PvP Mentality

[formerdc81]

I'll try my best to be civil. The reason why TheMeInTeam cannot see the logic of...

They feel rewarded over that, even though the success was just as RNG as the failure. I don't understand the rationale that feels that way, but I do understand that it happens.

...is because you value the factor of "personal control" more than the outcome of the game itself. A win to you feels cheap if you didn't fully "earn" it with your actions, a loss feels demoralizing if RNG aided your enemy's victory because it seems like further improvement is pointless. Whatever the case, you will consistently value a choice that has the least amount of RNG variance, even over choices that have the same expected value but higher RNG-based variance. In other words, you play the game on a belief that a win is legitimate only if the rules of the game minimize the effect of all factors other than player actions in-game (i.e. the Western cultural norm of agency and choice). It is a subset of a larger type of human behavior called risk-aversion, and I personally feel that kind of behavior should not be rewarded at the highest level of play. In my view, a win is fair so long as both sides played by the same rules and the human factor is more important than the random factor. Thus, it is the responsibility of the master, not the game's rules, to overcome all obstacles, be it his personal distaste of RNG, his opponent's tricks, or his own impatience or lack of focus. In other words, I see the psychology of all the combatants as an equally valid part of "player choices" (even when its effects cannot be directly deduced from in-game actions of any given game) because a match between equals should be a long struggle where the person who outlasts and overcomes all others should be victorious. When that isn't possible, a draw should be the result. In other words, the game should reward the player who is constantly vigilant and equally privilege player choices made at any time in the game, rather than reward the choices made in the early-game more than the rest of the game. It should complicated enough that players cannot practically aim for perfect play (because even if the objectively best move in any position exists, it should be hard enough to find that even a supercomputer cannot give you a timely answer), but being able to make "good enough" moves while bluffing enemies and survive the consequences of mistakes better than everyone else. Thus, my response to objections like this:

Opponents could make low-odds, terrible strategy attacks and win.

On average, you will win far more games against opponents who do this than you lose. The best way to make such factors less relevant is not to reduce the variance of the RNG; on the contrary, there should exist units/attacks with different levels of variance to suit the tactical needs of the player. Instead, the game should not be so decisive where one battle gone wrong is enough to tip the balance of power. IN other words,

You can defend that and survive, but in a *competitive* game a similarly-skilled opponent who doesn't get that RNG can easily parlay it into a game-winning advantage

...shouldn't happen, at least not without a struggle. If a player has a small early advantage, the game's rules should not naturally lead to a win if both sides of equal skill play "normally"; any fun game should have a system of "advantage decay" where if the winning player does not actively pursue more calculated aggression/consolidation, the game will turn into a draw unless the advantage in early game tempo gets converted into a more permanent form of advantage that is hard to achieve. However, reckless aggression should lead to a sudden reversal of fortunes. This is how it is in chess. This is how it is in DotA. Sadly, this is not how it works in CiV, at least not until nukes. Maybe the problem is that turn-based games and unit production and resource nodes just don't mix? I'm not sure....

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It is a subset of a larger type of human behavior called risk-aversion, and I personally feel that kind of behavior should not be rewarded at the highest level of play.

That's not true at all. If you're not at an equal or higher level of play than opponents, taking such a stance is the opposite of "risk averse" because your anticipated outcome is losing.

Quoted asserts that at the highest level of play, the person who plays better in a particular game shouldn't necessarily expect to win. That's a perversion of what "high level play" means.

In my view, a win is fair so long as both sides played by the same rules and the human factor is more important than the random factor. Thus, it is the responsibility of the master, not the game's rules, to overcome all obstacles, be it his personal distaste of RNG, his opponent's tricks, or his own impatience or lack of focus.

At "high levels of play", for example something like Starcraft 2 championships or something, people put long hours into perfecting mastery. Everyone is good. If this game had a significant RNG factor going into the outcome, its competitive scene would be weaker...similar to trash like Madden where RNG was such that I could sometimes beat the best players despite being on the low end of top 1000.

When RNG is a decisive factor, there is nothing to "overcome" at legitimately high levels of play. There aren't that many game changing mistakes, you can play at a theoretically "perfect" level and still lose to an opponent who does markedly worse. What does that add to the experience, exactly?

...shouldn't happen, at least not without a struggle. If a player has a small early advantage, the game's rules should not naturally lead to a win if both sides of equal skill play "normally"

The problem is that it is not a "small early advantage". I agree that it "shouldn't" naturally lead to a win or loss. But it does, at similar skill levels.

