MULTI PLAYER : 5) How are they going to handle death? If 6 people are playing, and onedies. Where does he go? Does he go back to the first town like in MM6?With no money and no equipment? Then he has to hunt down everyone else? Orwill he just be out of that game? Like perm-death?I think it is relatively obvious that there is no way the multi-player gamewill be exactly like a single-player game. The story line may remainseamless, but human interaction provides for too many variables that asingle-player game would (probably) not have. That being said, I havenever used multi-player in any game before except for Nascar 2, to race afriend of mine. I am planning to use it in this game though, if for noother reason than to experience a true multi-player CRPG.Thanks for any answers you may have.InvisibleTo save you time and effort searching, just jump straight to Interplay'sor Bioware's page for the Baldur's Gate FAQ, which answers all of yourquestions. MULTI PLAYER : /--------------------------------------- ----------------------------\\---------- ---------------------------------------- -----------------/I believe it's 4. But if the main character dies it's gameover. It's not amud - and let's hope it's nothing like UO !I really haven't been following balders Gate too closely, but based on what Ihear about multiplayer, it seems its a Commandos type multiplayer. You play thegame with other players and have one person who is the host. He/she saves thegame and loads the game etc etc etc. What I hope it is, is something LIKEdiablo, where you CAN roam around in dungeons regardless of where you are in thestory. I like a multiplayer rpg to be somewhat open-ended. I'd rather play thestory myself solo first, then play multi when I want to play at a harder settingetc, ala Diablo.I'd just like to point out that when I saw the "(not a troll)", I waspretty sure this would turn out to be about whether or not there wasgoing to be hot man-to-man action in the multiplayer game. I waswrong, luckily. MULTI PLAYER : I don't think so. If it's the same 2 players, playing multiple rounds, then Black-only isstill an optimal (I guess, THE optimal) strategy. If I play Black-only, my opponent willnever have an opportunity to out-score me, in any round. That's why I say that Red/Blackis really a multi-player game.I don't look at it that way. I would think of the Red/Black tournament as being a singlemulti-player game, which is played in stages. I don't think of tit-for-tat as being ameta-game strategy in this context -- it's merely (apparantly) the optimal strategy forone multi-player game.But let's look at it in a bit more detail, and see if TFT really IS the optimal strategy.Suppose you and I are in cahoots, and join a R/B tournament. We can win with thefollowing strategy -- which beats TFT: before the game, we flip a coin. The winner of thecoin toss will eventually win the tournament -- one of us will sacrifice ourselves so theother will win. Suppose I won the toss -- whenever we play, you always choose Red, and Ialways choose Black. In our games, I'll get 5 points per round, vs 3 points per roundwhich TFT-ers are making. When I play other people, I play TFT. Just to solidify ourcombined advantage, when you play other people, you play Black-only, ensuring a low pointcount for all your opponents (except me!). MULTI PLAYER : So, there you have it: a (true) meta-game strategy which beats TFT! That, to me, is"meta-gaming" -- having agreements which are external to the spirit/rules of the gamewhich fundamentally change the game strategy. Such meta-gaming can only occur inmulti-player games (or multi-player tournaments, which are, in effect, multi-playergames).My feeling is that, basically, meta-gaming is a Bad Thing -- that games are most fun whenall players eschew meta-gaming. Taken to its extreme, meta-gaming can completely destroya game -- each game effectively begins with (and is pre-decided by) anIt clearly isn't an optimal strategy. It is easy to construct a group ofcompeting strategies for which TFT will lose. This includes cases where theplayers are anonymous to each when the rounds are being played. You don'tneed to have explicit agreements with other players to beat TFT.Not all multiplayer games reduce to two player games. While some of theseare exterme cases (e.g. Candyland), there are also interesting games thatdon't allow for cooperation. While not a perfect example, Yathzee is prettyclose. There actually can be a small amount of collusion in this game, butthis will not normally have an appreciable effect on the game. One formatfor a perfect no collusion race game would be one where the players couldnot effect each other and where their decisions could not trade offexpected value for variance. MULTI PLAYER : Most people think that because, it is true. In typical multiplayer games,players' moves will have uneven effects on the other players. Under thesecircumstances there aren't going to be optimal strategies. You can haveoptimal strategies under the assumption that all the other players arecolluding against you. However these strategies may be quite poor in practice.In some games the player interaction is very low and there can also beoptimal strategies.For example? I haven't thought it through much myself -- I'm just going by what was said, that TFTwas optimal (which seemed plausible).OK -- so "N-player solo" games are an exception. Of course, it could well be argued that thesearen't "true multi-player" games. They're just N players playing solo in the same place and time.Good point. So now I wonder in what sense Tit-for-Tat is "optimal".I believe TFT won some tournaments the allowed people to enter differentalgorithms. As an example consider the case that all other opponents usean algorithm where they defect on the first turn and then use TFT. Assumingthat more than a couple of turns are played in a round, these algorithmswill due much better in this environment than a single copy of TFT.
| ||
|
players guide, windows media player 6.4, real audio player, media player free, flash player 6, real player 8, windows media player codecs, mp3 player download, dvd players, xbox media player, mpg player, media player skins, player skins, real player linux, windows media player 7, windows media player 8, video cd player, mpeg2 player, xing player, codec for windows media player, media player 6.4, media player codecs, windows media player update, asf player, player 7, ati dvd player, single player demo, xing mpeg player, disc players, media player 7, windows media player 7.1, player codec, media player 8, player skin, divix player, player 9, real player basic, vivo player, media player mac, player downloads, player dvd, media player 7.1, player 6.4, media player update, player plus, player 7.1, avi player, download flash player, download real player, dvd player, free media player, free real player, media player download, mp3 cd player, player divx, player mp3, player one, player video, real player one, windows media player codec, windows media player download |