-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Halo |OT16| Oh Bungie, Where Art Thou?
- Thread starter Booties
- Start date
- Status
FUNKNOWN iXi
Member
Been playing some hilarious Custom Games. Can't wait to see what Frankie meant by that post for future Halo titles.
Problem is when you blain as a team there's still a good chance 1-3 of your own team won't "rank" up because a few tryhards on the opposition will still sneak above you in score. BTB should be team rank.
That and no one seems to really know how the CSR is computed for individuals in team based gametypes.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
This was posted over at Waypoint but I feel it will create some discussion here too...
Randomness vs Skill (no snips for sensiGAF)
Copy'n'paste here of Maximus IL's OP here:
There are some misconceptions concerning the relationship between randomness and skill that have been expressed on this forum. I would like to give everyone some food for thought. As an aside, I am a published author on applied statistics in academic journals. While game theory is not my specialty, it is a subset of applied statistics and utilizes a statistical approach.
Another poster in another thread - arguing against the inclusion of random elements to the gameplay - asked how much skill is involved in guessing cards pulled randomly from a deck. While the answer is "None", it is the wrong question to ask. To find the right question, we must decide what we mean by "skill".
First, let's look at a completely deterministic (i.e., no randomness) gaming example, like the original Mario Bros. Whether we measure skill as time required to complete a level, defeat all enemies, maximizing level score, or finding all bonuses, the measurement quantifies the ability to press controller buttons in the optimal sequence using visual cues to supplement memory. In other words, "skill" in Mario Bros. is a proxy for memorization ability, and the expected value of a successful outcome is entirely a function of memory, where expected value is the ratio of successful outcomes to total attempts.
Second, let's look at a game where the gameplay elements are entirely stochastic (i.e., random), but are used only once and the total number is known, like Blackjack. When a new set of card decks are used, the expected value of a player's successful outcome is less than 0.5 due to the house advantage. This means that, overall, the player will lose.
As the game plays out, however, the expected value changes. Regardless of the cards that have been played, the house must play in a defined manner. This manner is optimized for maximum house winnings based on random draws. As the cards play out, the actual odds change due to certain combinations of draws being no longer available. A player that tracks the cards played and adjusts his/her own play according to the actual draw odds at the moment can achieve an expected value greater than 0.5. So while this player will not win every hand, overall, this player will be able to beat the house.
Like the Mario Bros example, skill in Blackjack is a function of memory: first the cards played, and second a table of instantaneous odds. And though the game elements are completely random, an unskilled player will be a losing player and a skilled player can be a winning player. It is arguable that it actually increased the skill necessary to win, as one could argue that more people would be successful at Mario Bros than blackjack, given an equal opportunity to learn and play both games.
Third, we ought to make a brief mention of another stochastic game where the elements are used more than once: Texas Hold'em. For each game, the deck is randomized, and cards played on the previous hand do not affect the odds of cards played on the present hand - thus increasing the total randomness of the game play. Moreover, the game is played against human opponents of varying abilities (more randomness) who will not always act in the theoretically optimal fashion given the hand and community cards (bluffing, trapping).
Because of the human element, there is no theoretical solution for expected values beyond pre-flop play. While some have designed automatic playing software that can beat most human opponents, unless the software deliberately plays with some element of randomness, any reasonably skilled Hold'em player can beat them. Only the most sophisticated software approaches world class ability, and none have yet exceeded it.
Despite the large stochastic component to poker play - or, rather, because of it - most would say that playing world-class poker requires more skill than world-class Mario Bros or blackjack. Among non-humans, computers would agree.
However, what may have gone unnoticed is that the definition of skill has changed. In Mario Bros and blackjack, skill was a proxy for memory. While some amount of memory in poker is crucial, many other factors are just as important - or even more important. Interestingly, one of the most crucial factors is randomizing one's own play rather than simply responding in the probabilistically optimal fashion based on the cards presented.
In game theory, randomizing game elements generally result in higher skill levels being required to maintain expected value above a certain level when compared to leaving game elements deterministic. Randomness generally also requires use of skills beyond memory, while deterministic games can, in theory, be mastered solely via memorization.
The general rule is the less deterministic the game elements are arranged, the harder it becomes to maintain high expected values. In many cases, randomness also reduces the dependence on the memorization ability (though not always; c.f. Mario Bros vs. blackjack). What is important in game design is whether the degree of randomization renders the likelihood of mastery negligible.
In terms of Halo, let us assume that we will measure "skill" in terms of K/D. The base case we will look at is very simple: Equal starts in an octagon with no AAs, ordnance, or specializations. Generically, two abilities will contribute to a high skill measurement: gun skills and movement skills. Given the simplicity of the setting, few other abilities will have a significant impact.
