Win at Risk by using systems thinking • Hacker News Board

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#111

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 5:19 PM UTC

failwhaleshark wrote: post #57

Dumblydorr wrote: post #17

In our gaming group, we decided Risk just isn't that good of a game. It's old and clunky and extremely long, there are 100 other better board games now. Our main plays have been Dominion, DnD, Gloomhaven, Wingspan, and Crokinole, all of which we greatly prefer.

What does "old" matter to whether a game is good or not? And regardless, are you sure you're not expressing ubiquitous consumerism or ageism? ~50 BP - Othello ~50 BP - DnD ~60 BP - Risk ~60 BP - Diplomacy ~70 BP - Stratego ~100 BP - Contract bridge ~200 BP - Mahjong ~200 BP - Double twelve dominoes ~600 BP - Playing cards ~1300 BP - Chess ~2500 BP - 围棋 (Go) ~5000 BP - Checkers / draughts ~5000 BP - Backgammon

[deleted]

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#112

Post by mLuby » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 5:21 PM UTC

ysavir wrote: post #109

beaconstudios wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess is "before present", not sure why you wouldn't use BCE/CE though.

BP (when properly explained) emphasizes that the important aspect of the timeline is its relativity to the current time.

So it saves 2 characters compared to ###y ago but requires an explanation.

    2500 BP
    2500y ago

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#113

Post by beaconstudios » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 5:22 PM UTC

ysavir wrote: post #109

beaconstudios wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess is "before present", not sure why you wouldn't use BCE/CE though.

BP (when properly explained) emphasizes that the important aspect of the timeline is its relativity to the current time.

I can see why it makes sense in archaeology, but using it here without any explanation just led to confusion. Everybody knows BC/AD (or BCE/CE if you're wanting to be cross cultural) so using it is just poor communication in this case.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#114

Post by sdenton4 » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 5:23 PM UTC

cletus wrote: post #106

paulluuk wrote: post #56

This article suggests that you should not play too aggressive and not take continents too early (maximizing Reinforcing Feedback), because other players will then unite against you (Balancing Feedback). However, this article fails to understand that in Risk, most players are not willing to unite. In fact, if player A and player B decide to unite against me and player A had his turn and stopped me, player B is highly…

When I read stories like this I always wonder how much of this is groupthink. Speaking as someone who has played a ton of different, complex games over many years, groupthink can be really pervasive and often explains why someone swears a particular strategy is dominant. I don’t play Risk so can’t speak this specific example. I suspect if you took your strategy elsewhere your get far more boxed results however.

In the ever evolving online game world (eg, hearthstone), group think is basically 'the meta.' Lots of people get the same common advice, or learn a new trick, so suddenly it becomes advantageous to use strategies which defend against the trick or take advantage of some weakness which opens up due to a trade-off... And then repeat.

Afaict, being really good at these games requires a good grasp of the fundamentals, knowing the game itself inside and out, and also having really up to date knowledge of the current meta.

The same phenomenon happens with Diplomacy (board game) as well... Probably any sufficiently complex game with a community ends up with a meta.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#115

Post by mLuby » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 5:24 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #96

TchoBeer wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New things are made with the knowledge of old things, and old things aren't. Unless more knowledge about what you're making could lead to a worse product, then newer things will on average be better than older things.

Does this theory hold in practice when you look around you in the real world? Was the best work of all fields - cinema, art, music, architecture, literature, all from the last year?

Yes it does, but not from "last year" because art has to age. The best art from 11700 is leagues better than the best art from 10700, or 5000 (we're in 12021 BTW). Obvious caveat that dark and golden ages interrupt this trend.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#116

Post by AlotOfReading » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 5:25 PM UTC

meowster wrote: post #68

failwhaleshark wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "old" matter to whether a game is good or not? And regardless, are you sure you're not expressing ubiquitous consumerism or ageism? ~50 BP - Othello ~50 BP - DnD ~60 BP - Risk ~60 BP - Diplomacy ~70 BP - Stratego ~100 BP - Contract bridge ~200 BP - Mahjong ~200 BP - Double twelve dominoes ~600 BP - Playing cards ~1300 BP - Chess ~2500 BP - 围棋 (Go) ~5000 BP - Checkers / draughts ~5000 BP - Backgammon

What is "BP"? I tried searching the Inernet but couldn't find it.

It normally refers to a timescale called "Before Present" where Present is defined as = Jan 1, 1950. You see it a lot in radio- dating. GP has invented their own dating system with the same name based around ~2021.

Fun fact, there's no corresponding After Present system for dates after 1950. Instead you subtract negative years. E.g. 1957 AD = -7 BP.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#117

Post by distances » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 5:28 PM UTC

Dumblydorr wrote: post #17

In our gaming group, we decided Risk just isn't that good of a game. It's old and clunky and extremely long, there are 100 other better board games now. Our main plays have been Dominion, DnD, Gloomhaven, Wingspan, and Crokinole, all of which we greatly prefer.

> It's old and clunky and extremely long, there are 100 other better board games now.

And to just put this into numbers, BGG ranks Risk on position 19,955. By this ranking there are just shy of twenty thousand games better than Risk. And I agree, I will never play Risk again as it's not worth the time with the competition today.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#118

Post by Jeff_Brown » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 5:29 PM UTC

viburnum wrote: post #59

Jeff_Brown wrote: post #21

Coming from an economics background, every presentation I've seen of "systems thinking" (admittedly, not a large number) makes it look ill-defined, incomplete, and obvious.

Are you kidding? My economics background taught me to assume away all the relevant facts and content myself with toy models of perfect competition.

The most relevant economic model for this context would be Nash equilibrium.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#119

Post by riantogo » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 5:29 PM UTC

For Risk a better way is to apply Strategic Thinking. The difference bring, while you might fully control all parts of your system (bathtub) you can't fully control the market (competitors).

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#120

Post by alex_anglin » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 5:29 PM UTC

paulluuk wrote: post #56

This article suggests that you should not play too aggressive and not take continents too early (maximizing Reinforcing Feedback), because other players will then unite against you (Balancing Feedback). However, this article fails to understand that in Risk, most players are not willing to unite. In fact, if player A and player B decide to unite against me and player A had his turn and stopped me, player B is highly…

My experience is that capturing and holding smaller continents early on is best. Capturing and keeping North America, Europe or Asia early on tends not to work well when I play.