WHAT IT IS: A psychological study on the profile of strategy players and their behavior during matches.
OBJECTIVE: Making players better aware of the tactics of their challengers and, above all, proving that psychology can live in peace with games.
CONCLUSION: If you're serious about ETR, this article has a lot to offer your gaming gimmicks.
By, Psychologist
Real-Time Strategy (ETR) and Subjectivity: an essay on psychological types from the art of strategy
Psychology has been helping man to know himself better for over a century, since its formalization as an academic science in 1879. Throughout its research history, many typical cultural activities have been used by psychology to probe and study the human psyche. Games are no exception, they have always been present as a tool for psychological analysis. Although the complexity of man and his psychological activity have found a vast number of descriptions and explanations, the methods in psychology they have the similarity of being mostly indirect, that is, they make use of secondary clues to talk about the personality. Thus, in psychological research, what we call inference, or deduction from a game or psychological test, for example, is common.
Game theory is well known as a means of personality analysis. A diagnostic technique called diagnostic game time is used with children, in which subjective dispositions are evaluated based on the playful activity. It is not new to talk about games and personality, or to use the game as a personality analysis unit.
This is the typical defensive one. Reinforced base, low technology.
However, with the advent of "virtual" technologies, a type of game emerges that can revolutionize the methods of personological analysis based on the act of playing.
I refer to the ETR, which offers psychologists a great opportunity to assess personality traits from the strategies adopted by players and the intellectual and cognitive skills required in the dynamics of the game of ETR. In fact, online games in real time push the hallmark of the playful field in psychological research to the limit: involvement and spontaneity.
If ETR games are a revolution for psychology what can gamers and the community of fans of the genre gain from it? In addition to helping to get to know the opponent better and making the game more competitive, psychology can contribute to more balanced game programming, where different personalities can explore their characteristics to advantage similar. In fact, we understand that from the strategy adopted by the opponent it is possible to infer his personality and deduce the next steps with a reasonable degree of certainty.
Top of form
bottom of form
In our research, after about 2 (two) years of multiplayer "analytic battles", we composed two large matrices to from which we can suggest a classification of the main types of strategists and their respective personalities. We basically identified two large groups: the Defensive and the Attackers. We also consider that defensives can be subdivided into Centralizing Defensives and Decentralizing Defensives. Attackers, in turn, can split into Immediate Attackers or Late Attackers.
The first major distinction is based on the relationship between strategy and the dimension adopted by the player (space or time) to develop the game's actions.
Defensives base all their actions in space, they are territorial campaigns, where places gain prominence and occupation and resistance are the strategic elements. Attackers, on the other hand, rely on time, basically considering the duration of the game. Invasion, surprise and the enemy are the elements of strategy. The defensive personality is characterized by introverted thinking, they approach the problem from a panoramic point of view. The attacking personality is characterized by extroversion, approaches the strategic problem from a specific point of view.
Well, in case of attack, we turn on the propellers and take off with the entire base... eheheh.
For Defensives, the entire game is guided by the occupation of space and its territorialization (construction and development of units). For Attackers, game time is their "map" and is oriented by the number of enemies appeased. Considering the less differentiated functions of Defenders and Attackers, we have a slow time for Defenders (for attackers time is fast) and an inflexible space for Attackers. On the other hand, the space for Defensives is flexible, full of possibilities, being used to its limits. For attackers, space is rigid, as it is not appropriated in a complex way, with many relationships between the operative units.
the defensives
They prioritize the development of the units and make the defensive elements more complex, rationalizing the territorialization of space as much as possible. Its limit is the sources of natural resources. They reach high levels of development and strength of the units. They only move when natural resources are depleted. This psychological type is patient, rationalistic and introverted.
Centralized
Its characteristic are large brute force conglomerates. This type is completely slave to the natural resources offered by the game. However, their absolute priority with the defense allows them to advance almost irreversibly. The pace of advance is slow but extremely rigid. Faced with an opponent like this, we must fence off natural sources of resources and wait for him to try to advance. As it does not have sophisticated attack forces, advancing becomes a problem and opens a gap for the opponent.
