Game Theory, Discussion 1

Hi again everyone. I'm posting this evening because I hope to spawn a discussion about a theory of gaming I've developed that has only recently reached a point where evidence pointing to its accuracy or inaccuracy can be accumulated. Please try to note that I'm not trying to make any statements about Guild Wars besides those that are basically factual so long after they have happened; I don't want a flame war, I'd actually like to know if anyone else has seen or heard anything that might shed light on my idea, one way or the other.

I hypothesize that veteran Guild Wars players are better suited to evolving and adapting to react to an entirely new gaming environment than the average online gamer who has not not played Guild Wars substantially. I extend my hypothesis to ANY Guild Wars player that achieved level 20 and continued to play for more than 5 months consecutively, or at least a large enough chunk of time to consider themselves very familiar with their character, latch on to an effective build and complete some post level 20 PvE content.

I base this hypothesis partially on the very team-work oriented nature of many parts of the game (regardless of whether it is a team of people or a team of NPCs, playing completely solo is not central to Guild Wars design and never really has been) and also the constantly evolving and extremely variable oriented skill environment (re-learning hundreds of skills every few months of updating or even just keeping the whole skill list memorized keeps every Guild Wars player thinking overtime). Though those two things are clearly contributing factors to the hypothesis I have presented, I must emphasize that my central point of basis is actually the lack of true rewards the average Guild Wars player receives for his/her continued dedication to PvE after reaching level 20.

The sheer mass of people who continued to grind for NOTHING but entertainment value changed the course of the developer's game design, prompting them to change focus from PvP World Tournaments to Christmas and Halloween events and eventually PvE only skills. Even after titles and additional armor sets and everything was released, I emphasize that everyone's character is still level 20. Despite the power creep of the skills themselves, everyone basically possesses the same power level they possessed when they first gained all 200 of their attribute points. I think it's natural that these players would be further entertained and thus motivated by a gaming environment that rewarded them with great additional power in addition to presenting the same complex simplicity of Guild Wars with all of the social and team aspect in tact.

I'm not saying that they will necessarily FIND the game they are ever looking for, however I'm fairly certain that in their search they will find great enjoyment in some game or another and in the sheer power they can obtain so quickly through actions that previously were undertaken sheerly for the player's entertainment (completing dungeons, advancing through the game, finishing extended quest lines). Just knowing that those players who don't quit playing games altogether will eventually venture on to others in the market (no game lasts forever), and knowing of many who have moved on already, I'd be interested in perhaps beginning to collect some feedback regarding this hypothesis.


Furthermore, using my first hypothesis as a basis for further thinking, I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that communities of ex-GW players are sure to form in almost any game that is released within the next 5-10 years, and that those players who find themselves an adequately sized team of other competent players to work with will consistently find themselves in the top tier of gamers from within their chosen game.

Discuss.

hmmm was expecting some kind of mathematics or algorithm stuff in discussion....

I don't think I've ever seen a bad post out of you Sha. That being said...can you simplify your post.

So basically what you're hypothesising is that players who play a considerably long time have done so not for fun but for something to do, and that also they should expect more from the game and should expect that their character become comparably more powerful than someone who has just reached level 20, and recognisably so? And they should be justly rewarded with prizes for doing so?

If that's what you're suggesting, I have the following:

Players of games do so for many different reasons, everything from fun, something to do for a few hours, because they enjoy time with the people online, because they don't enjoy time with people offline, because they love to explore online worlds, whatever. If people aren't getting some sense of satisfaction from what they're doing they'll either work themselves into a rut or get out of it,but if people enjoy doing what they do they'll continue and maybe find other things they enjoy.

With regard to characters becoming recognisably more powerful, perhaps you didn't get the memo, but power in GW comes from player skill. If you want to be able to impress the noobs with your epic gear, go play WoW or conan or some other game which allows you to level up in such a way, or find an element of the game which expresses this for you. Otherwise grind titles.

I believe this is true, infact I agree with much of your post. GW is/was a skill based game and teaches you coordination and planning in a more rigorous way than in other games. Games such as WoW require large teamwork, but only a few players in the team need to think on their feet (tanks and healers and a few dps like druids) in a way like guild wars requires all members to do.

