Are 4X games "fair"?

The Galaxy Lives On! Distant Worlds, the critically acclaimed 4X space strategy game is back with a brand new 64-bit engine, 3D graphics and a polished interface to begin an epic new Distant Worlds series with Distant Worlds 2. Distant Worlds 2 is a vast, pausable real-time 4X space strategy game. Experience the full depth and detail of turn-based strategy, but with the simplicity and ease of real-time, and on the scale of a massively-multiplayer online game.

Moderator: MOD_DW2

Post Reply
User avatar
zebanovich
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:46 am

Are 4X games "fair"?

Post by zebanovich »

I have a philosophical question which might or might not be better suited to philosophers, however I think gamers might be better suited to answer this than some old bearded sages who don't play strategy games :D

I will do my best to explain the concept as follows:

First, let's quickly apply game theory to 4X game...
In game thoery "gameplay strategy" is defined like this:
Each player in a game faces a choice among two or more possible strategies.
A strategy is a predetermined 'programme of play' that tells what actions to take in response to every possible strategy other players might use.
In 4X, gameplay of a certain player in respect to game theory consists of 3 steps: (simplified version of the original text)
1. Assess outcomes or develop a list of possible "gameplay strategies" ordered by the benefit of a strategy
2. Calculate path to outcomes, in the sense of recognizing which sequences of actions are probabilistically associated with which outcomes
3. Select actions from sets of strategies that yield most-preferred outcome, given the actions of the other players.
The above is needed only to understand the meaning of "gameplay strategy" and to recognize that gameplay of a 4X game fundamentally consists of developing an optimal strategy by choosing from a set of possible strategies.

Next let's define a "fair game":
A game which is not biased toward any player.
A game in which a given player can always win by playing correctly is therefore called an unfair game.
"Playing correctly" above means to have a winning gameplay strategy, always resulting in victory, which is unfair game.

A fair game is therefore a game in which there is an equal chance of winning or losing (no winning strategy).
We can say that if a game is fair then the probability of winning is equal to the probability of losing.

An example of a fair game is tossing a coin, the chances of getting heads is equal to the chance of getting tails (50%), there is no "gameplay strategy" which would guarantee only heads or only tails!
This means if you and I toss a coin we both have equal chances of winning, in the long run we win nothing over each other.

An example of unfair game is lottery, because chances of losing are much higher than chances of winning.

This means if you play lottery against lottery organizer then the lottery organizer has higher chances of winning than you, in other words he has a winning "gameplay strategy" which in the long run will earn him more money than yourself.

-----------

Now that we understand what is fair game, what is strategy and how strategies are fundamental part of gameplay it needs to be answered whether 4X game is fair?

Here is an argument of mine (not necessarily correct! just my opinion):

I think it would be incorrect to claim for ex. the AI is getting bonuses and I don’t so the game Is unfair, or likewise I’m intelligent human being and the AI isn’t so the game is unfair.

The reason why I say this is incorrect is because fair\unfair game isn’t about who is "smarter" but rather about having an equal probability to win or lose.

Let’s take for example chess game, chess is fair game since both players have equal chances to win or lose, however both players are not equally skillful nor do they have equal IQ, but this doesn’t make chess an unfair game right?

Also both chess players might play "correctly" (play optimal strategies) but this doesn’t mean both will win, at best they can end up with draw, but they can’t both win no matter how “correct” they play. :D
There is no winning gameplay strategy in chess.

This is what is meant with "A game in which a given player can always win by playing correctly is therefore called an unfair game".

tossing a coin, chess and lottery are simple examples because you can calculate upfront all possibilities, 4X games are however much more complex and number of possible strategies is bigger than entire galaxy, thus calculation isn't an option, one has to resort to philosophy to get any meaningful result.

For example in 4X game there is a problem with starting position, unlike in chess where both players get equal starting position, in 4X game however you can end up with bad starting position (such as starting at the edge of a galaxy), so we should take stuff like these into account.

I could expand this topic with a lot of additional stuff and examples but now it's up to you to take your position on whether 4X game is fair or not, and then depending on your position how would you defend your position?
You don't have to necessarily agree with my view above, I could be wrong about some things that's why I ask this to see if there is a bug in my reasoning.

Btw. You might have noticed that I'm more interested in single-player game, although multi-player isn't immune to same problem.
StormingKiwi
Posts: 278
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2021 6:35 am

Re: Are 4X games "fair"?

