PAX Prime 2012

MrPeriod

We're back from PAX Prime 2012! I don't always make video montages of conventions I've attended, but when I do, I use OC Remixes and PAX!

Source Link

Rym

Part one of Short Subjects in Gaming: "When the Game Plays the Player."

Rym

Part two of Short Subjects in Gaming: "A Competitive Test of Skill."

Apsup

I'm sad to learn that I'm one step away from idiot child. But at least I'm that one step away.

Anthony Heman

Once again, there are plenty of "execution skills" in various examples of competitive MMO PvP. ;_;

Apsup

Nice panel. Few things that I could disagree with there though.

In the panel it was implied that when players have maxed the primary skill, that's when the other skills start being important. I'd reformat that statement to say that when the primary skill is equal between the players or teams, that's when other skills start being more important.

On that I don't really agree with the whole "there is one primal skill that is more important than other skills" -thing. Sure it can be so on some games, haven't played everything, but that doesn't go with every game. I can do decently and occasionally even well on Counter Strike and it isn't because my non existing head clicking skills, that's for sure.

Rym

On that I don't really agree with the whole "there is one primal skill that is more important than other skills" -thing. Sure it can be so on some games, haven't played everything, but that doesn't go with every game. I can do decently and occasionally even well on Counter Strike and it isn't because my non existing head clicking skills, that's for sure.

No, it's that this one skill has a higher/better return-on-effort. The OTHER player's skill in that arena, if it is high, is a bigger determiner of your success than anything you do on your own.

Apsup

One element that you didn't talk about that panel, but is kinda related, is the element of match making. Quite a few online competitive games these days have some kind of matchmaking system and some of them try to build even teams or just match players with equal skill level against each other. Shouldn't these matchmaking systems try and rank people based on the "primary" skill if possible? Especially when, in my opinion, the "lesser" skills like tactics, positioning and strategy are usually more interesting than the "primal" skills of headshotting or knowledge.

Rym

There are a lot of things we didn't talk about. We only had 20 minutes. ;^)

Rym

Matchmaking also has serious problems. Perfect matchmaking means every player always wins about 50% of the time no matter how much they progress in skill. This in turn discourages continued play among many players: they never see any relative improvement in skill.

Anthony Heman

Well, you might notice some improvement regardless of W/L. It's pretty obvious when you've moved up or down a couple ranks in the Starcraft match making and start facing people that actually know what they're doing. But yeah, it's a problem.

Apsup

Matchmaking also has serious problems. Perfect matchmaking means every player always wins about 50% of the time no matter how much they progress in skill. This in turn discourages continued play among many players: they never see any relative improvement in skill.

I rather take 50% win rate on everyone rather than half of the player base at 100% and other half on 0%. I think that in most games a smart player notices their improvement of skill in game without seeing his win percentage go up. In every competitive game I've played with any seriousness I've noticed my skills improving by analyzing my own playing. "While ago I wasn't able to even hit a wall, now I can get head-shots easily, I must be getting better."

Anthony Heman

Rym's addressing the problems for the other people though. Note that he says "among many players".

There are a lot of people out there that naturally self-identify with "winning" and "losing" and "killing" and "being killed" without actually having the perspective to know when they're actually doing well. Hell, some of them can't even recognize when they're having fun without the point in the W/L column at the end. :P

Rym

Few gamers notice things like that. Very few gamers even think about what they're doing when they play a game.

Further, high skill cap games tend to over time leave a large gap between skill "levels" where a player will never be able to find an appropriate match in most situations even with perfect matchmaking.

Interestingly, all of these concepts are covered in the Richard Garfield book I keep plugging, which I read after we wrote this lecture. In many regards, he puts CounterStrike and Chess on the same level in terms of how longtime play and high skill caps affect the accessibility of a game.

For the average gamer, matchmaking will usually fail them even if well done.

Anthony Heman

You should have seen when I intentionally down-ranked a character to the lowest of the low in World of Warcraft PvP. I would join a game solo with my alt and play with the intention of losing (wanted to get the lowest rank on the server so I could find out what ran I needed on my main to get the end of season awards). At first, it was reasonably interesting. Sometimes I could "win" the game then I'd quit in order to get a loss. After a few days though, I found out what the players at the bottom of that cesspool play like. It's worse than awful. It's like watching the fool in some horror movie trip over himself and into the acid bath... over and over and over again.

And they wanted these wins so bad. And they were trying so hard.

It gave me a sad. As did my interactions with the Chinese gold farmers...

Apsup

Few gamers notice things like that. Very few gamers even think about what they're doing when they play a game.

Yes and that's sad. If I remember correctly you can Scott like to advocate the "play to win" mentality. In my eyes "play to improve" is just a element of "play to win", if you strive to win in every game you play it meas you should strive to prefect your skills at that game.

Further, high skill cap games tend to over time leave a large gap between skill "levels" where a player will never be able to find an appropriate match in most situations even with perfect matchmaking.

But this problem exists without matchmaking and might be even stronger without any kind of matchmaking. If you remember I have on these forums few times expressed dislike towards Counter Strike: Source and most of my gripes towards that game came from the fact that I mostly played with and against people who were way higher level of skill than I.

Interestingly, all of these concepts are covered in the Richard Garfield book I keep plugging, which I read after we wrote this lecture. In many regards, he puts CounterStrike and Chess on the same level in terms of how longtime play and high skill caps affect the accessibility of a game.

I really should get and read that book sometime.

For the average gamer, matchmaking will usually fail them even if well done.

Maybe, but I say that while playing Dota I rather take imperfect matchmaking that gives me great tight games only every once in a while rather than some totally random system where all players are on same pool because the odds of getting balanced game at that point would be close to zero.

Anthony Heman

In a game where there is always 1 winner for every 1 loser, you do end up at net 50. That's unavoidable. If most people need to win to feel validated with their time, you're always going to please roughly half of them, one way or another. Personally I prefer reasonable matchmaking, and I have had good experience with LOL, Starcraft, Dawn of War II, and WoW matchmaking in general.

But that said, matchmaking also can make the game boring in that there may not feel like there's any reason to progress for some players. I can be really really bad, and once you're at the bottom, you can win every other match with that other very bottom player for the rest of your life.

Which I guess, if you keep your subscription/payment flowing, corporate doesn't mind. But it is somewhat awkward.

Victor Frost

Rym's anecdote about how he was a hater for DDR, but at least tried it, inspired me to submit a lecture to Anime LA called: "How to be an Ethical Hater".
That's the fifth panel I submitted. If they want me to do all five panels... hooo boy, fun times.