Now let us add in the ability for different weapon starts. This adds a random element (which gun did each player choose) and a deterministic one (the characteristics of each weapon). Now an additional set of skills are required to maintain expected value: first being able to select a weapon for one's self that maximizes performance given the game situation, and second being able to recognize the opponent's weapon and playing in a manner that minimizes whatever advantages it has. Since the outcome is no longer dependent solely on gun skill and movement skills, the relative importance of these two items decreases.
This can be viewed in two ways. If one defines "skill" as primarily gun / movement, then one can reasonably argue that the random element decreased the skill necessary for mastery. If one defines "skill" as all abilities that increase expected value, then the random element increased the skill necessary for mastery. As more and more random elements are added, gun / movement skills will become less and less important, and other skills will become more important.
In a game with a high degree of randomness, the number of "mediocre" players increases because the proportion of expected value determined by random factors increases relative to the proportion determined by skill. However, while this pushes more players into the "middle of the pack" (since it hides skill differences below a certain threshold), it enhances the differences between players with enough skill to stand out.
So the question randomness is not really a question of skill. It is actually a question of whether you want to more efficiently rank bad players or more efficiently rank good players based on a defined set of abilities.
My personal reply here:
A great analysis and thank you for posting here, I enjoyed reading it. Here's some food for thought regarding your post:
1. Most players/posters when they talk about randomness they're actually talking about even starts and an even playing field e.g. Armour abilities in Halo 4 vs. Halo 3 everyone starts exactly the same. In your Texas Hold 'Em example Halo 3 would be a normal Texas Hold 'Em game where cards are dealt and players have even chances of everything. Halo 4 Infinity gametypes would be more akin to introduce UNO cards to Texas Hold 'Em which creates insane statistical variance and compound affects for magnitudes higher randomness or "uneven" playing fields.
2. The true randomness players report, again to use Texas Hold 'Em, is say you've had the flop and one player has a special "start which is uneven to other players" and can re-roll their turn card for a second change but the other players cannot. This leads to the actual game mechanics breaking down. While I'm all for such "fun game-changers" for social Halo when you're talking about ranked Halo I'd prefer such game-changers were limited, across the board or just left out completely. This is the skill vs. random argument that is present often.
3. Online gaming skill or randomness in mechanics or player actions is often second or third place behind online latency. Far too many players/posters focus on game mechanics moreover than latency or player decision making, which can trump almost any game mechanics anyhow.
While I enjoyed your statistical analysis when it's applied to Halo specifically and the evolving game versions as well as the differing playlists and settings it's oversimplified at best. I do however agree with the gist of what you're getting at.
Personally I feel teamwork and decision making skill beats just about any random game mechanics. The funny thing is most players that argue about the randomness are in fact mastering their skills and are the ones using the game mechanics to their advantage to perform even better in game. Often they feel this is a cheap win or a cheap loss that was based on a random event rather than a poor skill or decision.
I'll accept in social that the randomness should even out so newer or less skilled players can enjoy the game but for ranked those sort of random balances (if you will) should not decide a game or engagement outcome e.g. game is tied 49 kills to 49 kills and both red/blue gain a personal ordnance that results in red receiving a binary rifle while blue receive an overshield. One can kill in one hit from anywhere on the map and will generally result in winning that game for the reds.
Randomness vs Skill (no snips for sensiGAF)
Copy'n'paste here of Maximus IL's OP here:
There are some misconceptions concerning the relationship between randomness and skill that have been expressed on this forum. I would like to give everyone some food for thought. As an aside, I am a published author on applied statistics in academic journals. While game theory is not my specialty, it is a subset of applied statistics and utilizes a statistical approach.
Another poster in another thread - arguing against the inclusion of random elements to the gameplay - asked how much skill is involved in guessing cards pulled randomly from a deck. While the answer is "None", it is the wrong question to ask. To find the right question, we must decide what we mean by "skill".
First, let's look at a completely deterministic (i.e., no randomness) gaming example, like the original Mario Bros. Whether we measure skill as time required to complete a level, defeat all enemies, maximizing level score, or finding all bonuses, the measurement quantifies the ability to press controller buttons in the optimal sequence using visual cues to supplement memory. In other words, "skill" in Mario Bros. is a proxy for memorization ability, and the expected value of a successful outcome is entirely a function of memory, where expected value is the ratio of successful outcomes to total attempts.
Second, let's look at a game where the gameplay elements are entirely stochastic (i.e., random), but are used only once and the total number is known, like Blackjack. When a new set of card decks are used, the expected value of a player's successful outcome is less than 0.5 due to the house advantage. This means that, overall, the player will lose.