Post by StormingKiwi »

The lottery is not an unfair game.

This isn't about probability, it's about certainty. Unfair games are solved games.

Given correct play, the outcome of the game is predetermined. I.e. one player can force the result and the other cannot do anything about it.
One player always wins. Not most of the time.

4X games like Distant Worlds 2 are fair - the game space is too large to solve.
User avatar
Nightskies
Posts: 222
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 3:00 am
Location: Colorado

Re: Are 4X games "fair"?

Post by Nightskies »

First, there isn't a winning *pure strategy* in a 4x. One must commit to every aspect to some extent. One must research, develop their military, expand their economic strength, and engage in politics. In Distant Worlds 2, for a normal game without changing the winning conditions, the winning condition is largely dependent on building up sufficient economic strength through territory acquisition, population, and (analogously) GDP. For the sake of discussion, one can say there are general strategies, such as focusing on rapid exploration and research station acquisition for establishing an insurmountable technological advantage.

In Distant Worlds 2, the player is an exclusive advantage (or perhaps detriment) to the empire they are associated with. The other empires do not consider this and treat it as they would any other, under the default settings. The player has the ability to use or restrict features in a way that the AI cannot- some features the AI can't use at all- this in itself is an unfair advantage. Using these features (such as setting tax to 100%) gives a very large boost to the capabilities of the host empire- combined with effective diplomacy, the player's empire is just short of certain victory. If that is even their goal...

Just as there is no winning *pure strategy*, looking at DW2 as a win-lose is also short-sighted. The AI doesn't even consider victory conditions. The player is the element in the galaxy, through the confines of a single empire, that has any meaningful agency. They are given victory conditions as a goal, but they need not heed it either. There is no reward for reaching them. There is no lasting consequence. The galaxy can continue to be simulated, and the player can continue acting upon it, and other galaxies are unaffected by the results aside from the player's experience.

Given all the above, the AI further cannot recognize or actively thwart the player's efforts toward their goals. This game is a player's sandbox. At first there is the confusion and discovery for the player in learning how the system works, what the rules are, and what tools effectively do, and in that time a rival empire might challenge them in some way that demonstrates what an empire needs to survive or be built up to a victorious condition.

All this is to point that fairness, in the context of 'game theory', has almost no application with Distant Worlds 2. There is only one player. The other empires are just target dummies- albeit pretty well designed ones for a game as complicated as this. They also play their role, and I think that's all that can be fairly asked of them.


**Redefining players as the empires, assuming the literal player does not act on it, turns the game into a simulation, in which, a victor does not always arise. I think a militarily aggressive empire has a better chance of meeting default victory conditions, but I haven't just sat back and watched the AI run its course enough to be sure.
User avatar
zebanovich
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:46 am

Re: Are 4X games "fair"?

Post by zebanovich »

StormingKiwi wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 8:20 pm This isn't about probability, it's about certainty. Unfair games are solved games.

Given correct play, the outcome of the game is predetermined. I.e. one player can force the result and the other cannot do anything about it.
One player always wins. Not most of the time.
Thank you, that's exactly a kind of response I was looking for! because it reveals false reasoning.

Problem seems to lie in how fair game was defined and how I applied the definition which obviously supports you in that
certainty to win = unfair.

But this is insufficient because game can be unfair without certainty to win...
I did additional research and found a more precise definition of a fair game which is used in almost every game theory article you can find online:
If the value of the game is zero (i.e. there is no loss or gain for any player), the game is called fair game.
Where "the value of the game" is defined as:
The expected outcome when players follow their optimal strategy is called the value of the game, It is denoted by V
Where further "optimal strategy" is defined as:
The particular strategy (or complete plan) by which a player optimizes his gains or losses without knowing the competitor's strategies is called optimal strategy.
https://kanchiuniv.ac.in/coursematerial ... theory.pdf

These definitions when combined into one translate to:
If the expected outcomes of the player's optimized plans is neither gain or loss for any player the game is fair.

Thus, "certainty" alone doesn't constitute what is fair, rather it's about players playing best strategies of which none should give advantage to any player.

This when applied to 4X, given 2 opponents (ex. You vs AI), each will come up with optimal strategy among several possible strategies.
Where optimal strategies of you and the AI must not give advantage to neither of you in order for game to be fair.

