Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Herr_Reitz

Chess perhaps not rock paper scissors

32 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,111
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
11,642 posts

Chess contains pawns, bishops, knights, rooks and of course the monarchs (king and queen). Each piece can threaten any other piece but the power they each wield varies, with the Queen being (arguably?) the most powerful piece in the game. Kings are more of a liability as compared to the Queen, yes? 

So chess contains five groups of pieces. 

Here comes WoWS... it has destroyers, cruisers, battleshps and carriers... but wait, we have only four... we need five... hmm... oh yeah, submarines. 

I think we've been looking at this game the wrong way for a very long time. Soon we'll have five groups in the game. 

Might they lean towards a future WoWS that falls more into a strategy along the lines of chess, substituting ship types for the chess pieces? 

How do you see this? You think it's possible? If so, how would you put down the ship type rules? tia fyc

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
672
[RKLES]
Members
648 posts

 

Comparing this little boat game to one of mankind greatest is downright ridiculous.

You can go stand in the corner now.

rnbqkb1r/ppp2ppp/8/3pN3/3Pn3/3B4/PPP2PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 5

 

  • Cool 2
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[KOBK]
Members
191 posts
3,658 battles
22 minutes ago, Herr_Reitz said:

Chess contains pawns, bishops, knights, rooks and of course the monarchs (king and queen). Each piece can threaten any other piece but the power they each wield varies, with the Queen being (arguably?) the most powerful piece in the game. Kings are more of a liability as compared to the Queen, yes? 

So chess contains five groups of pieces. 

Here comes WoWS... it has destroyers, cruisers, battleshps and carriers... but wait, we have only four... we need five... hmm... oh yeah, submarines. 

I think we've been looking at this game the wrong way for a very long time. Soon we'll have five groups in the game. 

Might they lean towards a future WoWS that falls more into a strategy along the lines of chess, substituting ship types for the chess pieces? 

How do you see this? You think it's possible? If so, how would you put down the ship type rules? tia fyc

I think wows is more complex than chess or rock, papers, scissors. Dont forget you have subclass in bb and cls, also dds. I dont think its possible to take it like a game of chess. You can bait reds with your pieces, yes, but you dont have truly control above all of the players in your team. Also, the same ship could be played in different ways and will work (of course, there some exceptions to this)

Edited by Nabucodonosor21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
672
[RKLES]
Members
648 posts
11 minutes ago, Nabucodonosor21 said:

I think wows is more complex than chess or rock, papers, scissors.

This is our future, it is not looking great.

  • Funny 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
621
[KNCOL]
[KNCOL]
Members
729 posts
1,641 battles
36 minutes ago, Nabucodonosor21 said:

I think wows is more complex than chess

DOUBT

 

 

 

Yes some guy hiding behind a island or in smoke and hitting left mouse button a lot is so high skill that it's more complex than chess.

 Yes some guy in a big boat pointing forward and hitting left mouse button a lot is also so high skill that it's more complex than chess.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,299
[WOOK3]
Members
4,174 posts
3,208 battles
1 hour ago, Herr_Reitz said:

Chess contains pawns, bishops, knights, rooks and of course the monarchs (king and queen). Each piece can threaten any other piece but the power they each wield varies, with the Queen being (arguably?) the most powerful piece in the game. Kings are more of a liability as compared to the Queen, yes? 

So chess contains five groups of pieces. 

Here comes WoWS... it has destroyers, cruisers, battleshps and carriers... but wait, we have only four... we need five... hmm... oh yeah, submarines. 

I think we've been looking at this game the wrong way for a very long time. Soon we'll have five groups in the game. 

Might they lean towards a future WoWS that falls more into a strategy along the lines of chess, substituting ship types for the chess pieces? 

How do you see this? You think it's possible? If so, how would you put down the ship type rules? tia fyc

Chess has no luck, one of the few games where randomness doesn't factor in, so I don't see that analogy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,384
[PVE]
Members
5,202 posts
22,432 battles
45 minutes ago, Wombatmetal said:

Chess has no luck, one of the few games where randomness doesn't factor in, so I don't see that analogy. 

Ninja'd

But I was gonna make that reply to:

1 hour ago, Nabucodonosor21 said:

I think wows is more complex than chess

(But I was gonna word it) There's no RNG in chess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,491
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
25,663 posts
13,998 battles
1 hour ago, Nabucodonosor21 said:

I think wows is more complex than chess or rock, papers, scissors. Dont forget you have subclass in bb and cls, also dds. I dont think its possible to take it like a game of chess. You can bait reds with your pieces, yes, but you dont have truly control above all of the players in your team. Also, the same ship could be played in different ways and will work (of course, there some exceptions to this)

 

1 hour ago, Learux said:

This is our future, it is not looking great.

In some ways it is more complicated as everything is on the move, Real Time Tactical, where Chess is simpler with only one piece being moved at any one time Turn Based Tactical. Both games have their pluses and minuses.