The design of Civ 6 is such that this kind of RNG is the functional equivalent of randomly awarding someone an extra golden age for multiple ages later in the game (on top of any they have). There is no make-up, there aren't enough major RNG events to "even out", and there isn't anything either player can decide that changes the presentation of this advantage. That's why I used it as an example, it's a *contrast* from RNG factors like battle damage variance in Civ 6, which *does* have agency and *does* have enough rolls to wash out across a game.

any fun game should have a system of "advantage decay" where if the winning player does not actively pursue more calculated aggression/consolidation, the game will turn into a draw unless the advantage in early game tempo gets converted into a more permanent form of advantage that is hard to achieve.

You're contradicting yourself. In asserting that decisions throughout a game should have equal value, going on to say this quote is incoherent. You're saying the game shouldn't privilege decisions made at a particular time, then saying the game should privilege decisions made at a particular time (necessarily, since you're saying the player who did better early will see this wash out, which wouldn't be the case late).

However, reckless aggression should lead to a sudden reversal of fortunes. This is how it is in chess. This is how it is in DotA.

These games don't have major rubber banding effects, and they're not particularly strong examples of RNG I describe that you're trying to support. Chess doesn't have any RNG whatsoever, and DOTA does not have large, singular game-altering RNG without agency. There are no 5x dropped interception games of DOTA 2, no RNG that is even kind of similar to that level of variance.

 

[formerdc81]

I think we can both agree that if a game exists where the early game and middle game decides everything, even among equally matched players, if counterplay is seriously restrained for the losing side once the winning side seizes initiative to the point where the winning side can mentally disengage (play less carefully) or play passively (even if that is the optimal play) and still win that would be unfun, even if such a game had no RNG factors and was entirely-skill based. At the very least, seizing the "winning initiative" should be something that happens in the last quarter of the game, rather than something that consistently happens early. In other words, as both a player and a viewer, I expect equally-matched players to "duke it out" as long as possible and I expect the game mechanics to maximize that experience. The reward for good play early should not be the right to play sloppy later and still win, short of your early play being so good your enemy cannot counter (i.e. an advantage in mechanical skill or mentality or preparation/opening theory). In any game where early-game advantages accumulate in-game (meaning good play earlier makes me have an objective advantage in-game rather than merely an advantage in non-game related score like in bridge, 麻将, or poker), the only way to ensure that both player's decisions at any given time still has commensurate game impact is to create some system where the winning player must continue to actively to counter the intentions of all the other players to keep his advantage. Of course, this is very hard to design. Poorly designed "rubberband" mechanics often have the nasty side effect of exaggerating the difference in skill more than in games without it because the better player is never truly at a disadvantage, provided he is able to control his impulses and not panic. If he plays poorly early for whatever reason, he will be able to exploit the comeback system and his superior experience/skill to always ensure his counterplay (since such mechanics guarantee he is never truly behind) while on the attack, he will use his understanding of the system and vigilance to throttle his less aware opponent's space to make counterplays. (This is why games like DotA2 have snowball and rubberband often in the same game.) This is why I suggest the use of RNG instead + draw/stalemate mechanics. IN other words, the game starts at equilibrium/equality (a draw). Conscious player action is required to move it away from equilibrium to achieve the win and to overpower the defenders are either trying to counterpunch or desperately force a draw via stalemate, and until he converts that advantage late-game into something decisive where everyone else can GG, any time he puts his foot off the pedal and begins to pull only as hard as everyone else opposing him, the game will return to the equilibrium state (draw). The RNG exists to enforce this, and to ensure that a player who has a 75% win-chance actually only wins 75% of the time (with the other 25% being mostly draws). (Before you complain about undeserving lower ranked players getting away with too much, remember that the RNG also works against him. Even if a noob gets a lucky break and kills the units that otherwise would have won a decisive battle for you and allowed you to consolidate your advantage, that doesn't necessarily mean he has the ability to turn around and make the series of good moves needed to flip the game in his favor. Even a defense against the better player requires his full attention, and poor play should still eventually lose, even if a few lucky rolls hamper your initial attacks. Remember also that lucky early game into snowball wins would be practically impossible under this system as well, so you as the better player technically have nothing to lose.) That's more fair to everyone. The higher player keeps his rating (because you don't lose any rating for drawing with a weaker player) and is forced to improve both mentally and mechanically just to advance in rating, the weaker players get to play a full game and practice, and the space for taunting and being a jerk is lessened because those types of players tend to be very impulsive. If they can't even survive a bad RNG roll or a determined defense, what right do they have to win? The better player wins not the Bo1, but the Bo5.

