 Hi, I'm Izzy Eggbaugh and I'm going to be talking about Queen of Mechanics and competitive video games. A bit about me is that I'm an interaction designer and I'm queer and I grew up in a Muslim household where I wasn't allowed to express who I was. So I did so by playing video games, specifically competitive video games. My only classification about talking about this is that I've been playing competitive video games my entire life. Okay, so my talk is really inspired by Naomi Clark and Mary Copes' talk on queerness and beyond. We're thinking of human game relations, specifically on the idea as they mentioned about queer mechanics and interactions between players and the rest of the community. Since we're going to be talking about queer mechanics, the first thing we should discuss is the nature of the word queer and how it's applied to things like game mechanics. I think the most common way to think of the word queer is the LGBTQ sense. Naomi in her talk describes it as easier to think of the verb word of queer and what it means to queer something. This verb version of the word relates to an older definition of being unfamiliar or on the fringes of society, sometimes opposing the stats quote. Naomi also defines queer as being bound up with the idea of resisting dominant and naturalized narrative categories. Thus queer comes with a politic and one of her best definitions is that it's a relentlessly unfixed signifier, meaning that queer is always changing and that the stats quote changes as new normals are generated. Mary says that the idea that the game's rules, rather than its imagery, can encode clearness or more often heteronormativity. That taking a mechanical or rules-based approach to clearness is harder than looking at narrative from many of us because while it's easy to look at the presence of an absence of the same sexual relationships and queer characters, it's not as easy to pin down what exactly a queer mechanic looks like. So then what is the status quo when it comes to mechanics and competitive games? There's a popular term called the metagame or more loosely referred to as the meta. Metagaming refers to as when players attempt to predict what another player is trying to do and thus adapts their play style and mechanics choice accordingly. The term metagame however loosely refers to what strategies and choices are the most efficient when it comes to winning. A player may see that a certain character or certain item is considered meta because it's expected to be seen in the competitive landscape. The interesting thing about the metagame is that it's ever shifting, especially in games that are constantly receiving balance patches. It exists entirely independently of the game and rather inside the game's community, what becomes popular is based off of trends, off players seeing the success in other players doing certain things and making them to get the desired result which is victory. A simple example of metagaming is seen in the Firewater community in Pokemon. You know that if your opponent is going to be using a Fire type Pokemon then it's a wise decision to use a Water type Pokemon and probably not the best decision to use a Grass type. But those are only three types out of the eighteen in Pokemon. Once you start to introduce the other elemental types, metagaming becomes a less simple task as different types can emerge at any given time with their weaknesses and strengths. Players have to account for the variables and make mechanic selection based on the natural balance that the game has created. Game balance is a particular arbitrary concept in competitive games and that designers are attempting to properly scale characters in relation to one another and create a sense of equilibrium. But this of course proves difficult when characters are fundamentally different from one another. They all have their own particular strengths and weaknesses and that is what's supposed to make the game diverse when it comes to mechanic selection and that a player can maximize how they utilize their strengths and how they avoid having their own weaknesses exploited. With mechanics coming from all sorts of different angles and levels, changing rules in ways that other mechanics simply don't, or even adding a new set of rules, it increasingly seems impossible to keep everything in equilibrium. Even chess itself, which is considered a very well balanced game in that players have the same exact pieces, is not perfectly balanced because white has a natural advantage by going first. However, the black player can then attempt to metagame the first move and predict the rest of the white player's decisions and plan accordingly. Thus, the metagame and the natural balance of the game have a very close relationship and that players are trying to determine what the strongest mechanics are, what their mechanics and the measures which they can take to beat them. Of course, this is all based off of player perception, but it becomes part of the collective consciousness of the game's community. One of my favorite examples of the metagame in the competitive game is the Nintendo Super Smash Brothers, particularly in Super Smash Brothers Melee. The Smash Brothers series was never intended to be a well balanced one versus one competitive game. It was designed to be a free-flaw party game in that a lot of the stages and a lot of the game mechanics involve random events, like explosions that can occur at any given time. Items fall from the sky. It means like a hammer that can cause a one-hit KO or a tomato that will heal you to full health. However, the game enables you to turn off these items in the civil stages, allowing players to create a landscape where they feel things are more balanced. I view this itself as a clear act because players are defined in the game that was meant to be designed. Players have assembled first blood tournaments and competitive events. Of course, some players mock this rigidity in the stage selection with the phrase no items fox only in final destination, and criticize competitive players for banning mechanics that make the game more fun. However, a very interesting and energetic playstyle emerged from this competitive mode. Players began to analyze the success rates in overall strength of characters and mashups. This generated tier lists of the strongest characters ranked in numerical order. These tier lists are a direct aquatic model of the meta game, and they are changed over the years as player skill sets evolve and strategies emerge and vanish. Some of the most played characters in the competitive