Gaming Theory

[Effective]

Some pretty good reads on gaming theory (note I did not write any of this, appropriate authors will be credited).

Sirlin's articles may be a bit hard to translate to games like Planetside as it was based off Street Fighter, but it still applies in a few different ways.
Recommended reads from Sirlin
Playing to win, Part 1, Part 2: Mailbag, and Part 3: Playing not to win
Slippery Slope and Perpetual Comeback
Yomi Layer 3: Knowing the Mind of the Opponent
Rock, Paper, Scissors in Strategy Games
Balancing Multiplayer Games, Part 1: Definitions, Part 2: Viable Options, Part 3: Fairness, and Part 4: Intuition
Fail-safes in Competitive Game Design: A Detailed Example
Designing Yomi

Unskilled and Unaware of it: How Difficulties in Recognzing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments by Justin Kruger and David Dunning

These are posts Topdawg made in our clan forums, the first quote is related to gaming in general, while the 2nd refers specifically to Planetside.

Originally Posted by Topdawg

I've typed this up a few times, and I think I've typed it up once on these forums as well, but here are both things combined into one for your reading pleasure. Feel free to disagree or discuss this as well, these are just my opinions and beliefs based on what I've observed over the years (and you could argue that every player, even those in Group 1, have to start in Group 3).

I believe there are four categories that every single gamer fits into. These could even be extrapolated upon in sports or other arenas.

* Group 1: This is the group of gamers who are intelligent and just plain good. They are the ones discovering the game mechanics, bugs and/or exploits and taking advantage of them. Exploring and experimenting with the game to its limits. They dictate the nature of the game and are the ones creating playstyles and strategies. These are considered the best players of a game.
* Group 2: This a group of players who are intelligent enough to be good, but lack the creative spark necessary to revolutionize and dictate the way the game is played. They often are able to copy playstyles and strategies from the first group. This essentially makes them as good as the first group, until Group 1 creates counters and they then have to relearn them.

It is possible to transition into Group 1 from Group 2. These kinds of players typically start the game late, or simply improve upon and modify what they've learned from Group 1, thus transitioning them into Group 1.
* Group 3: These are the players who at first glance, and perhaps will always remain, pretty nooby. For whatever reason they just don't grasp the game mechanics, and/or maybe aren't very competitive. In order for these players to ascend to one of the other two groups, it generally takes an epiphany inspired by external sources. Although it is possible for them to come to the realization on their own.
* Group 4: This group is pretty much on permanent scrub status. Whether it due to lacking the ability and intelligence to succeed, or just a complete lack of drive that will never materialize, these players will always be bad.


It should be noted that there are two subgroups to Group 3, as is briefly implied. The one group has the epiphany on their own accord, the second group needs that outside stimulus in order to reach that point. You could also probably include another group in between Group 3 and Group 2. This is the group that can be (usually painstakingly) trained in order to perform somewhere below Group 2. If any game mechanics change or new mechanics are implemented they will have to be retrained, provided they are a permanent member of this group.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also believe that in every game, and incidentally sports (I guess I borrow heavily from sports as I see them as being pretty similar), there is a plateau as it relates to skill level and ability in any game.

Essentially what I mean by this, is to think of varying skill levels as plateaus at varying heights. The first plateau at the lowest height would correspond to the lowest skill level. Then matching skill levels at matching heights going up. The intent of this metaphor is that no matter how good you are, or how good you get, there is a cap, or a limit. You may be the one setting the precedents, that is the person with the most skill in game at the time (or simply a member of Group 1), but it is possible that you may not even be on the top plateau (or even a plateau near the top).

Your goal should always be to aim for increasing heights. It can be almost impossible to determine where the highest plataeu is. As it turns out, Sirlin wrote up a thing regarding pretty much the same thing in his article. He refers to them as different peaks and mountains, which could be thought of as the plateaus, but I like his overall description better I think, and more applicable in terms of locating plateaus.

Originally Posted by Topdawg

I've written this post before, whether it was on our original forums or forums prior to this (or both) I do not remember, but I still agree with what I had written, so here it is.

There are essentially three types of players in PlanetSide:

Those who are Smart - They rely on their situational awareness, ability to read their opponents as well as a strong grasp of game mechanics.

Those who can Aim - They have good hand-eye coordination and will always win in a shootout. If they start shooting first or catch someone by surprise they'll come out on top, and even when caught by surprise may generally beat their attacker.

Those who have Intelligence and Dexterity- These are the exceptional players, among the best in the game, who have pretty much any means in the game at their disposal for overcoming their opponents.

It is my belief that without both you can only advance so far, and that will of course depend on the situation involved. I also believe there are really only 4 levels of players in this game (with a little gray room, but you'll see what I'm talking about):

Average players - Probably don't have any real command of either game mechanics or hand-eye coordination. They're kind of just out there 'doing their thing', with pretty subpar results.

Good players - These are the ones who have either learned some game mechanics and use them to their advantage in certain situations, or have developed their aim as to outshoot other people who play.

Great players - These players have managed to get a grasp of both game mechanics and aiming ability, but have a strength in one or the other, not both.

Amazing players - The players who know the game inside and out and can also flat-out outshoot most other people in the game.

The next question that invariably arises, how do I help improve those things? For me personally, I believe there to be a strong correlation between situational awareness and RTS games. People who (lol purepwnage) have good micro and can handle all of those different things going on at once generally have excellent situaitonal awareness and can follow most everything that is going on around them.

[Rbstr]

The way I figure it, it's a game, sure you're out to "win" it in some fashion...but it's not serious business. Treating it as such removes part of the enjoyment.

To sort of go off the main topic: It's like pro sports or college sports, I have fun watching someone catch the uncatchable touchdown...but I don't want to play a pickup game against them.
Just like watching an expert dominate in Marvel vs. Capcom is sweet but it's fucking boring to play against them and even more boring to go though the real work required to compete with them.

Games with large disparity between the power gamers people with high general gaming ability (which I would consider myself one of) really turn me off. Especially if they're the kind that like to categorize themselves as simply superior...instead of people that just have more time on their hands. Which is really what it is to be that "elite" gamer dood you've got to devote all this time to finagling game mechanics in ways they weren't necessarily supposed to work. (I'm looking at you Smash-Bros Melee, once people started timing the frames to execute moves the wacky enjoyment died)

To pick the sports analogy up again. Have you ever played recreational softball? Great fun. Until the team full of ex-college-baseball players shows up. Even if you've got an athletic team it removes the enjoyment. To compete you'd have to have years more of practice. The whole point is it's a convenient couple hour diversion when you start meta-gaming it the original point just flies out the window.

[Effective]

Some people find enjoyment in "winning", I know for me personally I hate losing.

I also know that because I take the time to figure out the tiny mechanics behind the game, I'll almost never mistake for someone cheating, when it's really just a bug/exploit.

For example in PS, players for a long time didn't know what to make of being shot around corners. They didn't know how clientside worked, so the first thing they did was immediately accuse said person of cheating. Personally for me, I dislike being ignorant, which is why I'm a Group 1/2 kind of player. Did I work to get where I am? Somewhat, not as hard as someone who plays sports for sure. But I did have to put in the time to learn what I have learned.

I suppose that my competitive nature really prevents me from just playing FPS/RTS style games casually. For me, I hate losing and so I want to know why I lost. I can play Tetris or poker casually though for some reason.

[Baneblade]

I don't mind losing, as long as the victor didn't win just by being a FOTM monkey. But I can usually identify those losses as my stubborn refusal to join them. But I know that in even gear and scenarios I tend to win... even against 'Legends of PS'. I just like to 'play with a handicap' as Dreamer once put it.