Approximate player psychology

[Figment]

The goal of this thread will be to try and explain how defensibility and capture systems influence player behaviour in terms of attraction and frustration. This is typically quite hard to communicate in just words, particularly towards the devs.

Hence I tried to capture an approximation of it in a couple diagrams and tried to relate this to some of the basic base layouts. This is based on my experiences in PS1 and PS2 with player decision making.


http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/9081/playermotivations.png (http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/9081/playermotivations.png)

Either way, hoping this might enlighten some people a bit.

Disclaimers:
Not included is the effect of the permanence of a base. In principle, the more a base blocks access to other bases and the more it strengthens the front line, the higher priority it has. If it is easy to circumnavigate, it leads to defender and attacker apathy about a fight over it, because holding it is pointless if the attacker can just ignore it.

Group size and composition are known to influence player behaviour further: Large groups will have lower tresholds to engage something, where small groups are detered more easily. Also, more players at a fight creates a suction effect, drawing in more and more players. The shorter a fight lasts, the less balance these forces would have and the smaller the defending force will be (the force with initiative (attackers) has more advantage the shorter it lasts).

Players with an interest in K/D and exp gain as measure of success will tend towards easier killing grounds like farms and steamroll captures where strategy is of secondary if not tertiary importance.

Players who don't care about anything and just want to play tend to go to the biggest fight that their rig can handle and targets of opportunity.

Players with an interest in map conquest and consolidation will tend towards trying to take and defend anywhere of strategic interest, opportunities and will defend at the cost of their own stats. These are often the most tenacious fighters, but also prone to being disappointed by other players (farmers) and the game itself.

Players with a high ego may go for farms (high defensibility), resecures and other heavy challenges more frequently, as well as going for equal chance small ops. As long as there's a chance of success, otherwise they may completely ignore it and simply go someplace they do get this.

That's just some of the differences: other factors are player patience, intelligence, group loyalty, dominance, subjective opinion on what is what level of defensibility, etc. all influence the curves for each player.




Also, please keep in mind that the position of various the base layouts is an approximation of the average. There are situations where they're easier or harder due to geography and proximity of both enemy and friendly bases (logistical challenge of travel time, regroup and staging grounds). That hasn't been taken into account, but you can imagine that this would cause a shift to the right (advantageous for defenders) or left (advantageous for attackers). I know I forgot to add the PS2 base outpost to 1 and 2, it'd be somewhere in the middle between "s" (PS2 small outpost) and "B" (PS2 Bio Lab).

Also note that some are in there twice. That means they tend to lean to either extreme, which may be situational (PS1 tower) or due to an extreme capture flow disconnection (Bio Lab).







Thoughts?

[Pella]

Myself and many people i play with absolutely do not care about the strategic value of a base. Same apply s for defending / Attacking.

I will never defend a outpost. Or Attack a bio lab. As its quite simply a waste of time.

I go where the fight is and try and gain as much xp as possible within my play time.

The Devs made it that way. And you may find allot of people with this same mind set.

PS: That Graph come out of Einstein's theory book?

[Ghoest9]

You tried to graph anecdotal experience?

[Kerrec]

4 ways I play:

1) If I want to try and capture territory/defend territory, I'll play the class that deals with the most pressing issues. Rarely will I pull any vehicles other than a Flash.

2) If I want a good infantry fight, I'll play LA and go find a Biodome attack/defense.

3) If I want to snipe, I'll play around the Crown.

4) If I want to play a vehicle, I'll play Engineer and look to stay on the perimeter of an enemy zerg.

I hate to create another confrontation with Figment, but I have to agree with Ghoest. Putting "stuff" on a graph doesn't make it true.

Look, in a couple of replies: Pella absolutely won't go to a Biodome. I will specifically seek one out if I want a certain kind of fighting. Two very different opinions, both true, not reflected in any way by the graph.

[Figment]

PS: That Graph come out of Einstein's theory book?

Graph comes from observations over time. ;)

Your behaviour concurs with what's on there too: conquest system, current base layout and flow generate apathy towards conquest and consolidation objectives (particularly defense and indeed discourages Bio Lab attack due to farm and being able to go around these).

You will not go out of your way to defend somewhere, you'd sooner counter-attack it, because there's no chance of defense both due to limited time window and limited defensibility.

As you can see, the PS2 outposts are outside the optimal range of defenders.



