Rock,Paper, Scissors(RPS) in Dead or Alive.

[virtuaPAI]

Sirlin created a good article on RPS, which explain how it is applicable to fighters. The one thing that stood out the most, was the section on unequal payoffs in RPS. It states:

Now consider the same game of RPS with unequal (but clearly defined) payoffs. If you win with rock, you win $10. If you win with scissors, you win $3. If you win with paper, you win $1. Which move do you play? You clearly want to play rock, since it has the highest payoff. I know you want to play rock. You know I know you know, and so on. Playing rock is such an obvious thing to do, you must realize I'll counter it ever time. But I can't counter it (with paper) EVERY time, since then you could play scissors at will for a free $3. In fact, playing scissors is pretty darn sneaky. It counters paper--the weakest move. Why would you expect me to do the weakest move? Are you expecting me to play paper just to counter your powerful rock? Why wouldn't I just play rock myself and risk the tie? You're expecting me to be sneaky by playing paper, and you're being doubly sneaky by countering with scissors. What you don't realize is that I was triply sneaky and I played the original obvious move of rock to beat you.

That may have all sounded like double-talk, but it's Yomi Layer 3 in action. And it had quite a curious property: playing rock was both the naive, obvious choice AND the triply sneaky choice.

His article shows that RPS using an unequal payoff system works well within a fighter and is not shallow as some players believe it to be. However, what is written is one of several subsets within the main RPS system, and is not the focal point of the games that he mentioned(VF, Doa). When using unequal payoffs;

• Throws=10(Throws beat: Holds, Block, and Neutral opponents).
• Blows=3.(Blows beat: Throws and Neutral opponents).
• Holds=1(Holds beat: Blows)

A good player is not going to use the most damaging option, just because it is the most powerful. Sirlin touched on the fact that blows will beat out a throw, but that is not the main reason why you would opt to do a blow as opposed to a throw. If both players randomly used the RPS system, both players will only have a 33% chance of winning. Even though on average a throw will do more damage than a blow, a blow will provide setup options that will allow you to manipulate the RPS System in your favor(which you cannot do on average with a throw). Lets say your blow connects and your opponent is either staggered or in a medium disadvantage on hit. This raise your percentage of succeeding from 33% now to 66% because it is no longer a random act of RPS. Your blows and throws will now have priority over his(66%), forcing him into defensive mode(33%). This is what you would consider to be the optimal solution.

 

[virtuaPAI]

Part 2:

Sirlin goes deeper into the discussion with "unclear payoffs" and how difficult it is to assess due to many variables present within fighters. The one thing that was spot on was the skill needed to evaluate the many situations that are present to you. However, he was not so correct in stating: "If you can make payoffs unequal AND unclear, then you've already gone a long way toward making a good strategy game". When using the optimal solution, you are using unequal payoffs that he mentioned, but the risk/reward is clear for both you and your opponent alike. This clarity provides a greater offensive impact than it would if you tried to be unclear.

I am getting the impression that Sirlin had unintentionally blurred the lines between RPS and Yomi (and confusing some aspects of Yomi with RPS) within his article. What should be unclear (deceiving), is the mental exchange between both players(essentially Yomi), not which attribute beat what (RPS). The optimal solution will always be the solution that will allow your offensive percentage (66%) to be greater than your opponents defensive percentage (33%). Achieving this is the challenging part, which Sirlin tried to convey.

 

[Matt Ponton]

I'm not really a fan of this article mainly due to his suggestions on changing RPS still means you're playing RPS in the end. Putting weights to each side of the triangle doesn't help *fix* the idea that RPS is a one-round one-hit match - all or nothing.

Each fighting game has a rock-paper-scissors type triangle system that makes novice generalizations of the engine at its core. However, in the course of the match this "game" is being played 1000s if not 1000000s of times. In most of these games there's an element of "depth" that comes about in having it so you can choose Paper & Rock at the same time, giving an experienced player the advantage. Street Fighter for example calls these situations "# in 1s" which is why they get confused with our terminology, as it stands for covering a # of options with one decision. DOA even has these with things such as the low defensive hold which ducks a high attack and standing throw at the same time.

Even DOA which is criticized for being "Just RPS" is more than a Rock Paper Scissors game as it has fourth item as the Catch Throw/Offensive Hold system. A sort of hybrid in and of itself of two of the three variables in the RPS system.

If a game were truly a RPS game system, it would be one round, first hit wins, and no room to maneuver. Luckily, fighting games aren't just one game of Rock Paper Scissors.

 

[Berzerk!]

I came across this convo late but I'm interested in whether VP you have thought to write to Sirlin or comment on his blog in articles like these? I'm sure he'd be interested in a more indepth point of view on DOA. He has an understanding of the game at a basic level I am sure, as with all fighting games, but I think he may not realise just how much DOA fits many of his design requirements that are discussed in other articles

For instance, ease of use, simplicity of control, importance of the mindgame - like many people who came up in other games however, I think he has only a surface appreciation of the game at high level and just how balanced it is.

 

[virtuaPAI]

I did this so the Doa community can reflect on it. Usually trying to explain that Doa is more involved than people give it credit, usually do not bode well. I believe this is because it is Hip(and simply easier) to follow the crowd than it is to critically think, and form ones own opinion without being blacklisted.