The thing is, even in chess, there is a random element because of the humans playing the game. At lower levels, because both players do not play optimally, it is possible to bait players into making bad moves or setup attacks that should not work. Indeed, such blunders are not only common, they vary wildly in the sense that Player X may actually be able to counter this opening trap today but overlook a similar trap tomorrow. That is indeed a random factor, and for blitz (or even faster time control players), this gamble is very much part of the fun of the game. At the highest levels, since all the top GMs know each other (and thus knows everyone else's strengths and weaknesses), the world championship matches are "random" for both participants in another set of ways. Both sides are trying to play mindgames on the other, prepare new variations that would be uncomfortable for the opponent, and since the game is deeper than any human brain can analyze, once a genuine novelty arises, both players are not just dueling off skill and experience and preparation, but also the mentality and habits of the other person. In this sense, at least from the standpoint of previous theory, many essentially random and hard-to-counter ideas will emerge, which once analyzed may prove to be be sub-optimal (just like in the example of the two novices beating each other). This is what makes chess exciting, not just the brilliant moves used to overpower the defense or force a draw from a seemingly lost position. This is why I want to make similarly deep game.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think we can both agree that if a game exists where the early game and middle game decides everything, even among equally matched players, if counterplay is seriously restrained for the losing side once the winning side seizes initiative to the point where the winning side can mentally disengage (play less carefully) or play passively (even if that is the optimal play) and still win that would be unfun, even if such a game had no RNG factors and was entirely-skill based.

Yes, we agree on that. My stance on this issue is that when games have gotten to this point good developers realize it and have a mechanism for deciding a winner. We saw this out of games in the early to mid 1990's, no reason we couldn't see it now.

This is why I suggest the use of RNG instead + draw/stalemate mechanics. IN other words, the game starts at equilibrium/equality (a draw). Conscious player action is required to move it away from equilibrium to achieve the win and to overpower the defenders are either trying to counterpunch or desperately force a draw via stalemate, and until he converts that advantage late-game into something decisive where everyone else can GG, any time he puts his foot off the pedal and begins to pull only as hard as everyone else opposing him, the game will return to the equilibrium state (draw).

This needlessly privileges late game decisions over early and mid game decisions. It's no better than having a decisive advantage manifest early. If you're going to do this, why not just start in the late game?

If someone wants to come back from a disadvantage, there's no reason the game should hold their hand. Regaining equilibrium is not something that reasonably happens automatically. It's something the losing player should earn, or failing that lose the game.

Artificially lengthening the game is the sign of a weak developer, not a desirable mechanic interaction.

The RNG exists to enforce this, and to ensure that a player who has a 75% win-chance actually only wins 75% of the time (with the other 25% being mostly draws). (Before you complain about undeserving lower ranked players getting away with too much, remember that the RNG also works against him.

To clarify, I have no issue with 75% odds meaning 75% odds, in fact I disrespect Fire Emblem's later titles intentionally fudging displayed vs actual probability. I also have no issue with this particular percentage chance being in a game. My issue comes when a single 75% roll is made the decisive factor in the match, to the point where it trumps everything else. Especially when that "everything else" has comparatively more depth.

You clearly seem to have an issue with such RNG too, given your discussion about equilibrium draw as a concept. You can't have one or few rolls completely decide the outcome and still have such an equilibrium.

The thing is, even in chess, there is a random element because of the humans playing the game. At lower levels, because both players do not play optimally, it is possible to bait players into making bad moves or setup attacks that should not work. Indeed, such blunders are not only common, they vary wildly in the sense that Player X may actually be able to counter this opening trap today but overlook a similar trap tomorrow. That is indeed a random factor

We don't know what extent empirical reality is random vs not, but for the purposes of this discussion it is not reasonable to call this a "random factor". Player choices are not RNG, and if we fail to make that distinction we're stuck concluding everything is RNG all the time. That's not useful.