58 minutes ago, Wombatmetal said:

Chess has no luck, one of the few games where randomness doesn't factor in, so I don't see that analogy. 

Very true but player skill is an even bigger factor than here where a lucky shot from a lesser player can turn the tide against a better player or a lesser player can have a moment where they play far above their normal. When a group of generals were campaigning for another general to be promoted to Marshal Napoleon said “I know he's a good general, but is he lucky?”. In chess the better player is just about guaranteed to win baring a complete brain fart, the lesser player is player to do better than expected.

Edited by BrushWolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,299
[WOOK3]
Members
4,174 posts
3,208 battles
1 minute ago, BrushWolf said:

 

 

Very true but player skill is an even bigger factor than here where a lucky shot from a lesser player can turn the tide against a better player. When a group of generals were campaigning for another general to be promoted to Marshal Napoleon said “I know he's a good general, but is he lucky?”. In chess the better player is just about guaranteed to win baring a complete brain fart, the lesser player is player to do better than expected.

That's more like Backgammon than Chess. The better player wins, but luck can make it interesting. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,491
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
25,663 posts
13,998 battles
5 minutes ago, Wombatmetal said:

That's more like Backgammon than Chess. The better player wins, but luck can make it interesting. 

You answered before I could finish my edit.

or the lesser player can have a moment where they play far above their normal. When a group of generals were campaigning for another general to be promoted to Marshal Napoleon said “I know he's a good general, but is he lucky?”.

Luck is making use of the enemies mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
672
[RKLES]
Members
648 posts

There is no luck in chess. Comparing WOW's to Chess is an insult to the latter.

Both of you should have your pants pulled down and your bottoms spanked.

There is no comparison.

Now go stand in the corner.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,299
[WOOK3]
Members
4,174 posts
3,208 battles
11 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

You answered before I could finish my edit.

or the lesser player can have a moment where they play far above their normal. When a group of generals were campaigning for another general to be promoted to Marshal Napoleon said “I know he's a good general, but is he lucky?”.

Luck is making use of the enemies mistakes.

 

There is no such thing as luck. There is only adequate or inadequate preparation to face a statistical universe. Robert Heinlein. 

I would add having a mobile reserve, too

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,814
[TDRB]
Members
4,554 posts
12,779 battles

World of Warships much, much closer to rock, paper, scissors. Too much RNG in this arcade game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,491
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
25,663 posts
13,998 battles
18 minutes ago, Wombatmetal said:

 

There is no such thing as luck. There is only adequate or inadequate preparation to face a statistical universe. Robert Heinlein. 

I would add having a mobile reserve, too

 

Luck is being able to react to the enemies mistakes and to not panic when your people make mistakes, battle is fluid.

Edited by BrushWolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,468
[O7]
Members
1,470 posts
10,421 battles

comparing wargaming games to any game is an insult to other games but i like the chess analogy because you have destroyers,cruisers and battleships are all the pawns that can move 1 square at a time meanwhile carriers are the queens that just do everything better and easier because balans

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,062
[JMMAF]
Members
2,026 posts
6,677 battles

WoWs is more like Tic Tac Toe with islands instead of lines, 9 players just in case it goes that far, CVs which will tell you what square the red team will be picking next, and RNG rendering most green moves moot because.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
646
[OIL-1]
Members
934 posts

When you analyzed the chess game, you left out the most important part. The board.
The board allows for clever tactics like deception and flanking.

The wows board (map) has been specifically designed to prevent intelligent play.
They start with the 3 corridor rule to prevent flanking.

You may have noticed some funky looking land formations that don't look realistic.
They used to, but some clever players found a way to use them to their advantage,
so WG slapped something onto the island real quick to prevent that tactic from working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
808
[LUCK]
Members
1,836 posts
29,004 battles
6 hours ago, Herr_Reitz said:

Chess contains pawns, bishops, knights, rooks and of course the monarchs (king and queen). Each piece can threaten any other piece but the power they each wield varies, with the Queen being (arguably?) the most powerful piece in the game. Kings are more of a liability as compared to the Queen, yes? 

So chess contains five groups of pieces. 

Here comes WoWS... it has destroyers, cruisers, battleshps and carriers... but wait, we have only four... we need five... hmm... oh yeah, submarines. 

I think we've been looking at this game the wrong way for a very long time. Soon we'll have five groups in the game. 

Might they lean towards a future WoWS that falls more into a strategy along the lines of chess, substituting ship types for the chess pieces? 

How do you see this? You think it's possible? If so, how would you put down the ship type rules? tia fyc

Not possible as there are anywhere from 7-12 individuals with autonomous decision making and no coordinated plan/strategy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,578 posts
33,920 battles
7 hours ago, Herr_Reitz said:

Chess contains pawns, bishops, knights, rooks and of course the monarchs (king and queen). Each piece can threaten any other piece but the power they each wield varies, with the Queen being (arguably?) the most powerful piece in the game. Kings are more of a liability as compared to the Queen, yes? 

