![]() Tends to be decoupled from board state, the strategic disposition of players “is in their head.” Tends to concern itself with uncertainty and the planning of actions Tend to focus on long-term or game winning opportunities and the pathways to get there Tend to manifest as actual changes to the board state. Tend to emphasize the execution of actions to support broader goals and objectives Tend to focus more on immediate and short-term opportunities I summarized my own thoughts on the tactics/strategy debate as follows: And yet another way of approaching it is to think of strategy in terms of “opportunity creation” and tactics in terms “reactionary moves.” ![]() However, he proposes another outlook which is that strategic decisions are those that require more thought and sets a direction for the future, while tactics is about the execution and on the fly adjustments. He asserts on one hand that some people tend to distinguish strategy and tactics on the basis of timing, strategy is long-term and tactics are short-term. Rarevos provided some interesting thoughts regarding the differences between strategy and tactics. For reasons we will explore later, I think strategic games and tactical games, or anywhere in between, have the potential to be deep games. In regards to depth, I think many people jump to the conclusion that games with a strategic emphasis tend to be de facto deeper compared to those with a tactical focus but I am not so sure. Inevitably, discussions on depth end up touching the relentless discussion about strategy and tactics, and where the line between the two falls (if there is such a line). What is complexity and how does it tie into heuristics? How might we measure depth empirically and/or form hypotheses about depth a in given game? What constitutes a heuristic layer? Are strategic games inherently deeper than tactical games (or the other way around)? What role does luck play in defining or bounding depth (and heuristics). They haven’t “uncovered” those heuristic layers yet and are only playing the game at the most basic and superficial level.Īt this point in my thinking, I had many questions. Even more importantly, the heuristic layers at the forefront of an advanced Chess player’s mind are likely not even perceived or acknowledged by a player new to the game. Chess on the other hand has a very thick pile of heuristic layers that yields great differentiation in player skill levels. The heuristics of Tic-Tac-Toe are thin, and most adults can play optimally leading to a cats game (a draw) with very little effort. Consider two non-random games (other than the first player), Tic-Tac-Toe and Chess. Suffice to say, games with more layers of heuristics - that is, more that needs to be interpreted and evaluated - will tend to be games with greater depth. Regardless, the heuristics themselves involve the process of interpreting the board state, evaluating legal moves, choices, and decisions, performing those moves and then gauging the resulting impact and feedback on whether the choice pushes you towards victory (or not). One could also read strategy articles and gain greater heuristic understanding without having to find out in-game but that is another topic for debate. skill) gained in a particular game as a consequence of playing it. The relevancy for games is that heuristics reflects the levels of learning and expertise (i.e. Merriam-Webster defines heuristics as “involving or serving as an aid to learning, discovery, or problem-solving by experimental and especially trial-and-error methods.” I’m currently reading “ Characteristics of Games” and one of the three principal characteristics is heuristics (the others being playtime and number of players!). And as with all my blog posts, this is merely the start of a new thread of inquiry - I’m interested to hear your reactions and how you may have been, or continue to be, searching for depth yourself.īroadly speaking, my understanding of “depth” is this:ĭepth is a function of the layering of heuristic understanding necessary for effective play. But, I believe I’ve arrived at a point where I can put forth some basic hypotheses that summarize my thinking on the matter. I will be quoting and referencing a number of the responses in the course of this blog post. I’m driven by an interest in putting my thumb on what qualities in games tend to relate to depth how our understanding of depth applies differentially to the concepts of strategy and tactics and how the idea of uncertainty and complexity plays into the greater discourse on depth.Įarlier in my investigation of depth, I asked a few questions in this thread, and received many insightful replies. ![]() For a while now, have been ruminating on the nature of depth and I how I have come to understand it. ![]() Gamers often discuss the concept of depth - and along with it strategy, tactics, and complexity - with a great deal of fervor. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |