www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
Saturday, March 09, 2019
Deliberately unbalanced
A few years ago I spent a week in Las Vegas. As I am not really a gambler at heart, and know too much about statistics and economics to believe in getting rich in a casino, I decided upon a different approach: I put aside $1,000, determined to lose that money, and then stop gambling. The plan didn't work, I didn't lose the money. I actually won $700, although of course that was much less than we paid for the flight, hotel, and food. But the experience taught me one thing: While *statistically* everybody loses in a casino, practically the thing is designed to have both winners and losers, just that the losers lose more than the winners win. If *everybody* left the casino poorer, that would be bad advertising, you need some people coming home and saying "I won!" to keep up the illusion.
I recently realized that World of Tanks is using the exact same psychological scheme: The games are deliberately not balanced too well. Quite a lot of games end up with one side having lost all 15 tanks, while the other side still has 10 tanks alive. And the matchmaking over 3 tiers assures that the 3 players in the top tier of the winning side have an absolutely smashing success and feel like invincible gods. Meanwhile most players on the losing side get eliminated so quickly, that the loss barely registers. The psychological effect of the huge wins is bigger than that of the quick losses, and so overall people don't become too frustrated. That is reflected by the coverage of the game on YouTube mostly showing those games in which the player is top tier and roflstomps through the opposition. Nobody shows the videos where one of those new French wheeled vehicles manages to spot your bottom tier heavy tank in the first minute of the game, and a combination of tank destroyers and lucky shots from artillery kills you before you left the base.
I don't really mind losing games. I do mind playing in games where I never had a chance to do much. And the huge variability makes it very hard for me to judge how well I am playing, and what I would need to do to improve. I just finished a game with a Mastery Badge "Class I" and a deep purple WN8 of 3,868, which would suggest that I am doing okay. But the game before that I had a tomato red WN8 of 0. Not only can't I achieve much consistency, but I am increasingly convinced that consistency is actually not possible for the regular players, who haven't spent thousands of hours on practice.
I recently realized that World of Tanks is using the exact same psychological scheme: The games are deliberately not balanced too well. Quite a lot of games end up with one side having lost all 15 tanks, while the other side still has 10 tanks alive. And the matchmaking over 3 tiers assures that the 3 players in the top tier of the winning side have an absolutely smashing success and feel like invincible gods. Meanwhile most players on the losing side get eliminated so quickly, that the loss barely registers. The psychological effect of the huge wins is bigger than that of the quick losses, and so overall people don't become too frustrated. That is reflected by the coverage of the game on YouTube mostly showing those games in which the player is top tier and roflstomps through the opposition. Nobody shows the videos where one of those new French wheeled vehicles manages to spot your bottom tier heavy tank in the first minute of the game, and a combination of tank destroyers and lucky shots from artillery kills you before you left the base.
I don't really mind losing games. I do mind playing in games where I never had a chance to do much. And the huge variability makes it very hard for me to judge how well I am playing, and what I would need to do to improve. I just finished a game with a Mastery Badge "Class I" and a deep purple WN8 of 3,868, which would suggest that I am doing okay. But the game before that I had a tomato red WN8 of 0. Not only can't I achieve much consistency, but I am increasingly convinced that consistency is actually not possible for the regular players, who haven't spent thousands of hours on practice.
Labels: World of Tanks
- posted by Tobold @ 12:18 PM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
Although one can follow this chain of reasoning further: is consistency undesirable? Picture a game like chess where there is no RNG, is that a viable game for today and today's players? Maybe a "bronze league" is viable, but it seems to me that unambiguous, accurate rankings of players skill would cause the bottom to leave, followed by the new bottoms, ... If nearly half of a game's revenue come from below average players, then perhaps things that bring clarity to the player skill will cost the company money
@Tobold
"I just finished a game with a Mastery Badge "Class I" and a deep purple WN8 of 3,868, which would suggest that I am doing okay. But the game before that I had a tomato red WN8 of 0."
So is the disparity in your statement caused by your lack of skill in the second game, or is it a function of matchmaker shenanigans?
"I just finished a game with a Mastery Badge "Class I" and a deep purple WN8 of 3,868, which would suggest that I am doing okay. But the game before that I had a tomato red WN8 of 0."
So is the disparity in your statement caused by your lack of skill in the second game, or is it a function of matchmaker shenanigans?
So is the disparity in your statement caused by your lack of skill in the second game, or is it a function of matchmaker shenanigans?
I think you are mis-using the word "skill". By definition my "skill" in the two games was exactly the same, as skill is something which changes only very slowly. Of course one might do more mistakes in one game than in another. But a skilful player making a mistake hasn't lost his skill because of that.
I think you are mis-using the word "skill". By definition my "skill" in the two games was exactly the same, as skill is something which changes only very slowly. Of course one might do more mistakes in one game than in another. But a skilful player making a mistake hasn't lost his skill because of that.
@ Tobold
There is a huge difference in a WN8 of zero when compared to a WN8 of 3868, and most of the descriptions(that I could find) of WN8 describe it as "essentially a number that represents an account's skill, with zero being a terribly unskilled player and 2450+ being one of the best players."
You indicate that your example implies some form of deliberate and controlled design philosophy, so if WN8 is a representation of skill, what "deliberate" elements other than the match maker are beyond your control from game to game?
Post a Comment
There is a huge difference in a WN8 of zero when compared to a WN8 of 3868, and most of the descriptions(that I could find) of WN8 describe it as "essentially a number that represents an account's skill, with zero being a terribly unskilled player and 2450+ being one of the best players."
You indicate that your example implies some form of deliberate and controlled design philosophy, so if WN8 is a representation of skill, what "deliberate" elements other than the match maker are beyond your control from game to game?
<< Home
