble which has a really elegant catch up mechanic which comes so naturally out of the rules you barely notice. If you are behind you will tend to have more free tiles which don't require large rearrangements, making it easier to see new words. (This breaks down slightly with big skill differences or if you are way way behind but in most cases works perfectly)

catacombs 7y ago
Bananagrams is a great game, especially for people who want to improve their word-generating skills for a slower game of Scrabble.

Tepix 7y ago

This is an interesting topic that came up recently. I like playing the board game Othello. Whenever I get the chance I will try to teach people the game. I don't let them win. I of course tell them what good moves are (and why). Perhaps I should lose on purpose to get them hooked? PS: One of the cool aspects of Othello is that it looks like if both players play a perfect game, it ends in a draw.

mjfl 7y ago

People who can't play games against people who are better than them are over-competitive and lazy! It's more fun when you play against skilled players, you learn more! I've never understood that personality trait, and I love losing at Dominion!

viraptor 7y ago
It really depends on a game and skills difference. It's one thing to lose against someone just putting in effort to win and making many better decisions. (like dominion) It's another when you lose because the opponent knows the game so well you can't do any meaningful actions. For example, playing your first few games against someone experienced in a fighting game like Smash is pretty pointless. You likely won't land a single hit and won't learn anything. That's also my threshold for fun. The more you can artificially minmax the game, the less fun it is for me. I'm happy to play Scrabble, but if the opponent spent time learning the dictionary rather than expanding their vocabulary, I don't see the point.
munmaek 7y ago
It really depends on how good the player is. I have played people in smash where the skill gap was so wide I could have just put my controller down and it wouldn't have made a difference. I literally lost a match in a tournament where I didn't, couldn't, touch the enemy once. I was probably the lowest seed in that tournament, he was the #1 seed, and was one of the top 5 players of the game. I normally like playing better players because it forces me to learn and stop using lazy habits that work on worse players, but it's hard to learn anything useful when I'm getting crushed so bad like that. Instead, reflecting and continuing to play with people near my level until I improve enough to revisit that player is a better option for personal growth.
- pkamb 7y ago
  Which version of Smash was that?
  - munmaek 7y ago

DomreiRoam 7y ago

One feature i like in go (weiqi , baduk) is that you can have an handicap system so it is possible to enjoy a game with a weaker or stronger adversary.

shultays 7y ago

(disclaimer I am not a good chess player) In high school I was playing chess with someone better than me and my plan was to trade equal pieces as much as possible because I am bound to make worse/stupid mistakes than more he does and because of that I wanted to move end game as fast as possible. It actually worked and it ended in tie! I still remember the end game, it was amazing http://prntscr.com/q5z36e http://prntscr.com/q5z36e (it was roughly like this, can't remember exact positions) I was white, I think the last move was I moved my pawn and declared tie

learnstats2 7y ago
This is closely related to the chess strategy of 'simplification'. If you are 'winning' (here this works for your idea of winning), it's good to trade pieces to get to the end game quicker while retaining the advantage.

bitL 7y ago

"With ‘fairness’ built in, everyone has an equal chance of winning without compromising their playing style." This must be a joke, right? What's the point of playing games? To feel good about oneself?!

Juliate 7y ago
The point of playing is ... playing. :) It's the journey. Not the win or loss.
- bitL 7y ago
  So if I use a random number generator as an "advisor" for my part, am I guaranteed to win regardless? Like a social club where everybody gets to win and with it their own medal and certificate? In other words, playing = socializing, performance, tricks, effort being meaningless?
viraptor 7y ago
It changes the benchmark, but you still have to be good enough for your level to win. You don't get the wins for free. It's still fun and it's still challenging (if implemented correctly). It also allows the stronger player to improve.
ProZsolt 7y ago
This is a poor choice of words. It should be "everyone has a chance of winning". I really like playing board games and because of this, I'm usually the better player when playing with my family. With the balances, I still win most of the time because of the better strategy, but the others still win enough time that they keep playing with me.