Also 4X is about probability, because "expected outcome" or expected value of a strategy is probable but not certain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value
StormingKiwi wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 8:20 pm The lottery is not an unfair game.
Disagree,

Expected value in playing lottery is not 0, which means it's biased toward one of the players which is lottery organizer.

You can verify this for any lottery game on the planet below:
https://lottolibrary.com/expected-value-calculator/
StormingKiwi wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 8:20 pm 4X games like Distant Worlds 2 are fair - the game space is too large to solve.
Must also disagree, because not being able to calculate EV (expected outcome) doesn't imply fair.

Btw. my aim here is same as yours, which is to prove that 4X games are fair, but since this is impossible to do mathematically I'm looking for strong arguments which can't be refuted.

You've indeed been helpful to change my original statements and I'm looking forward for criticism!
User avatar
zebanovich
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:46 am

Re: Are 4X games "fair"?

Post by zebanovich »

Nightskies wrote: Sun Oct 30, 2022 12:47 am First, there isn't a winning *pure strategy* in a 4x.
That's true, I corrected myself regarding that in previous post in reply to @StormingKiwi
Nightskies wrote: Sun Oct 30, 2022 12:47 am The player has the ability to use or restrict features in a way that the AI cannot- some features the AI can't use at all- this in itself is an unfair advantage. Using these features (such as setting tax to 100%) gives a very large boost to the capabilities of the host empire- combined with effective diplomacy, the player's empire is just short of certain victory. If that is even their goal...
You mean if I raise tax on my planets or manually handle tax this gives me an advantage since the AI doesn't do it?
But this doesn't make game unfair as I explained with chess example, just because one player is better or able to calculate more moves in his head doesn't make chess itself an unfair game.
Nightskies wrote: Sun Oct 30, 2022 12:47 am Just as there is no winning *pure strategy*, looking at DW2 as a win-lose is also short-sighted. The AI doesn't even consider victory conditions. The player is the element in the galaxy, through the confines of a single empire, that has any meaningful agency. They are given victory conditions as a goal, but they need not heed it either. There is no reward for reaching them. There is no lasting consequence. The galaxy can continue to be simulated, and the player can continue acting upon it, and other galaxies are unaffected by the results aside from the player's experience.
Good point regarding victory conditions since victory conditions are part of game rather than part of player or player cognitive abilities.

This is a problem of game design or specifically lack of strict game rules, that is, if game rule states that first one to achieve victory condition wins game then no player should be able to bypass that or modify rule to his own advantage.

If player is able to modify rule to his own advantage then ofc. game is unfair, in fact that's cheating.
But this is not specific to DW2, almost every game allows playing beyond victory.

Some games however solve this problem with the so called "sandbox" mode and "career" mode.
In career mode all players play by strict rules where cheating is punished by losing a game, player plays strictly to win.
While in sandbox mode no rules are enforced, cheating is allowed and player plays for fun.

I would thus say that career mode is fair game and sandbox mode is unfair game.
Thus we can say that most 4X-es are unfair due lack of optional "career mode".
But that's something devs do because they want to please market which it seems to be about users having fun.

Recall super mario game for example, we played that game to *win* without loosing fun, there was no "sandbox" mode which in today's market is default, everybody makes sandbox game by default, but that sucks so bad, no wonder gamers today complain about something that is their own issue in essence, devs just want to make money by pleasing the horde.

The AI would be much better by simply enforcing rules into games and preventing classical cheating methods such as
save-scumming or abuse of RNG by favoring starting position, one doesn't even to have touch the AI at all to improve it.
Nightskies wrote: Sun Oct 30, 2022 12:47 am Given all the above, the AI further cannot recognize or actively thwart the player's efforts toward their goals. This game is a player's sandbox. At first there is the confusion and discovery for the player in learning how the system works, what the rules are, and what tools effectively do, and in that time a rival empire might challenge them in some way that demonstrates what an empire needs to survive or be built up to a victorious condition.
Agree with that it's sandbox game, no rules and thus unfair, however quality of the AI doesn't make game unfair.

Take for example a person with mental disability, that person might be unable to win against AI and it's decision making could be worse than that of AI.
Does mental condition of that person make the game unfair?

