Approximate player psychology

Figment · 2013-02-15, 10:55 AM

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.

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 · 2013-02-15, 11:45 AM

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 · 2013-02-15, 11:49 AM

You tried to graph anecdotal experience?

Kerrec · 2013-02-15, 11:58 AM

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 · 2013-02-15, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Pella

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 · 2013-02-15, 12:02 PM

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 · 2013-02-15, 12:06 PM

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 · 2013-02-15, 12:07 PM

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.

Figment · 2013-02-15, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrec

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 · 2013-02-15, 12:13 PM

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

Figment · 2013-02-15, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by 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).

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 · 2013-02-15, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by psijaka

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

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 · 2013-02-15, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

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 · 2013-02-15, 12:56 PM

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 · 2013-02-15, 01:18 PM

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".

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.