Why Game Design is important in sports
Story
The story is as follows. Four badminton teams at the Olympics decided that it would be more favourable for them to lose their matches as it would allow for them to have placements in the elimination games that followed the round robin.
Do you believe the players were right? How could the organizer have designed for a better situation? Any other thoughts?
The story is as follows. Four badminton teams at the Olympics decided that it would be more favourable for them to lose their matches as it would allow for them to have placements in the elimination games that followed the round robin.
Do you believe the players were right? How could the organizer have designed for a better situation? Any other thoughts?
Comments
Should organisers have to design these things better? I don't think so. Players should be giving their best in every match. Perhaps part of the problem lies in the pressure for those at the top to stay at the top and the shame that is associated with "losing".
I also think that anyone participating in sports should always try to do their best. But this does not mean that they should make it more difficult on themselves than it has to be. If an oppertunity presents itself to get an easy win, then you should take it. I don't think it has anything to do with the shame of losing, or the pressure at the top. It's a long term strategy for winning the tournament. And that is the goal, not winning every match.
If the player loses the match, and subsequently is able to win the tournament then they have earned themselves more money and have a greater chance about future potentials.
Professional sports are exactly that: a job. Would you simply work hard at your job to not be rewarded when you know methods that can lead you to a better bonus.
If in a game I did not want to players to behave in a certain way I would design the game so that behaviour would not be feasible.
In general, I tend to find the design of sports rules lacking, especially systems that are supposed to enable the highest level of competition. I mean, these are people who compete for a living, they're driven to push themselves incredibly hard to win, of course they're going to use every advantage they can find in the rules - that's what they've been trained to do!
Barring simply horrible calls (like the whole fencing thing, wow that was incredibly poor) most of the crap behavior that comes out of sporting events can be traced back to rules that are at odds with the "spirit" of the sport and the enjoyment of spectators. The whole badminton thing could easily have been avoided by preventing foreknowledge of the next round's opponent assignments. It could even have been turned into a spectacle by drawing the next round from a hat - with the added option of allowing the winners to add an extra ballot for the team they would like to face the most.
And don't get me started on football. Argh.
It depends what those rules are. Working hard and getting ahead by unscrupulous means are not necessarily the same thing.
This is actually a very interesting point. I'm reminded of Starcraft 2 where creative players exploit balance issues to their advantage. This in turn spurs Blizzard to monitor and refine the balance frequently. I personally enjoy this aspect because creative solutions keep coming to the fore and the game continues to evolve and stays interesting.
Blizzard need not always balance. Players will naturally find a counter to the strategies of other players it is only when dominant and degenerate strategies appear that designers need to fix the rules (patch.)
I dunno, maybe you consider it so. Either way, I've completely lost interest in this 'game' because players were too attached to winning.
Thanks for that correction, that is indeed the case.
Also, I would really lose interest in a competitive game when no one is attached to winning...because what would be the point?
Also +10 internets to @Rigormortis for hitting the nail on the head.
The players, in the badminton situation, are only able to exploit the system since they know whom their opponent would be. Were this a closed system where they did not know they would put their best efforts in. They are not transgressing a hard line rule here.
And as a general note people would lose interest in a competitive game without a winner. Without struggle to win people would not find it as interesting to watch. If less people watched then there would be less revenue and the games would not exist.
The Olympic rules exist to generate higher viewers. The shorts women can wear for volleyball are regulated to be revealing so that more people would watch.
I am not saying such a thing is right, but simply as designers we must understand such things. If you are working on a project where you are told that IAPs must be part of the game. You have no choice but to make sure that it works for your players and bosses. Same goes here, the sports must be entertaining for the viewers, and enhance the performance of the players.
The example shows that the viewers were dissatisfied since the alignment of the game was at odds with itself.
Dislekcia has already provided an excellent solution to this problem ;)
@tachyon Luis Suarez handball saved Uruguay, granted them a minimal(and eventual)fourth place finish and gave them momentum to win the copa merica last year. There was no shame just honor.
Dishonor is barcelona football!
@karuji the badminton situation does bring rise to an interesting design problem.