So chess contains five groups of pieces. 

Here comes WoWS... it has destroyers, cruisers, battleshps and carriers... but wait, we have only four... we need five... hmm... oh yeah, submarines. 

I think we've been looking at this game the wrong way for a very long time. Soon we'll have five groups in the game. 

Might they lean towards a future WoWS that falls more into a strategy along the lines of chess, substituting ship types for the chess pieces? 

How do you see this? You think it's possible? If so, how would you put down the ship type rules? tia fyc

Actually, Chess is the only game that is by far the most engrossing and important to Russians as a whole.

We take it for granted that other games are all around us. But in Russia, before video games and handhelds, Chess ruled them all.

There is always going to be an element of Chess in a Russian made video game. All the Devs grew up playing it.

One characteristic element most don't always recognize is the long game. And one far more sinister and sublime is sacrificing a pawn.

The game is not a version of Chess, but an element is added if only unintentionally to get certain aspects to work. It's not a genius thing mind you, it's more Chess is part of the influence of a Devs thought process.

It is that thought process that drives balance among other things, but like all games, chess has its flaws.

Balance is never easy in any game. Sometimes it's a player that upsets the balance, and other times it's a new thing added to the game.

You also have to remember that the game of Chess operates on 3 dimensions only if you add time as a parameter. Otherwise, it is a two dimensional game with linear progression thinking.

Warships is multidimensional. I won't give away how many dimensions. (Spoilers)

Let's just say it's crazy to play without laughing at the sheer inexplicable strange math and oddball forever chaos of shooting at ships whilst maintaining some measure of composure in the face of inexperienced players and maybe some megalomaniacal ones at that.

I read that out loud and this stray cat sitting outside my bedroom window just dropped its jaw and said: "wwwoowwwwrrr!"

I guess he approves.

*Eats a Ritz Cracker.

Edited by SteelRain_Rifleman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,111
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
11,642 posts

I enjoy posting abstract, lazy thoughts like this out here. It gets a lot of good dialogue going. I particularly enjoy the depth of people's thoughts, the quotes and analysis provided. 

Perhaps 

23 minutes ago, SteelRain_Rifleman said:

There is always going to be an element of Chess in a Russian made video game. All the Devs grew up playing it.

... this is where my original thought was headed? 

I don't imagine there will be any other ship types added to the game. I felt it was interesting, the five type's which of course chess carries off in very defined, precise roles might just somehow relate to WoWS.... but could't find the hidden relationship. I believe @SteelRain_Rifleman found it for me. 

In my original thought, I also did not consider some of the other thoughts, such as chess being 2D with time per move (perhaps) being the only restriction. If you ponder on the complexity of this game, you soon realize in its own way, it is friggin' complex. 

Perhaps that has something to do with the limited player pool sizes? It's actually fun, for me, to consider just how many complexities exist in this game. 

I may not be expressing it precisely.. if you got a better means, do share! tia fyc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,965
[ARGSY]
Members
18,850 posts
13,133 battles
9 hours ago, Herr_Reitz said:

How do you see this? You think it's possible?

You do have a point in terms of the balance of their powers. However, as others have pointed out, the analogy falters on chess being turn-based while WOWS is continuous.

In addition, WOWS is like the chess pieces having minds of their own. The knight COULD drop into that undefended square to deliver a smothered mate to the King (compare a solo warrior candidate capping out the standard battle base), BUT WAIT, the enemy Queen is vulnerable and can be taken (compare greed for kills ---> leaving the cap with two seconds to run or betraying his position by shooting). Too bad that Kt x Q is followed immediately by R-B8 Checkmate (enemy dev-strikes him or detonates him with a last-second lucky shot), and there's not a thing that all his fellow players watching in horror can do to stop him from throwing the game.

So I guess there are parallels, but the differences far outweigh them. 

 

 

(And yes, I'm showing my age by my use of descriptive notation. So what? :Smile_trollface:)

Edited by Ensign_Cthulhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,135
[SALVO]
Members
3,380 posts
3,274 battles
13 hours ago, Herr_Reitz said:

 

So chess ...

I think we've been looking at this game the wrong way for a very long time. 

My 10-yo daughter knows best...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,761
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
14,603 posts

The game might not be chess, but it also sure as hell isn't RPS, and thank goodness for that. 

RPS has to be one of the most ridiculous and counter-productive ways of approaching video game design, it's just a lazy shortcut to an illusion of "balance". 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,894
[TARK]
Members
5,638 posts
2,260 battles
11 hours ago, kgh52 said:

World of Warships much, much closer to rock, paper, scissors. Too much RNG in this arcade game.

I dont think the game is anywhere close to RPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×