I know those values are the right ones because they've been the right ones for the last 30 years or so...These values have more than 30 years of actualy use backing them up. They are far more certain than any computer game values.
Humor us non-designers. We're curious. Tell us why those are the right values. Tell us what would happen if we didn't use those values. Please. That's all mikeman is asking. Is that really so difficult? What was the question you thought mikeman asked, that you thought you were answering?
You could even write a multi-paragraph blog post explaining those numbers alone. People here would read it.
If you can't explain why you believe something, how can you be sure that you're right?
I mean, he conceded that those values are just a "good starting point based on experience", and prone to change, which is reasonable...you award the player based on their dice roll, you start with some default values that seem reasonable based on your exprience and then tune them as necessary...except that's what all designers do *anyway*. What Kavig Kang claims to bring to the table is a much more detailed design document...but if the document is 800-pages littered with arrays of values that are not set in stone and can change anyway, why not condense it to "player is awarded based on a 5-dice roll - values of awards to be decided upon playtesting" in the first place?
If the various values are to be balanced during playtesting anyway, would you rather have 20 pages detailing the fire and damage rates of all the weapons in the game, or just a single sentence "weapons will differ in damage and fire rates, but no weapon is clearly better than the other and they all have their purpose - the actual values are to be decided when the game is played and tested"? The latter is what he calls a "summary" in contrast to the "detail design document that is already a game" - except I don't see the value in the former when the values are going to be tuned during testing anyway, it just feels like you filled a lot of pages with numbers to give the *impression* of "professionalism" instead of capturing the essense of the game mechanic in a few paragraphs and do the tuning later. I mean, if we go back to the money you get based on dice roll, the essence here seems to be that there's an extra bonus for the "all 5 dices roll six", beyond what you'd normally get based on the function used for 1-4 sixes. So you can just say that, more effectively communicating what you're trying to do and why, instead of listing endless arrays of values which are to be tuned afterwards anyway.
Unless, of course, he does have a "scientific method", besides of past experience that every designer has, of determining those values, in which case the detailed designed document is valuable because fine-tuning in order to capture the elusive "fun" factor will take much less time. But so far he hasn't answered what is the "scientific method" that lead to a 400-million bonus instead of a 800-million one or a 200-million one. Hell, I could even say that if you roll 5 sixes, you do one more dice roll and the extra bonus is decided based on that, so it could be 100 to 600 million extra bonus. Or you roll the dice and you get a fixed bonus, unless you roll 1, in which case, no bonus, just your "regular" 1.6 billion. Are those rules better? Are they worse? Are they just different? Does the extra dice roll generate more "fun/suspense" or more "boredom" for the players? I personally have no idea, that's why I'm asking questions(but not really getting answers), but don't you need to have an explanation of why if you claim that "those value are correct" and even bring "math" and "scientific method" into it?
Kavik Kang, I don't want you to think I'm doubting that you're a good game designer, I mean it's certainly obvious you know your stuff when it comes to board games, I'm just curious what is this "scientific method" you use and you claim is a huge advantage over all the other videogame designers.
Okay, and now something tangentially related to lighten the mood