posted 10-28-2000 02:58 AM               

Survivor was a 13 part television series on CBS in which 16 people were voluntarily marooned a desert island. Every 3 days they’d vote someone off the island until there was only one left…who would win $1 million. I’m sure you’ve heard of this.

I only half-heartedly watched the series during its first run, but I watched it very closely when it was replayed during the Olympics. (I find the Olympics and physical sports not strategically interesting.) I found Survivor to be a huge, blazing advertisement for “playing to win.” The community on that island so closely mirrored my Street Fighter community that I was shocked. There was one expert player and 15 “scrubs.” Richard Hatch, the winner of Survivor, was the only participant who really even played the game at all. He put it best when he said towards the end, “I arrived on this island at the same time as everyone else. We all saw the sign that said ‘Survivor—outwit—outplay—outlast.’ That’s what I’ve been trying to do since before I even got here, and the other 15 people seemed to think they were on vacation.”

The Game

Let’s take a strategic look at Survivor before we talk about Richard. There is only one reasonable, logical way to hope to win such a game. There are not two ways. There are not three ways. There is ONE way: to form a voting alliance. At first, the 16 players are divided into 2 teams of 8. Every 3 days, the teams face each other in competitions called “immunity challenges.” The losing team must vote a member off. After 6 players were voted off, the teams merged, forming a single 10 person team. At this point, the immunity challenges were individual competitions, not team efforts. The individual who won such a challenge would be immune from being voted off during the next voting period.

Again, the obvious way to win this game is to form a voting alliance. If you have teammates with whom you coordinate your vote, then you have both the guarantee that their votes won’t go towards you, and the power to concentrate your votes on a single opponent. The whims of other players’ votes are sometimes hard to predict, but the more people you have in your alliance, the better you can control who to vote off. By doing this, you control the game. Now, you don’t want too many people (too difficult to manage, and not self serving enough anyway). Yet you don’t want too few (not enough voting power). An optimal number for a game of 16 people might be 4. Once those 4 become the final 4, they should amicably dissolve the alliance and each try to win. This was Rich’s plan.

The Players

A four person voting alliance was not something Rich stumbled into; it was his plan all along, starting before he ever set foot on the island. Not a single other player had even considered such a thing. The other players reacted in classic scrub fashion to Rich’s plan, calling it “no fun.” I was just waiting for someone to call it “cheap.” The other players were bound up by their own made-up rules of honor—rules the game has no knowledge of. The game knows nothing but winning and losing. One player said, “It’s no fun to sit around and get picked off one by one by an alliance. If that’s the way the game is going to be, then I don’t want to play.” Good. Get off. Why did you show up in the first place if not to win?

One player, Jenna, said that she didn’t want to be part of an alliance because she wanted her young daughters to watch the show and be proud of her mother when they got older. The supposition here is that she is somehow ethically bound to play in a sloppy, non-strategic way. Rich’s response was, “Jenna should make her kids proud by showing that she can WIN. She should be concerned with showing them ‘look kids, mommy has the will to win and this is how you do it.’”

Rudy was an interesting player. He initially found Rich’s alliance to be somehow dishonorable, but he joined anyway and he gave his word. Above all else, Rudy keeps his word. Three episodes later, he told the camera that he had “turned 180 degrees,” saying that he now believes that the alliance is absolutely necessary and that he’ll stick with it until the end. When Rudy was eventually voted off, his parting words to future Survivor players were, “Forming an alliance is the only way to win this game.” Yet I believe that Rudy was incredibly lucky that his nature (being true to his word) was exactly in line with what happened to be an important quality to have in the game. After all, if one is to be in an alliance, one must be trustworthy. Rudy had no superior grasp of playing competitive games, but at least he was able to see reason when Rich explained the alliance.