Player or AI ability can't be used to measure fairness, game is either fair or not regardless of who plays.
Nightskies wrote: Sun Oct 30, 2022 12:47 am All this is to point that fairness, in the context of 'game theory', has almost no application with Distant Worlds 2. There is only one player. The other empires are just target dummies
Game theory applies to not just DW2 but any other 4X regardless if player is human or not:
Game theory is the study of the ways in which interacting choices of economic agents produce outcomes with respect to the preferences (or utilities) of those agents, where the outcomes in question might have been intended by none of the agents.
"Economic agent" is a player, be it human player of AI:
An economic agent is, by definition, an entity with preferences.
"agent's preference" is simply put player’s goals:
This refers to some ranking, on some specified scale, of the subjective welfare or change in subjective welfare that an agent derives from an object or an event.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/

Although some game theorists do take a stance like you that an "economic agent" must be human:
Economists and others who interpret game theory in terms of RPT should not think of game theory as in any way an empirical account of the motivations of some flesh-and-blood actors (such as actual people).
Where RPT refers to Revealed Preference Theory

Other theorists (non-RPT) claim game theory applies no non humans as well:
An economically rational player is one who can:
1. assess outcomes, in the sense of rank-ordering them with respect to their contributions to her welfare
2. calculate paths to outcomes, in the sense of recognizing which sequences of actions are probabilistically associated with which outcomes
3. select actions from sets of alternatives (which we’ll describe as ‘choosing’ actions) that yield her most-preferred outcomes, given the actions of the other players.
Which excludes human player as the only one qualifying as "rational agent":
An entity is usefully modeled as an economically rational agent to the extent that it has alternatives, and chooses from amongst these in a way that is motivated, at least more often than not, by what seems best for its purposes.
User avatar
Nightskies
Posts: 222
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 3:00 am
Location: Colorado

Re: Are 4X games "fair"?

Post by Nightskies »

It appears we already have a conclusive answer, DW2 is unfair, because the player decides what the victory conditions are, and the AI can not recognize and pursue those objectives with intent to win. Potentially with the added caveat that the player is the only player, not considering each empire as a 'player'. It is not the abilities of the player as an individual, it is the rules that are different for the player, beyond consideration of victory conditions. Its not just a difference of role, such as in a game where one side is considered the attacker and the other the defender. The rules are strongly in favor of the player, giving them choices that the AI controlled empires cannot make, not by virtue of cognitive ability, but by the constraints of the game. One might inaccurately blame the lack of cognition as the reason the AI does not use these rules the player can, but it is more accurate to say that the AI is given the rule that it cannot.

While a player need not use, let alone recognize, those advantages to them provided by the rules, they still differentiate the player (and by extension their empire) from other empires.

"Game theory applies to not just DW2..."

I did not mean to say game theory does not apply to DW2. Not at all! As a playground, its a solid way to play with choices and execution in a sandbox environment. This is to say that the other agents follow a script nearly bereft of competitiveness, allowing the player to do what they want with token resistance.

I would like to note, however, that approaching the topic of game theory for DW2 becomes much more interesting if looking at the player in a much more self-limited capacity- as a fleet admiral, ship captain, colony governor, spy master, and so on. Rather than relying solely on the simulation, the player can be seen as an agent with expanded capabilities, but limited scope. In this, the player's objectives are more true- they do not directly compete with non-competitive entities, but with a stage that will continue behaving as it does regardless of the player's choices.
Jorgen_CAB
Posts: 775
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:53 pm

Re: Are 4X games "fair"?

Post by Jorgen_CAB »

Distant Worlds is unfair becasue I'm not guaranteed to win everytime I play... if I can't win all the time it is not fair... :)
maggiecow
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 5:42 am

Re: Are 4X games "fair"?

Post by maggiecow »

Jorgen_CAB wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 1:27 am Distant Worlds is unfair becasue I'm not guaranteed to win everytime I play... if I can't win all the time it is not fair... :)
Your game setup must be brutal.
User avatar
Nightskies
Posts: 222
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 3:00 am
Location: Colorado

Re: Are 4X games "fair"?

Post by Nightskies »

If by 'brutal' you mean 'hilarious', yes.

*ahem*

Next time I play, not only will it be a hilarious set up, I'll jump into the AI empires to optimize them a bit. To put to rest the "missiles are worthless" argument with a video timelapse, once and for all. At least until the numbers change.
User avatar
altipueri
Posts: 1001
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:09 am

Re: Are 4X games "fair"?

Post by altipueri »

If you find yourself in a fair fight then your strategy is wrong.
Post Reply

Return to “Distant Worlds 2”