As the game plays out, however, the expected value changes. Regardless of the cards that have been played, the house must play in a defined manner. This manner is optimized for maximum house winnings based on random draws. As the cards play out, the actual odds change due to certain combinations of draws being no longer available. A player that tracks the cards played and adjusts his/her own play according to the actual draw odds at the moment can achieve an expected value greater than 0.5. So while this player will not win every hand, overall, this player will be able to beat the house.
Like the Mario Bros example, skill in Blackjack is a function of memory: first the cards played, and second a table of instantaneous odds. And though the game elements are completely random, an unskilled player will be a losing player and a skilled player can be a winning player. It is arguable that it actually increased the skill necessary to win, as one could argue that more people would be successful at Mario Bros than blackjack, given an equal opportunity to learn and play both games.
Third, we ought to make a brief mention of another stochastic game where the elements are used more than once: Texas Hold'em. For each game, the deck is randomized, and cards played on the previous hand do not affect the odds of cards played on the present hand - thus increasing the total randomness of the game play. Moreover, the game is played against human opponents of varying abilities (more randomness) who will not always act in the theoretically optimal fashion given the hand and community cards (bluffing, trapping).
Because of the human element, there is no theoretical solution for expected values beyond pre-flop play. While some have designed automatic playing software that can beat most human opponents, unless the software deliberately plays with some element of randomness, any reasonably skilled Hold'em player can beat them. Only the most sophisticated software approaches world class ability, and none have yet exceeded it.
Despite the large stochastic component to poker play - or, rather, because of it - most would say that playing world-class poker requires more skill than world-class Mario Bros or blackjack. Among non-humans, computers would agree.
However, what may have gone unnoticed is that the definition of skill has changed. In Mario Bros and blackjack, skill was a proxy for memory. While some amount of memory in poker is crucial, many other factors are just as important - or even more important. Interestingly, one of the most crucial factors is randomizing one's own play rather than simply responding in the probabilistically optimal fashion based on the cards presented.
In game theory, randomizing game elements generally result in higher skill levels being required to maintain expected value above a certain level when compared to leaving game elements deterministic. Randomness generally also requires use of skills beyond memory, while deterministic games can, in theory, be mastered solely via memorization.
The general rule is the less deterministic the game elements are arranged, the harder it becomes to maintain high expected values. In many cases, randomness also reduces the dependence on the memorization ability (though not always; c.f. Mario Bros vs. blackjack). What is important in game design is whether the degree of randomization renders the likelihood of mastery negligible.
In terms of Halo, let us assume that we will measure "skill" in terms of K/D. The base case we will look at is very simple: Equal starts in an octagon with no AAs, ordnance, or specializations. Generically, two abilities will contribute to a high skill measurement: gun skills and movement skills. Given the simplicity of the setting, few other abilities will have a significant impact.
Now let us add in the ability for different weapon starts. This adds a random element (which gun did each player choose) and a deterministic one (the characteristics of each weapon). Now an additional set of skills are required to maintain expected value: first being able to select a weapon for one's self that maximizes performance given the game situation, and second being able to recognize the opponent's weapon and playing in a manner that minimizes whatever advantages it has. Since the outcome is no longer dependent solely on gun skill and movement skills, the relative importance of these two items decreases.
This can be viewed in two ways. If one defines "skill" as primarily gun / movement, then one can reasonably argue that the random element decreased the skill necessary for mastery. If one defines "skill" as all abilities that increase expected value, then the random element increased the skill necessary for mastery. As more and more random elements are added, gun / movement skills will become less and less important, and other skills will become more important.
In a game with a high degree of randomness, the number of "mediocre" players increases because the proportion of expected value determined by random factors increases relative to the proportion determined by skill. However, while this pushes more players into the "middle of the pack" (since it hides skill differences below a certain threshold), it enhances the differences between players with enough skill to stand out.
So the question randomness is not really a question of skill. It is actually a question of whether you want to more efficiently rank bad players or more efficiently rank good players based on a defined set of abilities.
My personal reply here:
A great analysis and thank you for posting here, I enjoyed reading it. Here's some food for thought regarding your post:
1. Most players/posters when they talk about randomness they're actually talking about even starts and an even playing field e.g. Armour abilities in Halo 4 vs. Halo 3 everyone starts exactly the same. In your Texas Hold 'Em example Halo 3 would be a normal Texas Hold 'Em game where cards are dealt and players have even chances of everything. Halo 4 Infinity gametypes would be more akin to introduce UNO cards to Texas Hold 'Em which creates insane statistical variance and compound affects for magnitudes higher randomness or "uneven" playing fields.