Knowing your behaviour from PS1 pretty well having fought against you hundreds of time, you WOULD go out of your way to attack and defend a tower. You WOULD try to resecure a base. You WOULD try to defend a base, even a Bio Lab and AMP Station. And you WOULD play more for the empire's strategic conquest.

As you said, that's down to the design of the game. :)

[psijaka]

Appreciate your effort, Figment, but you really do have too much time on your hands.

Edit:

I do look at the map before i deploy, and I am perhaps in a minority in that I will (usually) deploy to defend or attack based upon which outpost is the most strategically important. But I also favour certain outposts that I know well, and where I know I can get a good fight, such as TI Alloys, Zurvan, Crown and a few others. And I generally avoid Biodomes; and the north of Indar despite playing NC (gloomy place), Esamir entirely (even more gloomy and too open).

Edit2: I generally do not think in terms of XP when I choose where to fight, although I'm not above finishing off an abandoned Magrider for the XP. And I definately don't think of resources. But I do like to see the map turn blue.

[NotTheMomma]

An interesting analysis, but I'm afraid if you omit potential experience/certs, you've missed the primary driving force behind the game (which is unlikely to change).

Players are subconsciously (or consciously) asking themselves, "What's in it for ME?" With the current incentives, what you've graphed are obviously secondary considerations to most players.

Whether one agrees with those players or not is irrelevant. You are and will be continuing to play with them. Only if the experience incentives change will the gameplay change significantly, our pleasure with the "defensibility" changes notwithstanding.

[Dragonskin]

I am sure there is important information in those graphs and I was trying to read one... got past the red line and saw a blue line... read some of the things on the line... A.D.D. kicked in and just looked at the colors. Pretty graphs and colors. :lol:

[Figment]

2) If I want a good infantry fight, I'll play LA and go find a Biodome attack/defense.

Represented in the graph: decent/good fight to breakable farm. ie. falls within the Optimal Area.

3) If I want to snipe, I'll play around the Crown.

Represented in the graph (not sniper specific, but definitely farm from a defense perspective and from an attack perspective in the same area). It isn't represented by 3 (different topic), but is by 1 and 2.

You wouldn't snipe where you had no chance of staying alive, nor would you have fun in empty bases (no targets). Yet you would see if there's targets there and if not, likely simply take the point or leave. Correct? Given The Crown is a farmable area, there's always targets there under the attractiveness (see graph) of the site. As such, your behaviour follows from the graph indirectly.

4) If I want to play a vehicle, I'll play Engineer and look to stay on the perimeter of an enemy zerg.

Less relevant example, because this simply is herd related behaviour. You let the zerg determine where you go, which in effect, is thus indirectly related to the graph. Zerg herding (strategic level) is also directly related to the above as decision making is based on that. Yours is more "go where the fight is", which can indeed be represented better, but is in part determined by the above decision making influencers - if not yours, than that of others.

Look, in a couple of replies: Pella absolutely won't go to a Biodome. I will specifically seek one out if I want a certain kind of fighting. Two very different opinions, both true, not reflected in any way by the graph.

Both are (see above how Akapella's player psychology determines how he plays given the two contexts). You should try to interpret the graph differently, as in general playerbase behaviour for all kinds of players. While you quote specific examples of that general behaviour and only for yourself.

You're comparing apples with oranges, while talking about a graph about fruit in general.

[Ghoest9]

Im guessing well over 50% of deployment choices are made on the basis of - "Where will I get the most certs?"

[Figment]

An interesting analysis, but I'm afraid if you omit potential experience/certs, you've missed the primary driving force behind the game (which is unlikely to change).

In a sense, yes. Though that too is kinda included, albeit on a more abstract level: sometimes as a consequence (farm, decent fight), sometimes as an incentive (why attackers will enjoy a ghostcap they get rewarded for more than defenders, even if neither enjoys it). :)

For instance, decent/good fights generate a decent amount of experience and thus certs, farms even more. That goes both for defenders and attackers, where attackers are more likely to get more certs and exp if defensibility is lower compared to defenders, so they'll have a higher appeal to attackers than defenders. Getting players away from farms is therefore harder than getting them to farms: appeal.

Certs and experience points by themselves however, aren't a reason to play over time, they are much more important for start up characters than for established characters.

But the situations where attackers and defenders both have fun and/or gain most certs and experience are represented as appealing in 1, 2 and 3.

I agree it could have its own diagram though as there are more subtleties.

