This article is within the scope of WikiProject Games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of game related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Rock - Paper - Scissors - Fire - Water Balloon
How about including this variation from Friends s10e8 "The One with the Late Thanksgiving"? Fire "beats everything" unless there is a water balloon. Water balloon beats fire. Flower of life (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I've made a change on the page, adding that the mentioned addition of the "bull" to the variant "rock, paper, scissors, well" makes it balanced again. I consider that a relevant, not immediately obvious fact, and thus worthy of mention; moreover the place where I added it was marked as "further explanation needed"; I think my addition qualifies as further explanation. It's also a small addition (just six words!), so you also cannot argue that it would bloat the article.
Yet it was reverted very shortly after by Ollieinc with the comment "not necessary". Reversion means that the edit made the article worse, right? So in which way did my edit make the article worse? --220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I've also heard it called "shifumi" is that Japanese?
Rock-paper-scissors analogies in nature section
This is the first time I've read this article, and this section seems really pointless and out of place. I don't want to just remove it, but I really don't think it needs to be here! Snorgle (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
What seems out of place about it? It's something that exists in nature but was hard to explain, but if one is familiar with the children's game, the lizards, etc are easily understood. It's analogous. JesseRafe (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Rock, Paper, Scissors, Spock, Lizard analysis error
The numerical approache modulo 5 is all wrong. If I read the chart correctly, Rock-Paper-Scissor-Spock-Lizard is represented by the first player winning if the first player's number minus the second player's number, modulo 5, is one or three, while the second player wins if the difference is two or four, boldface indicating difference from the current text.
But, as the entire analysis section is unsourced, I wouldn't know where to start tagging. I don't think this falls under WP:CALC.... — Arthur Rubin(talk) 12:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The definition in the article and the one you've proposed are equivalent: they specify the same game, just with the labels attached to the weapons rearranged. The article's current definition would match up with the order: 0=rock, 1=spock, 2=paper, 3=lizard, 4=scissors. 2602:306:BDC1:9410:6D73:D85A:C427:39E5 (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Consider the numbers from 0 to 2n for a game with 2n+1 choices. Then the following games produce the same results:
Player 1 wins if the difference (player 1's choice minus player 2's choice) (mod 2n+1) is odd (or 1, 3, 5, ..., 2n−1); player 2 wins if the difference is even (2, 4, 6, ..., 2n), and it's a tie if the difference is 0.
If a and b are different, then a beats b iff
(a < b) ↔ (a and b are the same parity).
The winning differences from representation 1 can be changed to 1, 2, 3, ..., n by renumbering to step by -2 (rock-Spock-paper-lizard-scissors). If n = 1 (rock-paper-scissors), then these two representations are the same, as -2 ≡ 1 (mod 3).
This is all original research, though. However, it's sufficiently non-controversial that if a legitimate mathematician published the result on his or her web site, it should be adequate. I'll see if I can get access to one of my websites (probably at CalTech) to post it. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 18:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)