Good post

Somehow, i think this is based on you only knowing smart and perceptive people and never pugging.

I am curious as to how you balance that hypothesis against the fact that a veteran GW player is actually encountering new gaming environments with less frequency than those playing a game that adds new content on a regular basis. Skill updates in GW are not, in my opinion, the sort of radical changes that justify the phrase, "entirely new gaming environment."

I find your hypothesis intriguing and would like to see more conjecture or data from you to support it before I am convinced. As of now I must say that I believe that the basic idea that playing continuously in a static environment to become, potentialy, very good at a limited scope of endeavors will make you more adaptable than people who are actually dealing with a more dynamic environment seems questionable.

Does GW, at least in its original design, encourage skillful play ? Very much so. Does rarely, anymore, encountering the unexpected make you more adaptable and adept at dealing with surprises ? I don't think so.

Please note that I love this game and, having received it as a christmas gift in '05, still play daily. I am not trying to discount the merits of the game or its veteran players but rather would very much like to see the OP shore up what I perceive of as potential flaws in his hypothesis.

and bamboozeling us with big words

I doubt I'm any better suited than any other person, be it a GW-player or not. Why? I have been playing through the entirety of GW with basically the same build, the same heroes, and the same tactics. I haven't changed my build very much since Factions, yet I've been able to complete all PvE content on Hardmode, and I'm happily sitting on 26 titles right now.

Even worse, I never cared much about the mechanisms of the skills enemies throw at me. Some hexes might stop me attacking (Spiteful Spirit, Empathy comes to mind), and some skill would always provoke an action from me (Giant Stomp -> Pain Inverter), but other than that, I just keep killing those mobs one at a time. I can truthfully admit I don't even know half of the Ritualists skills, less than 90% of the Assassins' (they damage you, what more do I need to know?). Same goes for Dervish: yup, they wield a scythe and can do big damage, but all I need to do is do more big damage and they are dead.

Call me lazy, but after Prophecies I just lost count on how many skills there are. All of them in one of either category: they hurt you, or they benefit you. So I just stayed with the build that worked, and is still working, even in HM EotN.

So much for my adaptability. Let's have a look at the average player base. These days are all about gimmick builds raping PvE. Ursan has been nerfed but was globally abused, Cryway is running wild, Shadow Form throws all strategy out of the door. These are skillsets that allow you to plough through PvE without ever having to think what you are doing. Just like I have been doing with my build/heroes/tactics. You don't even have to see what enemies are in front of you, just c-space through them and mash your butons. This doesn't make players improve in their skill-level, this makes them mindless drones, pushing 1-8 in any random order. Those people know noting about adaptability. They found something that worked in this game and stopped caring about strategies altogether.

To conclude, I don't think a veteran GW-player is better suited to evolving and adapting to react to an entirely new gaming environment than the average online gamer who has not not played Guild Wars substantially.

That is, if you call a person reaching level 20, and playing for another 40 months, never changing his builds, and only c-spacing through GW, a veteran.

If you call a person who reaches level 20, makes a build for every other areas, changes his skillbar every time he gets in town, changes heroes to suit his needs and reads up on the wiki on possible enemies encounters a veteran... well that person would be better suited.

(PS: I hope I've understood your post correctly, there is indeed some bamboozeling going in)

Interesting. I'm seeing two separate hypotheses that are only marginally connected.

1. Selection effect. If veteran players are better at adapting, shouldn't it be a selection rather than learning effect, i.e., players who are inherently poor at adapting tend to have a shallow game experience and will stop early whereas people who are inherently good at adapting will keep playing as long as new depths of gameplay can be uncovered?

2. Universal mechanics. If veteran players of GW will adapt faster to another game X than veteran players of some other games (you can't compare veteran players of GW to completely new players because of the selection effect as discussed in #1) then should it be assumed that GW and game X share some universal game mechanics the learning of which in GW will make adapting to game X easier, while at the same time some other games do not share these same mechanics with game X? If so, then what are these mechanics?