Another notable player was Colleen. She saw her own defeat coming. She saw the alliance. She saw she wasn’t in it. She saw that the alliance had the power to vote her and every other non-aligned member off. Her conclusion? To form her own alliance. This was exactly the right response, but a case of too little, too late. Rich said, “I find it amusing that people are so naïve as to think they can start playing strategically at this very late stage of the game. It’s far too late to start now.” In fact, Colleen banded the 3 votes together, and might have gotten Kelly’s crucial 4th swing vote, but failed.

Gervase was another true scrub. He initially renounced alliances saying that he’d never play that way. It’s cheap, you know. Once his fate was sealed and he would clearly lose to the alliance, only then did Colleen change Gervase’s tune. He said, “Well, we got a new strategy, going to try a something new.” He was all excited. He was talking about Colleen’s alliance. He was a scrub. Scrubs often delight in feeling innovative and original when they latch on to better player’s superior tactics when it’s far too late to matter.

Brilliant Strategy

It was the last episode of Survivor, though, that really showed what competitive games were all about. Rich’s forfeit of the last immunity challenge was the most brilliant move played during the 39 day game. With 3 players left, the final immunity challenge was simply to stand up and keep touching a wooden idol. It would go on for hours and hours until two gave up and one was left. The winner would cast the single vote to remove one of the two losing players. The final two players would then stand before a jury of 9 of their previous colleagues. The jury would decide the winner.

Rich was in a tough spot here, with remaining players Rudy and Kelly. He had a deal with Rudy that they would stick together until the very end. They agreed that if either of them won the challenge, they’d vote Kelly off the island and go to the finals together. The problem is that Rich was well aware that he’d lose the grand prize if he went to the panel of 9 judges against Rudy. Rich was seen as slimy and Rudy, though a bigot, was well liked. If Rudy won the immunity challenge, he’d take Rich to the final 2, but Rich would still lose. That’s no good.

If Rich wins the immunity challenge, he’s stuck. He can’t take Rudy with him to the final 2 (since Rudy would win the final popularity vote), but has to take him (they had an agreement). Rich would be forced to break the agreement and vote Rudy off. Unfortunately, that means he’d lose Rudy’s vote (in retaliation) in the finals. In fact, he might even lose more votes since breaking an agreement is a slimy thing to do.

That leaves only one possibility: Kelly must win. If she wins, her gut instinct will be to vote off Rich (she hates him) and go to the finals with Rudy. Unfortunately for her, she’d lose the finals by a landslide to Rudy. Rich’s gamble is that Kelly, scrubby as she is, is not dumb enough to go to the finals against Rudy. And if she votes off Rudy and goes to the finals with Rich (her smartest option) then she’s done Rich’s dirty work for him. Rich is in the final 2 with Kelly (just like he wanted) and he never had to break his agreement with Rudy, so he’ll still have Rudy’s vote in the end. Kelly had already proven her ability to win such immunity challenges, so it was fairly certain she’d beat Rudy if Rich just conceded. Even if by fluke Rudy won the immunity challenge, he’d still take Rich to the final 2. So Rich took the gamble and took his hand off the idol on purpose, hoping Kelly would win—and she did. It all worked out exactly like he planned.

Kelly: Star Athlete, Star Scrub

Kelly, scrub to the very end, remarked that Rich claimed he had some reason for removing his hand, but that she knew his arm was just tired.

But Kelly would have her final moment being the queen scrub. In the finals between Rich and Kelly, they were each allowed to give opening statements of why the jury of previously voted-off players should vote for them. Kelly was a pillar of inspiration to scrubs everywhere when she explained that people should vote for the best person, “not based on how they played the game.” As a scrub, she had her own made-up rules of the game that the game itself knew nothing about. She was “more honorable” and “a better friend” or other rubbish.

Rich responded by taking the exactly opposite stance, as he well should. He said that entire purpose of coming to this island was to play this game. Kelly asked for votes based on friendship, but that’s not what the votes should be based on. Friendship is great and worthwhile, but it’s not purpose of the game called Survivor. The purpose of the game is to win. The best player of the game maximizes his chances of winning at all times. In this case, that meant forming an alliance, which Rich did. Rich was basically asking the jury to leg go their mental construct of made-up rules and see the game for what it really was. He asked them to choose the player who played to win. And they did.