 

[formerdc81]

If someone else blunders, he may be hungry or careless or exhausted by the game or wishes to do something else or just simply didn't see the threat. To argue that because his blunder is a result of his agency, and thus, is non-random is somewhat misleading. To me, his opponent, having played against a tough competitor for several hours and then suddenly watch him blunder, I'll definitely count it as my good luck, no different than a lucky city capture or kill from a RNG roll (just magnified a few hundred times larger). Of course, I'm not going to undervalue my win because I didn't fully "earn" it. The validity of my win has nothing to do with the agency of my opponent (I'd be just as happy for beating an AI that has no free will or true human agency if it could provide me a true challenge), the validity of my win is simply due to the fact we both played a game under the same rules and by those rules, I won. If I lost by similar circumstances to another player, I'm certainly going to want a rematch and emotionally think "he isn't really better than me" but until I prove it in the rematch, my loss and his win stands.

This needlessly privileges late game decisions over early and mid game decisions. It's no better than having a decisive advantage manifest early. If you're going to do this, why not just start in the late game?

Let's put this as a physical sports analogy to see why this is needed. If two soccer/football teams play a normal league match (not a playoff) and one team dominates time of possession and on-target shots but cannot score, should they win automatically? No, a 0-0 draw is a 0-0 draw no matter how ugly the play of the defense was because the dominating team could not convert their advantage into something more permanent (like points). Similarly, even if the attacker is up 1-0, other than changes in morale, there is no physiological advantage. The team that is up 1-0 does not get a +10% production to their cellular ATP simply for being up a score.
The problem is that the equivalent of both physically impossible scenarios do happen in every e-sport because almost all of them are about controlling abstract resource nodes. In the absence of corrective mechanics, the natural tendency of these games is for small advantages to grow bigger until they have accrued enough to (automatically) meet the game's victory condition. Most of the more "fair" games of this genre (DotA2, chess, Starcraft) tend to be those where the process is not automatic: great skill is required to win the "won positions" and a raw resource advantage is not enough to win by itself because there exists viable defensive options for creating doubts in the winning players' mind, or for inflicting disproportionate losses on attackers (thereby winning a war of attrition despite being the side with fewer resources), or for gambits and traps where the attacker can suddenly have the tables be turned. That's what I'm asking for, and I believe RNG can do it. If you made good moves early and I make good moves some time later, the score should now be 1-1. What's wrong is a system where just because your moves were made earlier than mine, simply due to the way snowballing works, you are still up 2-1 after my counter. Obviously, if I defend well enough so you can't even score a goal to begin with, even if you have a slight advantage, that should be a 0-0 draw. Similarly, if my counterattack fails or I don't even bother, I should lose 1-0 to someone who made an early attack and could nurse his advantage to victory and withstand my counterattack. I could possibly even lose 2-0 or 3-0 because I embraced too many risky tactics in my counterattack and left my position open.

 

[rah]

This reminds me of many of the CIV IV MP games we used to play. Our group was a mixed batch in terms of skill levels. We played every week and it was quickly evident who the better players were and who the weak ones were. Of course the better players usually won but every now and then the RNG and other things would allow a weaker player to win. This did not diminish the feeling of the better players and without such wins, I'm sure the most of the weaker players would have just stop playing. Those few victories were very important to them. Few players would have reduced the "FUN" level for everyone so we were happy to have the RANDOM element in play. The better players still knew who they were and could still appreciate it when they won.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If someone else blunders, he may be hungry or careless or exhausted by the game or wishes to do something else or just simply didn't see the threat. To argue that because his blunder is a result of his agency, and thus, is non-random is somewhat misleading.

No, it's reality.

Let's put this as a physical sports analogy to see why this is needed. If two soccer/football teams play a normal league match (not a playoff) and one team dominates time of possession and on-target shots but cannot score, should they win automatically? No, a 0-0 draw is a 0-0 draw no matter how ugly the play of the defense was because the dominating team could not convert their advantage into something more permanent (like points). Similarly, even if the attacker is up 1-0, other than changes in morale, there is no physiological advantage. The team that is up 1-0 does not get a +10% production to their cellular ATP simply for being up a score.

That's not an accurate analogy. I'm saying a team that is up 1-0 should not be tied again unless the losing team scores. Going up 1-0 in the first minute then getting "complacent" is not a reasonable basis to make the game a draw. The only reasonable basis to make the game a draw state again is if the team with 0 points scores a point.

You also seem to be suggesting that the losing team should be getting something along the lines of that +10% cellular ATP bonus in suggesting soft "rubber band" like mechanics, which is silly.