melee are Marth, Fox, and Sheik, which are all extremely fast characters with diverse movesets and a bunch of tools that can utilize to address the strengths of other characters. Additionally, these characters pair very well with advanced techniques that the player base discovered through a series of glitches. And glitches are another very interesting type of quick expression in games, and that Naomi explains exists by literally defining the code in original design. One of these glitches is called wave dashing, which allows the player to move efficiently by pressing three buttons together quickly, and to slide across the ground. This slide can be paired with very strong attacks to make efficient and quick combos. However, it's a very mentally and physically taxing motion, and it takes a while to learn and apply in a high stress competitive environment. These are the characters and the strategies that they expect to see in a melee tournament, which are still happening today. The community, as seen by the tier list, identify these characters as top tier, and back these decisions with win-loss percentages, proving that choosing these characters wields more positive results than thus victory. However, there's a famous Japanese link player named Iniki, who can consistently best the best players in the world. Iniki is ranked as playing the 16th ranked character when it comes to the tier list, and also refuses to incorporate wave dashing into his melee. By utilizing the fact that these mechanics are queer in the meta game, that he has three ranged projectiles that behave differently. His attacks are slower and more sweeping, sword strikes, especially his iconic spin attack, which can be used as a tool to address fast characters. He's also one of two characters in melee that has a ranged grab, though it has a huge delay of miss. It can be used to create strategic placements that other characters simply can't do. Using these mechanics, he's able to create a playstyle that is unfamiliar, a different, and ultimately queer in the competitive melee landscape. Another really fascinating idea to me that Naomi Merritt mentioned is that glitches are literally queer instances of where the code and null sets interact in a way that was never meant to. However, this queer instance became popular and utilized to advance the main goal of players, which is victory. It became part of the meta game and thus common plays. If you're watching a high level competitive smash game, you're expecting mechanics. Aniki's refusal to participate in this meta game is a part of a queer act, and by framing the processing needed to complete this maneuver, he's approaching the game in a completely different way, and thus has an advantage with his queer playstyle. Aniki is a truly rare example of player who has a notably queer playstyle and is also completely successful. A lot of the other successful players will still gravitate towards the top tier characters. Perhaps this is because those characters are mechanics they actually like and identify or maybe it's because they're scared of the potential and possible constant failure that could emerge from playing with characters and mechanics that they actually like. The next game I'd like to discuss is League of Legends. League of Legends are most commonly referred to as League, is defined as a multiplayer online ballerina or MOBA that is designed solely for player competition. It is designed by Raye and is currently one of the most played eSports titles today. It is free to play, but was ported to have generated $624 million in 2013. The game consists of two teams of five composed of the games of many different characters attempting to destroy each other's defenses and eventually their nexus which results in victory. There are three lanes referred to as top lane which goes along the left and the top of the map middle lane which goes diagonally through the bottom left and through the top right corners and bottom lane which eventually leads to the main nexus. And bottom lane which is on the top, the bottom I'm sorry I didn't read that open the notes and they all eventually lead to the nexus at the bottom left corner or in the top right corner. The strong each nexus is the victory condition for each game instance. Creatures call the minions or creeps spawn at equal amounts and go down the lanes, naturally meeting at the center. In each lane there are three strong towers that will attack everything that gets in its range. The game refers to any of the non-lane areas, the areas between the lanes as the jungle. Here there are neutral creeps and objectives that the players can earn at the cost of straying away from the natural defense of their towers. The game is in a natural equilibrium state. And this landscape won't change until players go and defeat minions, gaining experience and gold which can be made to make their characters stronger. All players start at level 1 with the max being 18 and have only a bit of gold to purchase a few simple items. Players can use the gold they generate to purchase up to 6 items that will give their characters additional stats and effects which will dramatically improve their strengths and cover the weaknesses. Or address the weaknesses and strengths of other characters that are getting notably stronger in that game. So with a hundred twenty-three characters to choose from and plenty of variable item choices and combinations, one would think that the game would have a ton of variety and mechanics to choose from but that's actually not the case. The meta game is incredibly prevalent in the league and that some players almost follow religiously. Just like Smash Bros league has its own key list of characters that they believe to be the strongest out of the game but because a player is cooperating with four other teammates there's a social responsibility regenerated by the other players to play something that is considered strong, viable, and results in victory. The meta game almost dictates that certain characters go in certain positions on the map. That a very strong defense style character where it has a tank go toppling, a strong burst damage dealer go into the middle lane and a sustained damage dealer go into the bottom lane. The fourth player is expected to support and sustain the damage dealer in the bottom lane and the last player is expected to gain their gold and experience in the jungle. Players expect other players to abide by these guidelines in the game even though they're not codified or action mechanics themselves. Despite the cast of 123 characters players