EDIT: By no means did I claim the above to be complete! :) Base benefits (importance to the fight) is another thing that really has to be considered on a strategic level. The same can be said on a strategic level, for the geographical position of a base. However, that is to be explained through map examples and extremely case sensitive, and cannot easily be caught in general diagrams.

[Figment]

Appreciate your effort, Figment, but you really do have too much time on your hands.

:lol: It's true. :)

Edit:

I do look at the map before i deploy, and I am perhaps in a minority in that I will (usually) deploy to defend or attack based upon which outpost is the most strategically important. But I also favour certain outposts that I know well, and where I know I can get a good fight, such as TI Alloys, Zurvan, Crown and a few others. And I generally avoid Biodomes; and the north of Indar despite playing NC (gloomy place), Esamir entirely (even more gloomy and too open).

If I were to make a diagram specifically for you, I'd expect your play range to be just a bit wider than the Optimal Area suggested in 1 and 2. I'm quite sure you'd have less of a specific preference if you know you can good fights everywhere due to having similar appealing base and geography design as those others (and those not being ghosts). Correct? :)

Edit2: I generally do not think in terms of XP when I choose where to fight, although I'm not above finishing off an abandoned Magrider for the XP. And I definately don't think of resources. But I do like to see the map turn blue.

Same here, it's a secondary consideration for me. Every player is somewhat different, but we are still all a little sensitive to the exp. The resources aren't profound enough communicated and understood to be part of the decision making for the fast, fast, FAST majority of players. Especially since the amount of control over and impact of it seems negligible in the short term in comparison to basic adjecency changes and appeal of fights and farming.

The same can currently be said for the base (too insignificant, save tech) and continent (too far out of reach) benefits I think.

[Pella]

Knowing your behaviour from PS1 pretty well having fought against you hundreds of time, you WOULD go out of your way to attack and defend a tower. You WOULD try to resecure a base. You WOULD try to defend a base, even a Bio Lab and AMP Station. And you WOULD play more for the empire's strategic conquest.

As you said, that's down to the design of the game. :)

Spot on there.

[Kerrec]

When I first saw the diagrams, I immediately jumped to the conclusion that you're making "graphs" based off feelings and observations. When you do stuff like that, you can make graphs show what you want it to show.

But I wanted to be fair, so I tried to make sense of what you presented. The first thing I did was choose a Biodome as LA fight, one of many of my playstyle choices on a given evening of play.

Look at Graph 1 and Graph 2. You have a yellow circle with a "B" in it, to represent Biodomes at the bottom. Obviously those symbols are not afiliated with the Y axis, since ALL symbols are down at the bottom. So I assumed they were affiliated witht he X-axis.

Ok, X-Axis. X-axis on graph 1 and 2 represent level of defensibility. Not defensible to the left, very defensible to the right. Ok, now where do Biodomes fall on that axis?

Umm, apparently Biodomes have both Minimal Defensibility and High Defensibility. Ok, so the symbols are not related to the X or Y axis. What ARE they related to? It's not obvious, to me.

And I stopped trying to understand it.

Then I made my post to point out that you can't make broad generalizations when people play games for different "rewards". I like seeing how many Certs I've accumulated after an evening of play. But I won't alter how I'm playing to try and generate more certs during my playtime. That being said, I'm sure there are plenty of people that are only concerned with maximizing cert gain. People that grind.

People play different ways, for different reasons.

[Tatwi]

Then I made my post to point out that you can't make broad generalizations when people play games for different "rewards".

People play different ways, for different reasons.

Indeed. Leave the psychology to real psychologists. I'd hate to see someone confuse the OP with science. Makes for mighty fine random conjecture though.

[Figment]

Look at Graph 1 and Graph 2. You have a yellow circle with a "B" in it, to represent Biodomes at the bottom. Obviously those symbols are not afiliated with the Y axis, since ALL symbols are down at the bottom. So I assumed they were affiliated witht he X-axis.

Ok, X-Axis. X-axis on graph 1 and 2 represent level of defensibility. Not defensible to the left, very defensible to the right. Ok, now where do Biodomes fall on that axis?

Umm, apparently Biodomes have both Minimal Defensibility and High Defensibility. Ok, so the symbols are not related to the X or Y axis. What ARE they related to? It's not obvious, to me.