More Games

If the players of Survivor 2 actually learned the lessons of Survivor 1 and of competitive games in general, then things will get very messy, indeed. They’ll all try to form 4 person voting alliances. If at least two such alliances emerge, then the optimal move is to align two of the alliances to get rid everyone else. Then the 8 will compete as 4 vs 4. Then the remaining 4 would do well to have already planned partners of 2 or 3. This strategy of the shrinking alliance, though (I believe) optimal, is an incredibly tricky thing to manage in actual practice. As I said…it will be messy.

Anyway, Rich may be many things, but he is, at least, an excellent player of competitive games. It’s so telling that he was able to beat Gervase in a variety of card games Rich had never even played. If you’re out there Rich, I’d be honored to introduce you to Starcraft. (heh.)

--Sirlin

posted 07-29-2002 02:42 PM               

Great stuff, all well thought out and (imo) inspiring, I've actually realised why I don't win as much as I should in games.... I normally feel a sense of honour, and instead of using a tactics that would garentee my win I don't to help even the battle feild. Maybe it's because i prefer a more evenly matched game.... maybe it's because im a scrub, but god damn at least i have a clue to why

posted 07-30-2002 03:47 AM            

You have some kind of Street Fighter community. You're sick of hearing them bitch about how cheap you are so you used your website to bitch about it.

Now if this is purely arcade-based gaming you can just ignore the rest of this post. Kick the crap out of them as much as you want, it's your quarter. If you're in survivor, or any competition, you're goddamn right you should be doing anything within the rules of the game to win.

However. If you guys are playing on console systems, you should be advised that you are in fact a complete ass and should never have opened your mouth about the whole issue. I'm not a "scrub", I know what gameplay is like at a high competitive level and yeah it kicks ass. But if you're the only good player as you say, wtf kind of fun is it to just ream your friends out? I mean seriously here, it's like kicking an injured animal.

It doesn't take a lot of skill to find one move that works and continue doing it. Maybe you actually know what you're doing and know your games inside and out but most of the "good" players I've seen just now how to do what works and nothing else. If you're as good as you say you are you should PROVE it and beat people with finesse. Then you'll win AND people will actually respect you for it. If you happen to come up against someone of a similar skill level THEN you whip out the cheap win-at-all-costs moves.

posted 07-30-2002 05:40 AM            

SF makes it hard to be so careless about any match. Those in a tourney are good. They are there for that reason entirely. The fact that a match can change dramatically on one counter super or even a single hit or change of momentum, is a constant threat. You will take every opponent seriously, and playing around with useless finesse is going to get you punished. Certainly, there are some flashy moves that are in fact, quite usable and quite feasible, but you take the best choice to DEFEAT your opponent. Not to kill them with a super, not to humiliate them, but to DEFEAT. That is the key. Go and play on the console against the CPU. You'll never have what it takes to be competitive.

posted 07-30-2002 11:37 AM               

Oh, and RunawayCornPop, don't confuse "winning" with "having fun" or behaving in a sportsmanlike fashion. You can bet the Germans at Galipoli didn't care about being fair.

[EDIT] ...nor did Richard Hatch for that matter.

- Alan

posted 07-31-2002 12:36 PM            

As I see it, the distinction between tough but fair tactics and cheating revolves around whether the tactic relies on in-game mechanisms, or out-of-game mechanisms. As as example, one could avoid losing a chess match by throwing over the board, disrupting the pieces. Maybe this could be done in such a way as to end with the game result recorded as 'void' rather than a loss. This would be (imho) exploiting mechanisms outside the game world to cheat. This therefore includes any hacks or client modifications to CS, along with DoS attacks on your opponents, etc. Just the same as pouring your lemonade on their keyboard during play.

