Can I compete?
Can I compete?
Can I compete?
Competition can be a great concept in a game. We all start out with the same setup or resources and then through the structure of the game; its mechanics and dynamics we discover a victor who has rightfully defeated us all.
Most of that competition comes from finding and playing with other players who are at our competitive skill and experience level. In a perfect playing environment we would be able to do that regularly and at will.
But we don’t live in a perfect playing environment. That means that we need to rely on matchmaking (digitally or in person) to find the right group of players we want (and should) play with.
But what happens when someone messes that up? What happens when someone “sandbags” the competition or otherwise upsets the balance of matchmaking in games?
What happens when the competition in the game turns against us?
In this article we’ll review what “sandbagging” is in games as well as provide examples from the most prevalent games where this happens. This article will also review competition in games as well as how players use and exploit the competitive advantage. Lastly, this article will end with an overview on designing for balance in games in order to make the best use of those competitive elements.
Sandbagging
So what exactly is “sandbagging?” Sandbagging is a manipulative behavior that deceives another player into lowering their expectations. This creates an opportunity for the manipulating player to exploit.
A classic example of sandbagging is with pool hustling where a player lets an opponent win a few games in order to gain their trust before raising the stakes. Professional billiards leagues and governing bodies attempt to level the playing field so that the skill level is even regardless of players’ abilities.
You can also see this tactic being used in poker with the “check raise.” Here, the player often checks (or free bets) a powerful hand and lets an opponent place a bet. The player then raises the bet indicating that they have a stronger hand.
When I first started playing poker in the early 2000’s I didn’t really understand the competitive advantage of the check raise. Only after years of playing have I discovered its powerful ability to get other players’ money into the pot.
The check raise been described as an underhanded move; but one that has a district competitive advantage that has since made its way into mainstream poker strategy.
Herein lies the goal when creating competition within games. There is a need to keep the game competitive but simultaneously maintain its integrity so that players can invest in an effort to win.
Competition
This dynamic is something that is seen in many games with inter-player competition. Most players know this as games that have direct and explicit competition with others players in contention.
However, not all players are a fan of direct competition games like Risk or Fortnite where you win by making others lose. This is not the style of table top games that I choose to play most often. But there is still a place for direct competition. Triumphing over a difficult opponent most often fills us with that sense of fiero.
We only get that sense though through both game balance and active matchmaking. Matchmaking is a process that creates games and matchups that connect players of the same or similar skill levels. Players enjoy closer competition through matchmaking as they strive to outperform their peers. Though, most would opt out of games where they would be the clear winner or the clear loser based on their opponents’ skill. The lack of challenge or lack of efficacy would make the outcome feel unrealized.
While competition makes for an optimal play experience for those seeking contention in their games; competition also serves games-based learning. Creating a competitive environment can aid student motivations and learning outcomes. This is best realized in the creation of serious games that actively incorporate those competitive elements into their design.
Competitive advantage
Competition as a game dynamic allows designers to create interesting scenarios for players to make meaningful decisions to help them win. Though care must be taken as players will strive to exploit the game and use its structure in unintended purposes.
David Sirlin addresses this competitive advantage of players in two different player classes: those who play to win and use the entirety of the structure of the game to their advantage compared to those payers who play with internal rules that may handicap their abilities. While both players are playing for the same outcome; only one is using (and exploiting) the ludic circle of the game to its fullest advantage. The other player is playing within the same game but with additional rules that may end up hindering their play.
David Sirlin goes onto address that in competitive gaming, players must pursue winning at all costs: even if that ends in a miserable experience for other players. In that case the outcome here is the fault of the system and not the player.
While competition is often at the heart of orthogames; they don’t always need to be pursued to this extent. Games are social experiences as much as anything else; therefore in other circumstances it might not make most sense to win at all costs if players’ goals are greater than those outlined in the game’s rulebook. This is especially true for serious games whose true goal is to meet player learning outcomes rather than foster a competitive dynamic.