2. The true randomness players report, again to use Texas Hold 'Em, is say you've had the flop and one player has a special "start which is uneven to other players" and can re-roll their turn card for a second change but the other players cannot. This leads to the actual game mechanics breaking down. While I'm all for such "fun game-changers" for social Halo when you're talking about ranked Halo I'd prefer such game-changers were limited, across the board or just left out completely. This is the skill vs. random argument that is present often.
3. Online gaming skill or randomness in mechanics or player actions is often second or third place behind online latency. Far too many players/posters focus on game mechanics moreover than latency or player decision making, which can trump almost any game mechanics anyhow.
While I enjoyed your statistical analysis when it's applied to Halo specifically and the evolving game versions as well as the differing playlists and settings it's oversimplified at best. I do however agree with the gist of what you're getting at.
Personally I feel teamwork and decision making skill beats just about any random game mechanics. The funny thing is most players that argue about the randomness are in fact mastering their skills and are the ones using the game mechanics to their advantage to perform even better in game. Often they feel this is a cheap win or a cheap loss that was based on a random event rather than a poor skill or decision.
I'll accept in social that the randomness should even out so newer or less skilled players can enjoy the game but for ranked those sort of random balances (if you will) should not decide a game or engagement outcome e.g. game is tied 49 kills to 49 kills and both red/blue gain a personal ordnance that results in red receiving a binary rifle while blue receive an overshield. One can kill in one hit from anywhere on the map and will generally result in winning that game for the reds.
I thought the radio edit was confirmed realsies?
Im listening to a real HQ version someone apparently got off of Zune. It's allegedly up on Xbox Music as well.
Ill also be comparing to official version.
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
Huh, apparently they put a new radio edit up that is real?
Dongs Macabre
aka Daedalos42
I'm only at 17 right now.
Got my 50 in it a few days ago. Took me about 3 days of playing alone. Actually I think I played a few games with/against you randomly in BTB a few days ago. Recognized your name. I was using my GT: i r nooble
Ranking up was pretty quick except getting from 49-50. Took like 9 or 10 straight games of going really positive before I ranked up again.
Franklinator
Member
Yeah, the radio edit is out there now. I like it so far.
YourExWife
Member
BTB is an "individual" ranking. So if you're not in the top 8 people *overall* you don't rank up essentially.
Got to a 47 in a couple days of barely playing. Haven't played in a week so i'm gonna get my 50 this weekend.
Dongs Macabre
aka Daedalos42
Lol, got a tank Trocity and it blew up.
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
Ahhhh, I knew it was individual, but I thought individual meant you just needed a decent k/d spread each game.
Is that how individual rank goes? If you're in the Top 4, 8, or whatever you rank up?
Talk about EZ mode.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Thank you good sir. I try to be unbiased and slot each distinct Halo demographic into a playlist. Ranked vs. Social really achieves that sort of separation with an upper tier layer far better than playlists alone like what was done with Halo 4.
In the spirit of Infinity Slayer and Halo 4.
Get Lucky, Halogaf.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/get-lucky-radio-edit-feat./id636967993
Get Lucky, Halogaf.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/get-lucky-radio-edit-feat./id636967993
Dongs Macabre
aka Daedalos42
Sorry, Cyclone and Eagle. Both of those Splatters were actually accidents. I'm a horrible driver.
FUNKNOWN iXi
Member
SHIFTYkiwi
Member
I got my 50 in btb some time last week, only took about 15 games over a couple days.
MaximumFlipFlop
Banned
playing halo 2 campaign while rev3rb sets up XBC
btw I got a full time job
http://www.twitch.tv/reev3rb
btw I got a full time job
http://www.twitch.tv/reev3rb
rip tunavey
Dongs Macabre
aka Daedalos42
Guys, we can boost for the achievements.
having technical difficulties but we're trying
RebornYeti
Member
I'm down for some XBC Halo 2!
Dongs Macabre
aka Daedalos42
Speedy Blue Dude
Banned
Dongs Macabre
aka Daedalos42
I'm afraid to click on the link.
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
Man lurkers hate Gaf, but they keep lurking. Those comments are awful. Funny though, props Devo.
User 73706
Banned
why u gotta ruin shit bruh
Your posts are a million times better when I picture Bugs saying them.
Fuck it, I'm joining up on H3
kk add Rev3rb
RebornYeti
Member
No more XBC Halo 2? Can I join you guys in H3?
Ahh fuck I just remembered I'm on that 14 day trial. I can only play social games.
RIP Tashi
YourExWife
Member
GGs guys. 49 in BTB. So good, yo.
- Status