are expected to choose from the limited pool of characters that are considered strong amongst the community. They expect players to purchase the ones that have pre-determined items for the character and nothing else despite how viable it can actually be. The first part is the backlash a player will get if they choose to experiment. They choose to clear the game mix and attempt to discover something new and potentially very exciting. If a player attempts to do something outside of the meta they're very likely to be flamed and harassed by their teammates for this decision and there's a good chance that they might be reported or even banned. Which is what's such a mess about competitive games in general that it all comes back to things like power structures and dominance and success. The meta game itself is constructed around thoughts and mechanical efficiency for the sake of victory. We have communities that will bow down to any professional players and their decisions and choices simply because they are victorious. All around ignoring the original point of what games seem to be about. Are they about fun or are they about winning and money and presenting dominance over your enemies. Are they about being right all the time and showing everyone in the world that you know what you're doing or should the games be about learning about another person about being in the community, about teaching a friend about an awesome new mechanic and an interaction that you discover. How wonderful would it be if we could be nice and accepting and supportive of other people in a digital realm where it's so easy to make a mistake. It's so easy to lose and fail and never come back because of the fear of disciplining others and being inclined to being nothing more than not being good at a game. Merritt herself says if games provide a safe space for failure then why is it that so many women and so many queers fall out of gaming. It's because of things like the meta game and the pressure to win and always be successful are being pushed to importance and ideas like exploration and discovery or discourage and in a game like League it can result in harassment and potentially being banned. The last game I'll be discussing is called Dawn Game. It's made by a company generated by VA called Waste on Games and also a mobile like League but the design team took a brand new approach to the game. Dawn Game is a game that tries to break all the presumptions of a competitive game. Its tagline is break the meta and the goal is to create this game where there is no right way to play where characters could be any role despite their side role through thoughtful and creative choices. The Dawn Game player community is one of the best I've ever experienced as a competitive game with players being nice and helpful and with supportive comments and friendly advice as opposed to raging and flinging. Developers themselves would participate in the forum community and would even be seen in regular games. Dawn Game itself was literally a queer mobile as players were joining and were trying to find a new spin on the game. The game itself created the genre as it attempted to change a lot of the presumptions of the mobile game and allow every player including passive support style characters to have a huge impact. They had four various roles that would allow all players to gain economy in very different ways. The two lane map setup allowed for more lane-to-lane interaction as opposed to stale economy wars that's seen in the first quarter of the game in League. The stat and itemization system eliminates useless stats for characters. Every character gets some sort of possible benefit from all the items in the game so every item is a possible purchase for characters. While there are some passive effects that don't make sense on certain characters overall the potential setups are quite unlimited. Additionally, they had a comic that followed each character's interactions with each other and the struggles that they had over power and control and for some characters their avoidance of it. Each character has a backstory that is intertwined with other characters and their phenotypes range from Q Fairy Critters to AC Teenagers, and a Ukrainian she sent to her. They would interact with each other in the game, commenting on their relationships and their eagerness in fighting more fear of each other. Games have a narrative and a progression to them and each instance is meant to represent an event in the game and a loss does not seem so much as a player failure as a chapter in your own story. Players also have the ability to cast their votes on characters' decisions in the main story in a future called Living War. By playing games, players earn votes that they could use to choose one major plot point or another. Using a character that was somehow involved in that plot point would allow for three votes instead of one causing interesting shifts in the metagame because based on narrative choices rather than just victory. Don Gate was a game where one could play a gay female otter who was designed to be a strong damage dealer as a pure defensive support and while it was strange and potentially difficult it was still technically viable and had the potential to be very successful. Unfortunately, on November 5th EA announced that Don Gate servers would be coming down on February 5th of 2015. The game had not been doing as well as they hoped and after all gaming is supposed to be a profitable industry. In the end, it's hard to ignore the fact that something as clear as Don Gate is being dropped over capitalistic values. While Don Gate is leaving it did show us that there could be instances of competitive games where players were motivated to be creative and find their own play styles within the game rather than mimicking what they are told is successful. First, it's only natural for players to want to succeed and that is probably what they are coming from from other games, but Don Gate also protects and promotes players to seek other win objectives and to experiment. It asks us to discover the weird and undiscovered mechanical interactions the clear ways to break the meta and ultimately enjoy the entire journey. And it's pleasant to know that games that are games that are still considered competitive that have the capacity to do that if we continue to create communities within them where things like exploration and discovery are just as important as victory and success where players can decide what their own objective is and find themselves in the mechanics of the game. Thank you.