Decentralized
Although the logic in general lines remains the same, this type occupies spaces in a broad and decentralized way. This way it eliminates the dependence on the resources offered by the game. It forms agglomerations with a high concentration of power. Decentralized development allows for some specialization in attack, if only after a long time of development, as its priority is occupation and resistance. Its weakness lies in managing many centers. The player loses upkeep and must abandon some of their bases. Faced with this opponent, one must have the same ability: attack on more than one front and be a better manager of many battle areas.
Ah, an attack fleet with immeasurable power. That's what I like!
the attackers
Your priority is to establish a favorable relationship between destroyed enemies and time. Attackers target the enemy and their units objectively, with no major concerns about deploying their war machine in the game's space. They are very emotional, outgoing and extremely objective personalities. Its more differentiated attack functions are achieved through the surprise or specialization of attack units.
Immediate
It is the most violent ETR attack. They are the ones who attack immediately, with no chance of defense. Space and terrain is completely ignored In general, they beat centered defensives easily, as their timing is fast and the defensive timings are slow. Decentralized defensives stand a chance if they are very quick to migrate. In the face of an opponent like this, only war on an equal footing, or decentralized resistance, remains. Its weakness is that it has no defenses. If the enemy resists and counterattacks, defeat is certain. In reality they are action game players who want to make ETR an action game. There is only one rule: take the "Destroyed Enemies x Time" ratio to the maximum.
late
They are the ones who prepare their full potential in the sense of offensiveness. Perhaps the best battle in an ETR game is between space and time in its most sophisticated forms: A Decentralized Defensive and a Late Attacker. One enriches space, territory, the other enriches time. This type of player consumes a lot of energy and resources, as it elaborates heavy and multifocal attacks (on more than one front). Its attack units reach the maximum in development and this player can work with very diversified attack options. Its biggest limitation is the disorganization of its troops in space and the high casualties of expensive units. Faced with an opponent with these characteristics, one must invest in defense units with a high destructive power and rationalize the occupation of space to the maximum.
Final considerations
Many ETR games can be independently evaluated and the research I have been conducting is not yet complete. This essay is a demonstration of how ETR games are rich tools for analyzing man's personality and intelligence. I intend to advance the analysis, which in reality is much more complex, involves specific schools of psychology and assumptions about the psychic life of man that are far from unanimity. However, the empirical material is very rich and never tires of giving demonstrations of the vigor that surrounds its dynamics.
Real-Time Strategy (ETR) and Subjectivity: an essay on psychological types from the art of strategy
Centralizing Defensive
Decentralizing Defensive
Immediate attacker
late striker
Centralizing Defensive
Very Long Game.
Long Game.
Very Short Game.
Long Game.
Little action, tedious for some, but very creative.
Territory based dispute, in the conquest of natural resource points. Reasonable action and a lot of creativity.
Immediate Attacker win the vast majority of the time. Action without creativity.
Lots of action and lots of creativity.
The dispute is intense.
Decentralizing Defensive
-
Long Game.
Medium duration game.
Long Game.
Reasonable action and a lot of creativity.
Some creativity.
Maximum creativity and maximum action. Best ETR game.
Immediate attacker
Short game.
Medium duration game. Action with some creativity.
The maximum action in ETR, but with little creativity.
Attacker
Long Game.
Late
Lots of action and reasonable creativity.
Table 2 - Article Summary
Strategist
Subdivision
Dimension Used in Strategy
Non-Differentiated Dimension
Main Weak Point
Main Strength
Psychological Types
Centralized
Space as Action Territory
Short Term Time
Always dependent on the features offered by the game. When exhausted and without specialization in attack, the player goes through a moment of great weakness.
Develop the most powerful Defense System with highly specialized units
Intimate type. These can range from a high-performing autistic to an introverted, high-stakes, high-stakes thinking type.
psychology - Brazil School
Source: Brazil School - https://brasilescola.uol.com.br/psicologia/jogadores-estrategicos.htm