Because Bio Labs have a courtyard (indefensible) and Bio Dome (farmable) and Bio Dome that has been breached (indefensible!) and there are huge gaps in between that ensures there's no gradual flow that allows for a smooth transition in both directions. A Bio Dome can be defended even farmed (right B) yes, as long as you hold the two choke points and teleporters under control, but it can be breached at which point it is easy to take, yet it can't be pushed out from, so it's next to impossible to resecure without an outside force taking the outposts (left B).

To be fair, your critique on the bottom row is justified though. First of I didn't explain that extensively (see bottom part of disclaimer in first post), second I probably tried to place too much information in the same diagram.

This could probably be better represented by separating these spots for attackers and defenders (might be slight differences in perspective).

Then I made my post to point out that you can't make broad generalizations when people play games for different "rewards". I like seeing how many Certs I've accumulated after an evening of play. But I won't alter how I'm playing to try and generate more certs during my playtime. That being said, I'm sure there are plenty of people that are only concerned with maximizing cert gain. People that grind.

People play different ways, for different reasons.

You should realise that my graphs do not suggest there's one kind of player, as I said before, it covers a WIDE RANGE of players and obviously their motivations differ in strength. Duh. And you should know that I knew that, but you clearly didn't read the disclaimer in the opening post based on both these quotes combined.

So honestly, Kerrec, either you're pretty poor at interpretation, or I didn't communicate it well enough. Chances are both.

Indeed. Leave the psychology to real psychologists. I'd hate to see someone confuse the OP with science. Makes for mighty fine random conjecture though.

These are observations to discuss, I'm well aware it is anecdotal (personal experience and observation) and I'm also well aware it isn't exact. I also put it up FOR DISCUSSION and debate and further analysis, refinement, etc. What bothers me is the presumptious attitude of a few others in this thread about the intentions and supposed assumptions, who seem to try to paint it as if I portrayed it any differently other than an approximation for a generalised model, by citing specific examples for their own where it wouldn't be true (funnily, without realising it fits the model, but again that might be down to how it's communicated).

There are too many types of players to make a complete model in a single diagram and there's no exact data to generate the model from. The data after all, is in my head, but it isn't made up. Anyone will tell you farms attract defenders like moths to a flame and you'll have personal experiences that confirm that ghosts are generally unappealing, even if you get slight rewards out of it. Things like that, isn't science, it's simply common sense.

A model however is an approximation and this is one that's IMO generally true for the average player on a conscious level. But it'd be nice if the dismissive attitude of some would be replaced by a more constructive correction and refinement attitude with suggestions on how to improve the model or what is needed or it lacks.


You are right that it is conjecture (since it'd be hard to call this a hypothesis), it isn't exactly random though. Either way, it requires further evaluation and refinement, as well as verification. I'd also say it's at this point subjective.

[elementHTTP]

PEOPLE ITS ALL ABOUT CERT FARMING !
so crown ,cross and al biolab

it really dosen't matter if you are attacking or defending if there are NO PEOPLE AT THAT LOCATION

grind metagame needs to be changed

PS2 need some system to funnel battles to other areas ( lattice )

[Palerion]

This does seem to boil down a lot to cert farming.

Personally, I would love to see something that seriously contributes to your progression or experience in reward for partaking in your faction's domination of a continent/area.

I would love to progress by something more than massive killstreaks.

[Dkamanus]

Defense is VERY useful. Its just that most people don't know how to use it.

[Ghodere]

At first, I thought it was an overcomplication of a few points you could have made in a couple bullets, but after thinking about it, I think this is the right format to provide a chunk of information(/opinion) in. Really impressed by the effort.

[Vashyo]

Myself and many people i play with absolutely do not care about the strategic value of a base. Same apply s for defending / Attacking.

I will never defend a outpost. Or Attack a bio lab. As its quite simply a waste of time.

I go where the fight is and try and gain as much xp as possible within my play time.

The Devs made it that way. And you may find allot of people with this same mind set.

PS: That Graph come out of Einstein's theory book?

as sad as it is, this is also my mindset. Molded by the shallow strategy elements and fast pace of base captures which I find appalling and character progression strictly locked to player skill. PS1 was more natural in this, nobody played to get more XP since it was very random, so all the focus was put into playing the game as it was designed to be played and XP was earned on the side. Right now you get instant gratification everytime u kill someone which I think also psychologically encourages people to play in a very selfish way. (pwnage-culture of modern shooters and all that ****)

I do go to biolab though, since they give lot of XP with my preferred playstyle (infantry).


