Approximate player psychology

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Kerrec

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).

Originally Posted by Kerrec

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.

Originally Posted by Tatwi

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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:

1. 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:
       1. No visible hack symbols per region on the map, but you need to manually check each region.
       2. There are anywhere between 1 and 15 regions under simultaneous capture threat in PS2, per continent.
       3. Can't tell which empire is capturing even when the ticker declines, only when it runs up.
       4. Deployment map doesn't provide a full overview (this will change in the future when the maps are merged)
       5. 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).
       6. 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.
2. Read / hear report of hack
   • By (voice/leader) chat, from squad or platoon members, or from own observations
3. Start of decision making process
4. 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.
5. 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).
6. First Decison point:
   • "Yes, viable"
   • "No, not viable"
7. 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
8. Second Decision point:
   • "Yes, commit"
   • "No, change destination"
9. 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?*
10. 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
11. 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?
12. 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
13. Base lost or resecured
14. 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]

Originally Posted by Figment

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]

Originally Posted by DirtyBird

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.