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.