I will farm certs most of the time I play, I just cant be arsed to play the ghost capping game, its even worse.

[AThreatToYou]

That graph has a fair bit of stock to it.

[DirtyBird]

I play the game as its currently designed to be played, not the way people would like it to be played.

When they make the necessary changes to the game to how people would like it to be played then I will change my play style.

With my alpha squad and premium subs I get 100% bonuses, I dont care if we hold a continent that gives me 10% off something. I care even less when its a resource I rarely use.

I like to be part of the action where I am getting some kills or XP to show for the time I've spent playing.
I dont like spending my time in game being fodder.

I lol at /leader chat that curses those at The Crown while they are off capping a continent with piss poor resistance who's ownership isnt dictated by the stronger faction but more so by the time of day.

[Figment]

The amount of time people have really shouldn't be underestimated btw. Consider the following process for a resecure attempt:


Situation change occurs

Enemy hack initiated
Detection time: 1s - 3 mins (180 s).

This varies a lot, I can't provide a very good average beyond experience from /c in PS1. With about 10 targets to watch, the average detection rate before it was mentioned on /c or /global would be in between the above period. In some cases, hacks and drains wern't discovered for more than 10 minutes. It really depended on who was on and how easy you can use the map.
I must say in this regards, that the treshold for hack detection in PS2 is a lot higher and that this is also where the first command problem begin in PS2:

No visible hack symbols per region on the map, but you need to manually check each region.
There are anywhere between 1 and 15 regions under simultaneous capture threat in PS2, per continent.
Can't tell which empire is capturing even when the ticker declines, only when it runs up.
Deployment map doesn't provide a full overview (this will change in the future when the maps are merged)
There is no global map overview: it takes a lot of clicks (and thus effort) to go from map to map, compared to the routine of M(ap)-G(lobal map) in PS1 and immediately getting a full overview of the worldwide situation (aside from locked continents, which were checked manually: double click, G, double click, G).
People who checked maps in PS1 were Command Rank 4 (/sitrep option) or Command Rank 5 (direct access to command chat and contwide/global chat), but currently to get the information to /leader, you need to pass this information to your squadleader and hope it is passed on.



Read / hear report of hack

By (voice/leader) chat, from squad or platoon members, or from own observations

Start of decision making process
The player must now (in no particular order):

Determine how much time is left before it changes hands

Remember, there is no timer, but a ticker that keeps changing speed based on influence!
This takes more time than a mouse over or a map double click for the facility status in PS1!

Estimate likely enemy force and size.
Estimate size of allied force to combat this group.
Estimate own (group) combat strength
Determine if it is of higher priority than any of the other targets.
Determine if it is being handled by others.
Determine if they are up to that task (compare quality/quantity with estimation of required force).
Estimate travel time with available units for self, squad, platoon and empire (can you get backup if you need it?)
Estimate time left upon arrival to combat enemy forces outside of CC (time left - travel time).
Estimate time required and chances of combatting enemy forces outside of CC.
Estimate time required and chances of combatting enemy forces at the CC.
Estimate chances of turning CC to own side in time to stop a capture.
Estimate how long it would need to be held in enemy presence with own force.
Estimate how long it would take for reinforcements to arrive, if they arrive at all.
Estimate viability of any such actions.

Discuss with leadership / platoon - typically 0s - 2 mins

Can be up to 25 mins if it is a continent changing recall/redeploy empire decision. You probably have some idea how much time can be lost in the latter scenario with all the different player interests (farm - conquest).

First Decison point:

"Yes, viable"
"No, not viable"

Determine route:

Evaluate alternative transport methods (self, squad)
Evaluate group composition and need en situ / en route
Evaluate alternative routes (default: straight line A-B)
Determine threat level of each route

Second Decision point:

"Yes, commit"
"No, change destination"

Organise group - 0s to 3mins (180s)

Players may need to disengage target
Fall back (redeploy/respawn)
Regroup and reorganise (any additional travel time and vehicle acquisition)
Random extensions:

Wait for vehicle timers *Wait or go? -> impact on viability? Change of plans?*
Someone afk *Wait or go? -> impact on viability? Change of plans?*


Travel to target - 1 mins to 5 mins

Depends on:

Travel mode
Route (includes wrong way, detours due to unforeseen obstacle in path)
Engagements en route
Deaths en route
Distance to target


Arrival at base

Evaluate actual threat level
Evaluate best course of action
Optional: get spawns (SCU) back up (PS1: spawntubes)

Is there time?
Is it worthwhile?
Will enemies make use of this as the base turns?