Designing for balance
There are certainly players who will seek to win at all costs. Often this can only be addressed by the game’s designer who is the ultimate author and guide of the player experience.
Much of this can be decided through the creation and development of balance in games. Balance in table top games is at least is meant to stabilize the play experience so that it remains equally competitive throughout.
Though, designing for balance can be very challenging: especially as it relates to balancing games for many different players who may play at a more competitive rather than an intermediate level.
Likewise, balancing games for casual players is even more challenging as they may not even be aware of many of the mechanics and dynamics that have been incorporated into past games. Often the easiest easy to do this for casual players is to design elements in the game so that everything appears useful at the very beginning. In addition, creating a strong and basic core loop that continues to resolve itself smoothly throughout the entire game helps all players equally.
Takeaways
This article reviewed “sandbagging” in games as well as provided examples from the most prevalent games where they occur. The article also reviewed competition in games as well as how players use and exploit game structures to their advantage. The article closed with an overview of designing for balance in games in order to make the best use of competitive elements.
This article was about sandbagging and balance in games. To learn more about balance in gamification, check out the free course on Gamification Explained.
Dave Eng, EdD
Managing Partner
References
Burgun, K. (n.d.). Understanding Balance in Video Games. Retrieved January 21, 2020, from https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134768/understanding_balance_in_video_.php?print=1
Cagiltay, N. E., Ozcelik, E., & Ozcelik, N. S. (2015). The effect of competition on learning in games. Computers & Education, 87, 35-41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360131515001001
Competition in Games. (2013, May). Retrieved January 21, 2020, from http://www.mostdangerousgamedesign.com/2013/05/competition-in-games.html
Eng, D. (2019, December 3). Core Loops University XP. Accessed January 21, 2020. Retrieved from www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/12/3/core-loops.
Eng, D. (2019, July 23). Fired Up Fiero University XP. Accessed January 21, 2020. Retrieved from www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/7/23/fired-up-fiero.
Eng, D. (2019, May 7). Serious Games University XP. Accessed January 21, 2020. Retrieved from www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/5/7/what-are-serious-games.
Eng, D. (2019, October 8). Game Dynamics University XP. Accessed January 21, 2020. Retrieved from www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/10/8/game-dynamics.
Eng, D. (2019, September 10). The Player Experience University XP. Accessed January 21, 2020. Retrieved from www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/9/10/the-player-experience.
Eng, D. (2019, September 4). Game-Based Learning vs Gamification University XP. Accessed January 21, 2020. Retrieved from www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/9/4/game-based-learning-vs-gamification.
Eng, D. (2020, January 16). How do I win? University XP. Accessed January 21, 2020. Retrieved from www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/1/16/how-do-i-win.
Eng, D. (2020, January 9). Socializing Games University XP. Accessed January 21, 2020. Retrieved from www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/1/9/socializing-games.
Hartley, D. (2017, May 4). Games Master Manipulators Play: Sandbagging. Retrieved from www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/machiavellians-gulling-the-rubes/201705/games-master-manipulators-play-sandbagging.
Matchmaking (n.d.). Accessed January 21, 2020. Retrieved from www.giantbomb.com/matchmaking/3015-3334/.
Newheiser, M. (2009, April 4). "Playing to Win" and a Philosophy of Competition in Gaming. Retrieved January 21, 2020, from https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/MarkNewheiser/20090414/83747/quotPlaying_to_Winquot_and_a_Philosophy_of_Competition_in_Gaming.php
Pool Table Accessories. (n.d.). Accessed January 21, 2020. Retrieved from www.ozonebilliards.com/what-is-sandbagging-in-pool/.
Sandbagging Dictionary Entry. (n.d.). Accessed January 21, 2020. Retrieved from www.poker-king.com/dictionary/sandbagging/.
Cite this Article
Eng, D. (2020, January 30). Can I compete? Retrieved MONTH DATE, YEAR, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/1/30/can-i-compete
Internal Ref: UXPYQHQ8KDHF