I think this is an excellent point. Adapting (imo) involves thinking and changing. The very nature of PvE doesn't allow players enought room to do this. Once a veteran player finds a team build that 'works', generally speaking there's no real need to stray away from it. In my case as mesmer, I just fire off some hexes and my H/H will soak up the damage while enemies die.

Obviously when it comes to PvP this isnt the case, as you are forced into thinking and changing your play style or end up no use to your team. (i.e on the floor with everyone yelling at you )

I feel exactly the same way. Once I got BHA I think it has only left my bar for cookie cutter or farming builds.

In regards to the op I would say that one thing you've over looked is the veteran gamers are better suited to adapt to new games because they are simply game veterans. I've played games for over 18 years when I started way back on a commodore 64. Although AI, graphics, storyline etc have drastically improved, many aspects of games remain the same. As a result we, the gamer have transferable skills. For example if play a new fps i have all the previous experience playing games like doom, half-life, counter strike, etc. I therefore my ability with aiming with a mouse will be better than someone who is new to the concept of a fps. (Well at least that’s the idea)

I am not well placed to comment on mmo's or equivalent as guild wars is the first I’ve truly stuck with. However the 'skills', for lack of a better word, I have picked up playing guild wars for the last 42 months would surely also be transferable.

To finish i would hope that communities of ex guild wars gamers will regroup down the line in another game. Last night i rejoined a few of my old guild mates in a new guild and the experience was fun and refreshing in a game that I know inside out. Moreover the contact with other people, especially friends is what keeps me playing this game.

I can agree with this. Games lately are just far too easy. I remember spending months on the last few levels of Super Mario Bros.

But then it struck me. Games aren't getting easier, I'm getting better at them. Last year I played SMB again, and breezed through the levels. Finished it under an hour.

Same goes for shooters, RPG's, Racing games... maybe I've just outgrown them, or the games are targeted at another, younger audience.

Right so from what i understand this is about having flashy sizzle meaning nothing? : ?

Im sorry to say i dnt understand a word and the overuse of hypotheses generaly hurts me....

I agree - I too have played video games for a long time (going back to Pong!). Now, when I play a new game like Crysis, I already know before I start, that things like ducking, strafing, reloading, etc., are important, and can set my keyboard up very quickly to do it the same sort of way I always have.

I had very little experience with RPG's when I first started GW though, but the general gaming experience helped.

Sad to say, but for you two, the problem lies with your lack of education, not with the OP's post.

This is true - in fact GW has communities of ex Everquest, etc., gamers already. It's reasonable to suggest that these groups of experienced RPG players would be better, at least initially, than new-to-games players.

So, your hypothesis basically comes down to "Experience helps" or "practice, practice, practice" - which is generally known already.

Hi, new here and my first post, couldn't resist ^^

OT:

Isn't this true for players in every other online game? Or is it that you find GW players (or veterans) to be of a different breed than the typical mmo crowd?

Those 'true rewards' you speak of - that would keep a player playing, varies for each person. Some people like farming and seeing numbers pile up, some delete 3 year old chars just to make that one 'perfect' char with all titles, some love pvp (and I must say, GW has the most balanced pvp I've ever seen amongst mmos) some, as mentioned earlier play for lack of anything to play, while others stay for the sake of friends/company they found in-game.

You do know the Koreans are currently in the process of creating the 'perfect' mmo, they mold every single aspect that made past mmos successful, they are making progress, slowly . I 'd have grandkids when it arrives >.>

I would say that GW has attracted a 'good' kind of crowd (an old drunk once said that calling others immature is immature >.<) Maybe it's the game design? Or maybe it's ANet's vision to bring us a quality game that drew us in.

Birds of a feather. ^~

We need a /popcorn smiley...

i was kinda hoping for a discussion on actual game theory
oh well. who wants to fund some wow subscriptions so a group of veteran guild wars players can dominate it and prove this hypothesis that guild wars players are the best.
do it for science!

