Further Analysis Paralysis Discussion

That doesn't solve analysis paralysis. Players just suffer from analysis paralysis simultaneously, which reduces downtime, but it doesn't necessarily solve analysis paralysis although it does make it a non-problem, because the real problem is downtime not analysis paralysis.

Analysis paralysis often introduces downtime (except in the cases where players make decisions simultaneously such as in Wallenstein or RoboRally). Downtime is not necessarily always the result of analysis paralysis. Downtime is generally bad, so if the source of downtime is analysis paralysis then you have to tackle that.

Jeff, I wonder if AP is the source of your problem? Do players take a long time making their decisions? Or is the problem the fact that playingtime is too long? It seems to me that by dividing the game into small phases with only a few choices per phase, you already tackled the most important causes of downtime (AP and long time between turns).

Wolfgang Kramer mentioned that AP is a problem of the players. I do not agree with that. Certainly, it is sometimes true. If the game is simple and decisions straightforward, there is no reason for people to take a long time making a decision. In that case it IS the fault of the player(s).

However, I do believe there are many tricks that a designer can employ to prevent AP.

- Reduce the amount of things to choose from in a player's turn. If a player can choose between 2 things he will reach a decision faster than when he has to evaluate 7 different choices.

- Reduce the amount of permutations of choices in a single turn. For example, if a player can take 2 actions and can choose from 3 different actions than he can perform AA, AB, AC, BA, BB, BC, CA, CB or CC -- 9 different permutations. Imagine how many permutations a player has to evaluate when he has a total of 4 actions and 7 possible choices for each action! I think this is the most important point. Action point system often suffer from analysis paralysis by having a large amount of permutations of choices.

- Introduce "hidden" information or a luck component to make the outcome of a choice non-deterministic. This forces a player to approach the problem with a "more-or-less" attitude, instead of trying to come up with the perfect solution to a deterministic problem.

- Introduce the "Human Element" which is similar to hidden information or luck, except that in this case it is the unpredictability of opponents which makes the outcome of a choice non-deterministic.

There are probably more solutions to AP and I love to see the chat transcript!

- Rene Wiersma

The transcript will come. Fastlearner has part 1 and I have part 2.

-Darke

My definition of analysis paralysis is: the inability of a player to make a choice within a reasonable amount of time, caused by the player wanting to analyze each move and each possible outcome of each move. So, it is a player problem in a sense, but I think a good design can try and salvage it somewhat.

I would say that is AP, yes.

Well, those are the things that distinguish a mediocre design from a good design and there is a fine thread between "too many choices"and "not enough choices". This is stuff that should be tweaked during playtesting.

I have been thinking about this a lot. In principle I agree with you, information that was once public should stay public, otherwise you are creating a memory aspect that might overload people's mind and if a game is not about memorizing things, it seems like a nuisance.

On the other hand, mane great games like Euphrat & Tigris and Puerto Rico make use of hidden VP's and in Taj Mahal or Settlers the cards in one's hand may not be shown even though everyone could technically keep track of what every one has in his hand (as the card draws are open).

Fact is that 99% of the people do not possess a perfect memory. This means that often people will have some idea of who is in the lead in E&T and Puerto Rico, but not exactly by how much because there are so much VP transactions that a player cannot keep track of them all. This means that in the endgame it is not possible to exactly calculate everything, you have to go by feel and in a sense this prevents AP. I think this is a good thing.

I don't think this is much different from the "hidden" aspect. After all, one could also keep in mind what die rolls or card draws are possible and start calculating all the permutations with that in mind. I agree that it doesn't always reduce AP, it depends on how it is implemented.

For example, the blind bidding phase in Amun-Re, you know if you want to bid high or low, but you cannot exactly caluclate if you should bid 6 or 7, so here you have to rely on intuition rather than on calculating skills. However, I could see how this element could introduce AP into a game like Puerto Rico: "If I take the Settler, then John will probably take the Mayor and Mary the Craftsman, which means I can take the Trader, unless Mary takes the Trader herself, in which case I may be better off taking the Prospector, otherwise John will... ", etc.

Maybe Wolfgang Kramer was right after all ;)

One last tip. Often you'll see AP during the endgame, because players are trying to squeeze te most out of their last moves. A good way to prevent this is by having the game end in a somewhat unpredictable way. Example: Union Pacific end when the 4th dividend card is drawn, but when this card is drawn is not exaclty known. Another example is Ra, which ends when the Nth (depending on number of players) Ra token is drawn. Incidentally this not only prevents AP (somewhat) it also makes endgames often quite tense and makes for some exciting push-your-luck scenarios.

- Rene Wiersma