Optional: get (shield) generators back up (PS1: main gen)

Is there time?
Is it worthwhile?
Will enemies make use of this as the base turns?


Actual combat

Combat enemies to reach CC (0s to 7 mins: high chance of failure)
Deaths - (0s to several mins, depending on intensity of fight)

Revive time
Respawn time
Walk/drive distances from nearest spawn or fall back point

Repair time (gens/SCU), includes travelling to gen/SCU, may need several attempts
Combat enemies over CC - 0s to 4+ mins

Likely need of multiple attempts to get there

Hack CC - 1 min

Hack can be interrupted

Hold CC - even if instant capture/resecure, need to get reinforcements to prevent enemy retaking it

Base lost or resecured
Aftermath (new fight starts)

Consolidate perimeter
Regroup
Push back enemy
Search and destroy remaining enemies



1-8: Decision making process - anywhere between 1 and 7+ minutes
9-10: Initial logistical challenge - anywhere between 1 and 5 minutes
11-12: Combat challenge - anywhere between 1 and 10+ minutes

Now, most players can't do this entire process within less than 7 minutes. Hell, it's questionable if they can if they're already present to defend if they can't reach the CC due to being obstructed by tanks and other units. Note that infantry is a concern, but the least threatening of all here as they're the easiest to dispatch. Attackers may find long timers boring, that's only the case if there's nobody coming.

Currently, often times, nobody can come. Sure the attackers can move on, but there's hardly a fight worth mentioning. The longer timers do allow for the chance of fast response teams to arrive and hold out for reinforcements. But that does require defensibility (some form of protection between spawns and CC) for the fast response team upon arrival, as they will have to make use of localy present facilities and a single spawn beacon per squad, if they're lucky an AMS at most.


And of couse, that doesn't consider the scenario where you are already engaged and situation changes (like in PS2, sudden influence changes, one of four outposts is taken) arise. There's so much situational awareness you need to efficiently move through this process.

And I must say this awareness is not generated very well by the game to support the players right now. The amount of effort required to keep up to speed with the situation around them far exceeds the average player capacity.

This leads to players only having an eye for their direct vicinity: the region they are in. To many, even keeping an eye on the regions directly surrounding them is too much to ask. :/

And yes, a less complicated lattice does help reduce the information need, but that still isn't sufficient. Capture systems, controllable/fixed?/predictable capture times, communication channels, status changes, map information and more really need to be further developed as high priorities.

The decision making process currently takes far longer than it should, simply because there is so much effort required and communication is far worse than optimal.

[SGOniell]

I always go where I know there's a need for someone. A flashing territory just off of the frontline usually means the enemy is taking it, and our guys are usually too busy to reinforce it, so I'll go there. I don't necessarily defend strategic outposts, but I will if need be. I try to go where I can make a difference, which sometimes means dropping into a biolab or tech plant/amp station a territory or two early to get things rolling and get us spawns on the outskirts, and maybe bring down generators. A squad I was with took a biolab 3 territories away from the lines once. We dropped in, capped all exterior points first, then nailed the generator, capped interior points while waiting for it to go down, took out the SCU, and held it against attempted reinforcements from the enemy until the main force arrived. There was maybe a dozen of us, if that.

But there are days where I just like to go to the crown. depends how I'm feeling really.

[StraitDumpinSMF]

holy shit, your graph :)

[exile]

So, after poring over all of the complex information we can glean from those highly detailed graphs, I've created the following exhaustive analysis:

1. Players prefer to fight where offense and defense is well balanced.

Did I miss anything?

[Rolfski]

That is a very complex way of saying there is a sweet spot in every battle.

Trying to make assumptions and generalizations about peoples behavior and motivations is a slippery route that should be taken with a grain of salt though.

[bpostal]

The amount of time people have really shouldn't be underestimated btw.
...

The decision making process currently takes far longer than it should, simply because there is so much effort required and communication is far worse than optimal.

Generally speaking, by the time the second decision point has been reached the situation has either deteriorated to the point where a resecure would be nonviable or the base you were looking at already flipped if it's a smaller outpost.