Actually that's exactly what happened when the players from #gwp went to WoW. They were all top GvGers/HAers, went to WoW, and dominated there too, which adds weight to Sha's theory.

Now the question. If they have never ever played GW wouldn't they still dominated WOW?

That's the point. Sha believes that they might not have, because the way GW works in PvE and PvP prepared them for other games that do not require as much in terms of team play or skill knowledge.

Although I am simplifying it a lot...

I fully understand what your saying in they way that when I was really active with the TFC community back in HL1 all the veteran players could and still do move on to newer games together completely dominating since they have a higher understanding on game mechanics in general. It also means they have social and mental attitude to seek out the higher level of competition within a new game.

The massive eloquentness witnessed in this thread is quite astounding. :P

But I have to agree with Arduinna. I'm kinda like that too. Got some builds that work. Change them sometimes if a certain build is more effective in certain missions or areas, same as armor that goes with the builds and weapon sets.
I do change heroes a lot though. But on average the triple necro builds plus a friend with a protection monk, an ele nuker and either a mesmer or ranger interrupter, or sometimes an earth ele warder, works fantastically in almost any situation. The only changes I make in that setup is dependant on the profession me and my friend are playing (If one is a monk, we take a warrior hero instead of tahlkora, if one is an elem, we swap the ele nuker hero, etc.)

This might give me an advantage to learn GW2 faster when that comes. But I can't be sure if someone who has never played GW1 might catch on at GW2 just as fast. It all depends on how long and how many different types of games people have played.

- Do you people even realize what the word "skill" means?

Do you suppose that when the original game featured ice elementals in icy environment, it would make sense to use fire magic for damage boost since the game was coded that way? And vice versa for lava monsters in lava areas. You only think the game needed skill because you were noob back then and things were relatively difficult for you.

This game requires no skill. Spend some hours reading up mechanics and learning non-obvious stuff what "allies", "height advantage" and "armor rating" means. You'll beat up any competition. Good skill is good. Bad skill is bad. Once you have the winner skillbar you can autopilot through any level in game.

Nash is rolling in his grave.

toasting, epic bread, ect. ect.

Great post as always Sha, very interesting subject. I agree with your post, teamplay is key in any cooperative game and guild wars requires a fair amount of that. Teamplay is particularly important in MMORPG's were individual player skill cannot hold a team as well as it can in say an FPS. Whereas a great spy, sniper, or scout in TF2 could kill up to 6 people in one opportunity, pulling off a clean 1 person spike with a balanced build in Guild Wars requires the player skill and coordination of about 5 people. Though the mechanics in these two games are very different, they are both games focused on teamplay, yet how valuable the skill of a single player in a group is much less important in a MMORPG situation. I could see team focus in GW definitely makes GW vets better players in other games.

inb4 this turns into a shitstorm fueled by Bryant Again and Dreamwind both refusing to quit arguing with each other for 10+ pages. ;D

i'd love to see you "autopilot" on a dom mes, playing gvg in the top 50. come back to us after you've won a gold cape.

His hypothesis is for anyone that's pved past 20, not top notch GvGers. GW has undisputably the most demanding PvP of MMOs, but that is not the topic. Watching top GvG players "pwn" WoW doesn't really tell us much of anything about GW's effect of PvE.

I haven't really played enough WoW to make real comparisons, but I understand the "raid" portions make all GW PvE pale by comparison. The closest analogue was DoA when nightfall was first released, before all the PvE skills entered the scene. The quality of players you brought in that mission actually mattered, even if you were giving them dumb jobs like BiP or SF nuker because the slightest mis-aggro would wipe. WoW guilds that simply want to complete raids, never mind all these speed clears the GW community goes on about, have to likewise select for PvE quality, and leave that one or two behind that would otherwise bring down the whole group.

Having said that, GW still has a ton of clever mechanics lacking in other games, most notably protection prayers, targeted interrupts, and domination magic. But those don't necessarily come completely to the fore in your average PvE experience- note the unpopularity of Mesmers, and the popularity of healer's boon monks and disrupting accuracy assassins.