Kaibeezy 7y ago

In grad school, I had access to a pool table and played nearly every day with a classmate who was already highly skilled. We were very competitive, and soon equally matched. A couple of years later, after going separate ways, we met up at a pool hall. After a few games, it wasn’t even close. Neither of us had played much for a few years. The difference was my friend’s sharp skills had deteriorated, whereas my advantage had often been from taking “creative” higher-risk/higher-reward shots—a “skill” that didn’t suffer as much from lack of practice.

vnorilo 7y ago

The handicap in Go [1] works amazingly well. I have had enjoyable games with dan-level players despite being at best conversant at the game. That said, I've also enjoyed such games immensely with no handicap, despite no prospect of winning at all. In most games you can have some partial success and psychological reward despite losing the game. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_(go) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_(go)

Doxin 7y ago
The thing that makes go fun for me even while losing is that if you lose the whole game you've still got a lot of smaller skirmishes that you've either won or learned from. Losing a skirmish in go makes it very easy to go "Well what should I have done differently here?" and come up with a good answer. It's different from a game like risk in that way. If you lose a skirmish in risk there's basically nothing you can learn from that since the amount of random involved just obscures any influence you have yourself. At the end of a game of risk I'm sat there having no idea what I did wrong, and no idea how to do better next time.

tachion 7y ago

Everything else aside, Welcome Collection is an awesome place! If you're art/architecture nerd, make sure you visit to see their kinda famous stairs, they can look like that from certain angles: https://www.flickr.com/photos/149993730@N05/32374727987/in/dateposted-public/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/149993730@N05/32374727987/in/d...

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago

As an aside, if you play games competitively and you want to get better you should _always_ seek better players to play against. That's how you improve your game: you set the challenge just above your current level. The "just" part sorts itself out because players significantly more advanced will not find it very challenging to play against someone much weaker, so you 'll get fewer games against them anyway. Another thing is to play people you don't know and find new playing partners often. That helps you avoid getting stuck in a rut.

thunderbong 7y ago

This is probabley a bit off topic, but for me, the James Carse book, "Finite and Infinite Games" is the last word on all games! https://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/1476731713/ https://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/...

kstenerud 7y ago

"Snakes and Ladders requires a level of manual dexterity" This seems an odd thing to say. The only "manual dexterity" you need is to be able to throw the dice.

cableshaft 7y ago
I design board games and play a ton of them, and this threw me also. I don't see how the author thinks there is manual dexterity to Snakes and Ladders. A Dexterity game is a category of board games, and they all involve your ability to physically manipulate components in a way where you could potentially screw it up by misjudging the action you take, is my understanding. There's no way to throw dice in a way where it doesn't give you some sort of result, even if it's not the result you want. If that's all it took to be a Dexterity game, than tens or hundreds of thousands of games with dice in them are now Dexterity games (and currently on sites like BoardGameGeek, they're not).

DrScientist 7y ago

It's about game balance and design. If I was to play tennis against a professional, it wouldn't really be tennis, it would be a game of 'can I get anywhere near to returning their first shot'. I'd have to play that 'mini-game' for a long time before I could play proper tennis with such a person ( where tactics of the rally come in ). Obviously in reality the professional player would ease up - cos actually just hitting balls and watching me pick them up isn't fun for them either. Some games are more naturally balanced that others - computer game designers often put huge effort in this area. Really successful games like football ( soccer to some ) have great balance built in. That's why the FA cup has small teams occasionally beating big teams - to score a goal, you typically have to win a series of reasonably balanced encounters - even Messi can be tackled by me.

WhompingWindows 7y ago
You think you can tackle Messi without committing a foul? Keep in mind he's a stereotypical small striker, very high speed and acceleration, he dodges world-class athletes routinely...
- DrScientist 7y ago
  By no means every time, but actually sometimes yes. If you look at professional teams, most of the time defenders win the 1:1 battle. That's why in 90 minutes a win of 3-0 is a good score! Obviously in an actual game, it's more complex than that - a lot of defending is about denying opportunity to shoot rather than out and out tackling. I reckon I could get in the way on occasion... Remember the attacker has the disadvantage of having to move the ball, not just run, while the defender is free to move without the ball. That's, in part, what creates the balance.
  - oAlbe 7y ago
    This reminds me of that viral survey that went around not long ago asking people if they thought they could win a set against Serena Williams and the result being a huge amount of responders saying yes. Unless you played soccer at least semi-professionally in some small league team for at least some part of your not so distant past, there is just no way you are gonna win a 1v1 with Messi, either by committing a foul or not. If you watch some scrim games during the off season, you can find games were a top tier team plays against minor-er league teams, and you can see the difference in skills. It's like they play two different games.

