Leveraging Asymmetries in Multiplayer Games
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many people develop lasting social bonds by playing games together, and there are a variety of games available so that individuals are likely to find games that appeal to their specific play preferences, abilities, and available time. However, there are many instances where people might want to play together, but would normally choose vastly different games for themselves, due to these various asymmetries in play experiences, such as grandparents and grandchildren, highly skilled players and novices, or even simply two players that enjoy different games. In this work, we aim to improve the design of asymmetric games-games that are designed to embrace and leverage differences between players to improve multiplayer engagement. This paper builds upon prior work to describe the elements of asymmetry that can be used to design such games, and uses these elements in the design of an asymmetric game, Beam Me 'Round Scotty'! We present the results of a thematic analysis of a player experience study, discuss these findings, and propose an initial conceptual framework for discussion of design elements relevant to asymmetric games.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it