Halo Reach: Psychology Experiment! Participants Needed!

Games Other Halo
1

Hello! I am conducting a Psychological Experiment in Halo: Reach tomorrow at 6PM EST and will need 7 participants. I’m testing to see if gamers whom are given orders from an authoritative figure will play better than those who don’t. The requirements for participating are as follows:

Must be willing to verbally communicate with teammates via Xbox 360 Headset
Must be willing to participate

There will be 2 Teams, 4 Players Red and 4 Players Blue.

The teams will be randomized after each match, and each game will be played on a various of levels. I’m hoping for a maximum of 8 games, and a minimum of 4.

Participant List
Stephander

2

I think you would get more accurate results if you used maps that are more balanced coughThe Pitcough

That way the map wouldn’t be a factor in trying to determine whether or not they played better/worse because of your coaching, or because they got the better spawn on those maps.

I would also love to participate, but I probably won’t be able to.

3

I’m trying to keep everything as normal as possible, in fact, all I intend to do for the Experiment Group is to give them basic orders such as (Camp at X, or Attack Y). Also, if the spawns are biased on one map, then I’ll use other maps such as Asylum, or Pinnacle to sort of balance the odds.

Thank you for your consideration.

4

…this is kind of a no brainer.
A group of individuals playing as lone wolves only seek to up that K/D and on occasion kill an enemy before they kill their teammate.

A group of individuals playing as a team. As one. To accomplish a goal. Winning.
If you’re telling them what to do vs hur dee durr I’m gonna take the rockets AND THE BANSHEE :DDDDDDDDDDDD
NAOOOO I WANTED TEH BANSHEE YOU NOOBBB Fires spartan laser at banshee
-1
HAHAHA NoW I’M GoInG TO ARMOR LOCK IN THE MIDDLE OF A GROUP OF BLUESSS
OH MAH GOD WHERE IS MY TEAMMATEZ!!! YOU NOOBS YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO BE HALPING ME NOT STANDING THERE LAUGHING AS I GET PWNEDDD!!!

Sorry. Creativity spike.

5

Can’t just assume these things; such is the nature of Science. Before we jump to conclusions it’s best to do a little experimenting to see what we find.

Heck, maybe the results of this experiment will be different from what is expected.

6

> Can’t just assume these things; such is the nature of Science. Before we jump to conclusions it’s best to do a little experimenting to see what we find.
>
> Heck, maybe the results of this experiment will be different from what is expected.

Perhaps.
I’d suggest later on or as a “sequel” or follow up to this instead of just having one leader have a team where everyone is suggesting and promoting their own ideas and see how it goes.

7

Interesting idea; I may incorporate that this study. Only, however, if there are enough participants with microphones.

8

i would suggest you drop hemorrhage, and pick up a different map. hemorrhage is very limited in the options players have to achieve their objectives (be that killing, or flag, or what have you).

what about reflection 1 flag? or 1 flag pinnacle? or 1 flag boardwalk? those might work better :stuck_out_tongue:

9

I’m a little confused here, are you making them play each other and judging it based on who wins, or making them play randoms separately and see which team wins more games? And how are you judging it?

Also, are you what you would consider to be an “authority figure” in the first place? What if they think of you as more of a peer, or even a lesser? If they do not think of you as an authority then this makes any results irrelevant.

And how are you making sure that the teams are actually balanced? What if one team is just naturally better than the other? Or maybe I’m just again not sure about how it’s being judged…

As well, you need to factor in how “warmed up” the players are. If some of them start off playing their first games, they will not be playing at their best. Or if you begin coaching them after they have been playing for a bit, they will already be playing better than normal to begin with.

And like others have mentioned, Uncaged has two very, very different starting spawns. Which color they are can make a huge impact on the outcome, particularly the more skilled the players are.

10

There are a lot of factors to take in to consideration. Example: The lone wolves have mics and know call outs.

11

i’ll do it, (mainly cos I just wanna play some customs). Gamertags Stephander, can’t add at mo, I’m GMT00 (Ireland) so i’m prolly’ six hours ahead of you? maybe more depending on where you live. I don mind stayin up late tho.

12

2 Teams. 4 Red, 4 Blue. Randomized after each match.

The players are assigned to teams randomly. There will matches held on several levels with randomized teams each round. The stats of each player will be examined and investigated prior to testing. We will judge whether or not the authority mechanic works better based upon how well the players preformed during the testing. We will compare their results when given liberty and when placed under control.

By authority figure, I’m suggesting someone whom enforces a team mechanic and has his subordinates respond aptly. I cannot answer your second question at this moment, as it may alter the results of the testing, but if you truly are interested, shoot me a PM.

As I’ve said previously, the teams will be randomized.

Preliminary matches will be held prior to testing.

Maps will be adjusted. Uncaged and Hemorrhage aren’t the only maps I currently have planned. I’ve updated some of the Experiment files according to criticisms from this thread, and am happy to receive more feedback.

Thank you :slight_smile:

13

> There are a lot of factors to take in to consideration. Example: The lone wolves have mics and know call outs.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying.

14

> > There are a lot of factors to take in to consideration. Example: The lone wolves have mics and know call outs.
>
> I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying.

The lone wolves using callouts on the map, working as a team instead of drones.

Throw me on that list, too.