siffland 7y ago

Years ago i used to go bowling with a few friends, i would get like 80 or 90 points and they would get around 225ish. Several months later i was up to getting around 200 points per game. Granted it was all for fun, but just playing with them made me a better bowler (i have not been bowling in a decade now so i would probably be getting around 100 points again). So yeah i lost, but it made me better. As long as you are aware of your skill set vs. someone else's and you wont let it consume you i don't see it as a bad thing (assuming the other player is not a complete jerk).

mochomocha 7y ago
How do you know your increase was specifically because of them and not practice only?
- TheGallopedHigh 7y ago
  Likely observing how they handle specific situations, how their technique is etc
phailhaus 7y ago
Not sure if that's the same thing, because each bowler plays in complete isolation from their competitors. It's much harder to improve in competitive games in which playing against stronger players makes it harder for you to practice your own skills.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jhanschoo 7y ago

> Non-orthogames do tend to involve certain skills that players need to have or share in order to play (Snakes and Ladders This confused me for a bit. Snakes and Ladders is an orthogame; one selects a winner based on agreed-upon rules.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

WhompingWindows 7y ago

Starcraft is an incredibly challenging game. I've been playing SC:RM, that's a remastered version of Brood War, the original expansion for SC1. The MMR system is not great because there aren't many players with which to find an even match, so I often get SPANKED in 3-4 minutes, especially by Protoss, with me playing Terran. Still, there is nothing so instructive as a spanking in a balanced game. If I played 100 games vs that guy... There are little roadblocks the whole way that I can learn and conquer, which would RARELY be exposed by another bad player on my own level. Here's all the ways you need to play in a TvP gasless expand build: can you scout their base with an SCV? Can you identify it's ranged-dragoon 2gate (and not reaver drop or early 3rd or DT rush or air rush)? Can you get your bunker up in time to prevent the goon rush? Can you repair the bunker constantly with the right number of SCVs? Can you do all this while teching to siege mode and tanks? Can you keep those tanks alive if Toss dives with 4 goons to pick the tank? Can you then get your third base up, which is just as technical as holding the initial goon rush? Playing vs way better players than you is the fastest way to improve, but it's also the most ego-crushing, so you simply need to leave ego at the door and acknowledge your skill-set is lower and your experience is lower. Great lesson for life!

chadlavi 7y ago

Dang, that game Yogi sounds very fun, but doesn't seem to be available in the US.

vsyu 7y ago

Interesting take! I know a bunch of people who don't like to play games because they think it's stressful and put too much pressure on themselves to win, therefore games aren't "relaxing." But I always think playing with people who are better than you make you smarter even if you're losing. And though it all, at least you're still learning and bonding.

kleer001 7y ago

Seems out of the scope of the article which was mostly about constructed board games, but I would have loved a mention of the most fundamental and ancient form of game... wrestling, aka rough housing or rough and tumble play. https://cognitioneducation.me/2013/07/25/a-time-and-a-place-for-play-part-2/ https://cognitioneducation.me/2013/07/25/a-time-and-a-place-...

izzydata 7y ago

I find that it is more relevant for people to learn how to play with people that are worse than them. Not everything needs to be a competition and the goal is't inherently to get good at things that are for fun.

jerednel 7y ago

you need to be crushed in order to know what is possible. but you should also go against people who are similar/worse than you. ranking systems are good at that. jiu jitsu is a good example of this. the belt rankings indicate experience/skill and give you an idea of where people are in training. if i just steamroll day-ones it is helpful to a degree. people of similar experience will give me a good fight that will allow us both to make mistakes that we can both capitalize on. but if i get manhandled by higher ranks i can see the possibilities and get ideas for piecing together holes in my game.