What's wrong is a system where just because your moves were made earlier than mine, simply due to the way snowballing works, you are still up 2-1 after my counter.

I wasn't arguing against that. I already said I agree that's a design flaw.

I'm arguing that if I do a good move early and you do a good move later you shouldn't win 3-1 "because RNG lul". And if you do 5 good moves and I do 2 good moves you shouldn't lose 2-0. In some games, that's a possibility (I used Madden as it's a particularly trashy and relevant example, breaking its own advertising in multiple ways and foisting RNG to a decisive level such that in high level play it's the most significant factor if both people are completely on their game). That's the RNG I have argued against from the start in this thread.

This reminds me of many of the CIV IV MP games we used to play. Our group was a mixed batch in terms of skill levels. We played every week and it was quickly evident who the better players were and who the weak ones were. Of course the better players usually won but every now and then the RNG and other things would allow a weaker player to win.

Skill is not fixed and more of it doesn't guarantee wins without RNG. I've beaten people who are better than me on average, and lost to those worse on average, without the influence of "RNG". Some of my own most memorable Civ 4 games involved this, a timing gambit or a situation where the more skilled player nevertheless made a too-costly choice.

Civ 4 had some truly unfun hot garbage RNG early in the game, and very little outcome-influencing RNG in the mid-late game. The RNG literally exacerbated the problem formerdc81 talks about regarding snowballing, rather than helping to address it.

Vedic aryans were an inexcusable travesty, but even getting 3+ forest fires in 20 turns was brutal and stupid. The game had a useful collateral damage initiative consideration, defensive roads, and increasing production to hedge against combat odds...and it blew it all on some garbage early barb rolls and events the developers frankly couldn't have implemented if they actually cared whether their implementations were self-consistent. The only late game event that was even kind of comparable to the junk in the early game was Bermuda triangle, and again in that case it was a game-ruiner.

SC2, DOTA, LoL, Chess, and other viable competitive games worth their salt do not intentionally implement enormous, decisive RNG swings on relatively few rolls. There's a reason they're more popular for competitive play. Part of it is that they're simply higher quality than Civ titles in the more general sense, but a lot has to do with that anti-competitive nature of Civ design and yes, the snowballing that makes extended games less interesting.

 

[rah]

Civ 4 had some truly unfun hot garbage RNG early in the game, and very little outcome-influencing RNG in the mid-late game. The RNG literally exacerbated the problem formerdc81 talks about regarding snowballing, rather than helping to address it.

Vedic aryans were an inexcusable travesty, but even getting 3+ forest fires in 20 turns was brutal and stupid. The game had a useful collateral damage initiative consideration, defensive roads, and increasing production to hedge against combat odds...and it blew it all on some garbage early barb rolls and events the developers frankly couldn't have implemented if they actually cared whether their implementations were self-consistent. The only late game event that was even kind of comparable to the junk in the early game was Bermuda triangle, and again in that case it was a game-ruiner.

We turned off events. (sometimes they triggered an out of sync issue) but mainly because an extended slave revolt in a MP game was usually death.. But yeah Vedic archers was one too. Later in the game the rng was less game changing.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

We turned off events. (sometimes they triggered an out of sync issue) but mainly because an extended slave revolt in a MP game was usually death.. But yeah Vedic archers was one too. Later in the game the rng was less game changing.

Yeah. I'm not sure why, but Civ 4 and even Civ 6 very much front load RNG, which is strange in a snowballing game where small advantages early translate into big ones latter. Super early on is where you'd think it would be most sensible to keep RNG effects to a minimum in 4x.

Civ 4 was perhaps the most unfair of the series in terms of start position quality too, but I'm willing to give more of a pass on that because randomly generating "balanced" positions is the opposite of trivial and in a competitive setting you could just use pre-made maps.

 

[rah]

Yes the quality of the starting position was important. So much so that when 5 was being developed, a lot of effort was made to remove that element. Unfortunately it resulted in really boring maps. When we complained about it during the play test phase, they said it was a feature and not a bug and spent more time on it instead of fixing the obvious AI issues.
Just one more thing that changed the game from "one more turn" to "oh no, not another turn, Yawn"

But at least when we were playing with weaker players, if we got a bad starting position, we just considered it an appropriate handicap.
If we were playing hyper competitive it was always from a set of pre-made mirror maps.