- Sadly my Internet connection isn't good enough for that. Give me 7 heroes, I'll handle keyboard macro. Their Monk preprots, I'll unload a spike starting with Shatter Enchantment and ending 0.2 seconds later in dead enemy using the current most overpowered spike skills. If I'm exceptionally clever, I will spike target that isn't enchanted. How many targets can two monks protect? When heroes can steamroll through the game what does it say where the foundations of game lie? Nothing changes the fact that everything in the game works on simple equations. You might call calculating damage potentials skill, but I wouldn't. Which required more skill to you: IWAY or SWAY?

"No no no, that isn't True Skill. Use only skills and professions I approve."
"My self-styled PvP expertise doesn't extend to Hero Battles, so I refuse to call it True PvP."

so you're an elitist and a scrub, how does that work out for you?

lol
and how do you plan to run flags, deal with splits, or come anywhere near a gold cape with your 7 hero team? also, you point out how easy it would be to kill the other team but fail to mention how easy it must then be for the other team to kill you. maybe you don't think the other team could kill you easily because they don't understand guild wars as well as you. but somebody so good at guild wars couldn't seriously expect to win a gold cape with a 7 hero team.
ergo, you're either a troll or very bad at guild wars. i get the feeling that you take yourself very seriously, so you're probably not trolling.
double ergo, lol ur baed at gw.

- Teams only run flags because they realize killing requires certain amount of luck and timing, because of same human factors. Better question than split countering is how will they deal with counter-split of more effective build?

- It's going to be harder because of human factors. Your average GvG Warrior player wastes his adrenaline on non-spiking situations, selects protected targets, ignores effective movement. Spike teams fail because someone's Ventrilo had 400ms latency and others are going at 50ms, someone gave away the target or something else. The game works simply based on those errors. Take away source of errors (the human player) and you'll win. This applies to PvE and PvP alike. PvE skills are needed so that your average joe would have at least some incentive to take another player instead of his trusty hero-npc.

- That's not even the case. What makes good team in your opinion? I know: communication, coordination, ...

no u

are you sure you know how bad hero AI is?

- Are you sure you know it can be adjusted? ANET had to limit hero numbers in HA and GvG because they were too good.

Until you're #1 on the HB ladder from superior macro/micromanagement I refuse to believe anything that you're trying to convince us of.

- Suppose I was #1 in HB ladder. Then what? Don't you know that responding by questioning someone's achievements or status in community is fallacy called ad hominem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

thats the problem. where im from, im sick of hearing smart ppl talk. my role is to dumb everything down. as such, i present the dumbed down version

Ppl in gw can find fun in wut others consider boring tasks, such as grinding, so they can find fun in other games easily.

in additional gw also promotes teamwork and complex thinking but thats an addendum and not the main point.

Uh-huh, no. It is you who are making extraordinary claims here and being told to 'put up or shut up'. Specifically, you claim that it takes just some hours to learn enough of the game to beat any competition. This is simply ludicrous and you are asked to either show us mere mortals that you have done it, or admit that you were spreading fertilizer. Compare:

Person A: Chess requires no skill. It takes just a couple of hours to learn how the pieces move and after that you'll beat any opponent.
Person B: Unless you are a chess grandmaster, I won't believe a word of what you just said.
Person A: Ad hominem! Ad hominem!

- Reading my post #33 helps.

- After reading post #33, you'll realize this isn't same thing. Same arguments can't be used for chess, because chess isn't 1) one-dimensional game, 2) game where hardware-induced problems play a role in success. Question is how difficult it would be to code chess-winning bot and how difficult it would be to code GW-winning bot. If chess-bot takes more time, chess is the kind of game that takes more brainpower to master. When you've read this message carefully you realize that no-one's position on any ladder makes any difference.

You are assuming that guild wars is a one-dimensional game. And the idea of anyone, even progamers from korea who play starcraft, microing 7 heroes + there own bar to do everything an 8 man team does it GvG is extremely ridiculous. It's hard enough to play one bar in GvG. But you're suggesting that you can micromanage EVERYTHING. You're gonna need more than 400+ APM and a much superior brain I'm afraid.