15

> Hello! I am conducting a Psychological Experiment in Halo: Reach tomorrow at 6PM EST and will need 7 participants. I’m testing to see if gamers whom are given orders from an authoritative figure will play better than those who don’t. The requirements for participating are as follows:
>
> Must be willing to verbally communicate with teammates via Xbox 360 Headset
> Must be willing to participate
>
> There will be 2 Teams, 4 Players Red and 4 Players Blue.
>
> The teams will be randomized after each match, and each game will be played on a various of levels. I’m hoping for a maximum of 8 games, and a minimum of 4.
>
> Participant List
> Stephander

I actually find this whole experiment ironic because if anything… Reach is full of children that do nothing but cry and pout until they get their way. From the beginning instead of taking the game as it is and adjusting their playstyle to fit the game, all they did was -Yoink- and moan until the game changed to fit their “ideal” playstyle. Most of these kids haven’t even had a decent argument. Most hear a decent reason and jump on the bandwagon because the end result is one they want.

If anything… the sample will be skewed in one way or another and thus render this experiment invalid. For example, your sample will need to be 7 players with similar stats in all aspects to get a decent test… not just a random 7 players. Having one extremely good player in one aspect of the game could negate the whole “taking orders” experiment.

16

> > Hello! I am conducting a Psychological Experiment in Halo: Reach tomorrow at 6PM EST and will need 7 participants. I’m testing to see if gamers whom are given orders from an authoritative figure will play better than those who don’t. The requirements for participating are as follows:
> >
> > Must be willing to verbally communicate with teammates via Xbox 360 Headset
> > Must be willing to participate
> >
> > There will be 2 Teams, 4 Players Red and 4 Players Blue.
> >
> > The teams will be randomized after each match, and each game will be played on a various of levels. I’m hoping for a maximum of 8 games, and a minimum of 4.
> >
> > Participant List
> > Stephander
>
> I actually find this whole experiment ironic because if anything… Reach is full of children that do nothing but cry and pout until they get their way. From the beginning instead of taking the game as it is and adjusting their playstyle to fit the game, all they did was Yoink! and moan until the game changed to fit their “ideal” playstyle. Most of these kids haven’t even had a decent argument. Most hear a decent reason and jump on the bandwagon because the end result is one they want.
>
> If anything… the sample will be skewed in one way or another and thus render this experiment invalid. For example, your sample will need to be 7 players with similar stats in all aspects to get a decent test… not just a random 7 players. Having one extremely good player in one aspect of the game could negate the whole “taking orders” experiment.

How is your entire first paragraph relevant to the thread?

The teams will be randomized, and it will show up if the team with better players wins consistently, teamwork or not.

17

> How is your entire first paragraph relevant to the thread?

Here… let me try to explain this for the mentally challenged.

This experiment is about ethics and discipline, which is what most children lack when they don’t get their way.

A kid in family #1 sees a toy he wants and asks his parents if he can have it. His parents say, “no”. The kid knows he won’t get it because his parents never give in no matter how much he cried and pouted and they never get him the toy in the end. He realizes that if he keeps pouting, he eventually ends up punished, so the kid understands what “no” means and understands that misbehaving = punishment.

A kid in family #2 sees a toy he wants and asks his parents if he can have it. His parents say, “no”. His parents have a history of eventually giving in, so the kid cries and pouts until he gets his way because he knows they’ll eventually give in. The kid does this with everyone because he believes everyone will eventually give in.

The Halo:Reach forum community is full of children from family #2. They don’t like being told what to do. They don’t like rules and having to follow them. All you need to do is look at the number of pouters in the forum, game quitters, game griefers, game idlers, cheaters, throttlers, etc.

That is why I said this is ironic.

> The teams will be randomized, and it will show up if the team with better players wins consistently, teamwork or not.

Again… having one extremely strong player defeats the purpose of even running his experiment. In order to properly run an experiment, you need constant variables. If one person keeps dominating the matches, how is he supposed to prove his point that communication and a clear leadership hierarchy improves your team performance? Having varying skill levels does nothing to prove his point. To prove his point, everything else must be equal… except one team has the leadership element which he is trying to prove. If both teams are equal and the team receiving orders from a person wins all the time, then he knows it’s due to the leadership element… which is what he’s trying to prove.

It’s pretty obvious that science and math are not your strong suits…

18

> This experiment is about ethics and discipline,

No, I’m pretty sure he said the experiment was about how a team plays with the help of a coach, versus playing without a coach.

19

> > This experiment is about ethics and discipline,
>
> No, I’m pretty sure he said the experiment was about how a team plays with the help of a coach, versus playing without a coach.

I swear the community as a whole loses IQ points when people like you post. Do you people only take things at face value and not comprehend?

This is an experiment to test the “leadership element”.

In order for this experiment to work, people must be willing to take and follow directions… thus have ethics and discipline.

This community has slim pickings when it comes to the type of people he needs for this experiment to work… hence the “irony” I find in this all.

20

If there aren’t many people willing to listen, then useful data can still be extracted from this experiment.

A lack of participants willing to listen suggests that players do not favor working in teams, or in situations where they are given orders. This is still relevant data and to myself, proves that the Halo Community, or perhaps Console FPS Communities in general are more suited to play better individually rather than cooperatively.

Nevertheless, I believe the experiment is still relevant.

Any more participants? We still need a bunch and might have to reschedule if we don’t get a few more.