From my reading of the map (and defensible options) players are not expected to actually resecure anything smaller than a full fledged facility. If a tower or outpost is under heavy assault the best option is either to A: set up defensive positions at the next base likely to be attacked or B: wait 5 min for everyone to leave and then ghost it back.

[Calisai]

With my alpha squad and premium subs I get 100% bonuses, I dont care if we hold a continent that gives me 10% off something. I care even less when its a resource I rarely use.

I like to be part of the action where I am getting some kills or XP to show for the time I've spent playing.
I dont like spending my time in game being fodder.



^^ same. The resource benefit is nice and all... but I don't have to pull vehicles enough to run out of resources very often... so what does the Benefits of Esamir and Amerish really matter to me. Indar is the nice one (to replenish all those grenades and mines, but even that is minimal.

I'd rather find myself a near equal fight (in terms of population, or in the case of biolab... a little higher on the attacker side) and get a good fight than sit around ghosting or fighting the same 4-5 guys base after base.

[Figment]

That is a very complex way of saying there is a sweet spot in every battle.

Not every battle, basic design.

Trying to make assumptions and generalizations about peoples behavior and motivations is a slippery route that should be taken with a grain of salt though.

I drew this up mostly from experience and observations of where people go and what reasoning they gave to go to A or B (remember, command decisions in PS1 took a lot of back and forth argueing between people). It isn't 100% exact as individuals and circumstance may vary, but I personally feel I can guarantee that it's reasonably accurate for general group behaviour and command level decision making.



Of course, as someone else said, I haven't made a diagram that's purely about experience point harvesting motivations, those are slightly captured under farm, but there are more ways of farming than pure defensive and offensive farms.

People that want to farm points tend to use equipment that quickly and flexibly kills stuff with as little effort and threat to themselves as possible and preferably gets them to new farming grounds with ease or doesn't require them to relocate frequently (they'd be quite happy with a status quo farm, they'd even get agitated if someone takes their farm away: think people blowing spawntubes for strategic reasons in front of campers for farm reasons: often the strategic player would get TK'ed). These players in PS2 have focused on ESF/Liberator aircraft and MBTs and thus go for terrain that benefits them, these players too have "defended" the indefensible spawn point design a lot as well.

Basically, since they're offensive weapons, they'll prefer to stick around areas that are suited to offense without having to worry too much about threats. Which incidentally includes there where it's less defensible and defenders can be locked in and farmed. Why are they offensive weapons? Because defensively, these type of units aren't as useful as when they're outnumbered, they'll quickly be dispatched and the users would be inclined to go elsewhere.

These people CURRENTLY then follow the red lines more than the blue lines (aside from The Crown and Bio Dome defense!). And sure, different tools, different context and different personalities has those lines shift left or right. When defense becomes more dominant, the motivation to move to specific farming ground locations declines as they have a more varied source of exp income and one isn't clearly better than another. So yes, the "sweet spot" being available most everywhere (without extremes!) helps spread pops more evenly around and makes people more willing to move for alterior motives.


As said before, it's a general notion and more an expression of my personal experiences with other players, from a large variety of types of players.




If we're looking at pure "zergling" and casual motivations (doesn't think too grand-strategically, but more local level tactics and just wants to play with the player having varying degrees of awareness and cunning), then we're looking at where they can go and where everyone else is going. Typically they follow "nearest base principles" and "closest to action" spawn methods, assume herd behaviour (do what everyone else does) and are more inclined to stick around stalemates.



These graphs also aren't representative of beginning players, who just wonder around aimlessly (they don't do so for certs or tactics, they just go wherever the heck they can or the game literally tells them to go or even sends them (NC using instant action to drop onto a VS/TR fight in PS2 due to a bug in the IA design isn't uncommon)). But then, beginning players will either turn into zerglings, farmers, tactical players or anything in between soon enough, so that's rather moot. For beginning players, it's more important to raise awareness and provide guidance and education in analysis and decision making.




As an aside, as it is hard to represent the ability to choke the map itself into where players will go (I could do that with map examples, but not in a separate graph), this and geography too should be considered part of defensibility.


However, from Akapella's post it can be clear that the design of the system and defense has changed his entire decision making. That's the point of the graphs (particularly when you combine them), something that isn't worthwhile or possible in one or more manners, will lead to players stopping to make that particular decision.

And as you can see by Akapella's reply to my reply, I'm pretty spot on there. The context and rules that make defense and strategic responses unviable and therefore uninteresting, make Akapella's apathy towards them rise.