Other than that, any tactics involving rules that are built-in to the game world, regardless of how unpopular they are, are fair play, and good players will always use them.

Having said that, here's my take on CS tactics. Maybe future posters should just list the ones they disagree with so we as a group can try to whittle the list down to the one or two most controversial (and interesting)?

FAIRPLAY
--------
AWP-wh0ring
Camping
Hostage-guarding
Shooting through walls
Hostage-moving-and-hiding
Hostage-pre-wounding
Bunny-hopping
Quiet-running
Hostage flying *new entry by me - can you still do this on recent CS versions?*
Hiding or running away for ages *new entry by me*

CHEATING
--------
LAN-cheating
Skin-hack
Aimbot
Wallhack

ER. I'm out of the loop, evidently. Haven't played CS for many months. Don't know what the following are. I Feel like a fool.
-------------------------------
Nade-spamming
Team-stacking

posted 07-31-2002 02:46 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by trtsmBilly:
I'd like to ask your opinions of CS. Which of the following "rules" are "scrub constructs" and which are "legitimate" for fair gameplay?

AWP-wh0ring
Camping
Hostage-guarding
Team-stacking
Nade-spamming
Shooting through walls
Hostage-moving-and-hiding
Hostage-pre-wounding
Bunny-hopping
Quiet-running
LAN-cheating
Skin-hack
Aimbot
Wallhack

---

Ok you're obvisouly quite new to CS....

garding hostages IS THE POINT OF IT!!!!!

posted 07-31-2002 03:06 PM               

Bunny-hopping isn't an issue anymore due to changes in the engine.

Quiet-running, no-recoil, etc. are done by manipulating cvars. It's not a hack, but clearly was not intended by the game designers. The community still rages over this.

Nade-spamming is the process of buying and throwing nades for as long as the buy time is available. You can only carry one at a time, but you can buy-throw-buy again. There are even scripts that will do this for you.

posted 08-01-2002 09:45 AM               

Taking the hostages and hiding them is annoying, but ultimately it's not a huge concern, as you almost always get found. Nade spamming is nearly useless. I mean, realistically, 60 seconds is not that long a time to be able to throw grenades in the spawn point.

Anyway, I think the difference between "cheap" tactics and cheating is fairly obvious to all of us. It's like the Supreme Court's definition of pornography: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." Aimbots are cheating. Nade spamming is not.

(PS: About team-stacking: Playing to win does not mean that when you lose you whine about it. At any level of tournament play, in any type of competition, once the game is over, you should smile at your opponent, shake his or her hand, and say "Good game.". That's not part of playing to win or not playing to win, it's just not being an ass. Similarly, if you've picked a team in Counter-Strike, play to win, but PLAY. Switching teams because your team is losing is crap. Some days you win, some days you lose, take it like a man (or a woman). Is it CHEATING? No. Well, in some ways it is, as it unfairly gives the team he's switching to an advantage (it is by definition unfair since the teams are no longer even). Is it insufferably lame? Yes.)

BTW, I was thinking about Survivor last night and something occurred to me. A really good way to win, although it would be dangerous, would be to form several different secret alliances. When you're in a secret alliance, you don't vote against anyone else in that alliance, and you don't tell anyone else that the alliance exists.

If your only options are alliance members, then you vote against them, but otherwise you never do. After you are voted off and it comes down to the finals, then you vote against whoever is not in your alliance.

Obviously, if you get in several different alliances of this nature, it means that you are VERY likely to win, since virtually no one will be voting against you, but the alliances will be fighting against each other. Say you have three alliances of six people each. Then when it comes down to the finals, the other person is only in one alliance, so everyone who is not in his alliance will vote against him, that's 10 votes against him. The maximum of votes against you would be 3, from the people who are in both your and his alliance.

Obviously, it's risky, since if people start talking about the alliances that they're in then you'll get screwed. But the secret alliance is a good tactic period, and quite obviously so (since a "public" alliance inevitably makes an alliance of everyone else against them), and thus hopefully they will keep secret.