Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cthulhu]

Specialization is almost always going to be superior to balance, in almost any format.

A bird that's okay at eating ten different kinds of seeds will be outcompeted by the ten birds great at eating one type of seed.

A tank with passable armor, weaponry, and mobility is going to be outgunned, outarmored, and outmaneuvered by specialized tanks.

If you're okay at everything you're good at nothing, and anyone who specializes will be able to beat you.

So if we're talking about jack-of-all-trades types of characters, they'll almost always be beaten by specialists, it's just inherent to the concept.

As for games where you play an average person, horror games are usually good at that.  Consider the main character from Outlast or Soma.  This War of Mine is another good one as mentioned above.  You'll occasionally see bursts of extreme heroism, but just as often people fumble, fail, and fall apart. 

[Neonivek]

Specialization is almost always going to be superior to balance, in almost any format.

You say that like it is an outright truth.

So if we're talking about jack-of-all-trades types of characters, they'll almost always be beaten by specialists, it's just inherent to the concept.

Here is kind of the key. Jack-of-All-trades always can hit a specialist right in their weakness, and is far more self-sufficient and reliable.

The strengths of not specializing exist.

The key is that a Jack of All Trades can not beat a specialist at their own game. So a generalist will never outrun someone who specializes in running... But they will out climb them, out swim them, and out jump them.

that is the biggest weakness of specialization. The more you specialize the less area your strengths cover and the more pronounced your weaknesses become. It is why specialists often need to be supported.

So what games have it where a Jack of All Trades actually has the tools to stand out as a viable option against a specialist BECAUSE of their great base of skills or abilities?

A bird that's okay at eating ten different kinds of seeds will be outcompeted by the ten birds great at eating one type of seed

Uhhhhhh... Humans are kind of that. We are based off of being able to eat from a HUGE basket of foods with less ability then any other animal.

We can't eat grass like a cow or eat carrion like a carnivore.

You could say we specialize in survival mind you... or you could say that is the advantage of being a Jack of All trades in eating

[Urist McScoopbeard]

I find non-specialized builds for games are usually the most interesting. Min-maxing in games sucks,

[Neonivek]

I find non-specialized builds for games are usually the most interesting. Min-maxing in games sucks,

To an extent. I do dislike it when games try to squeeze you through such a tight tube that it feels like you can only do "Da one thing" while a world of opportunities are around you.

My character in Shadowrun while he is flat out awesome (to the point where I wonder if the GM hates him) but he can only punch. Everytime we are in a situation I just keep thinking "I want to scout ahead, or talk to someone, or break open a wall, or find the blueprints" and then realize... Nope, I can punch and avoid dying.
Note: I don't hate him, my generalized characters in shadowrun tend to be weak to the point of detriment.

[Cthulhu]

Humans are highly specialized.  Our brains are huge and there's a ton of stuff we gave up for them.  I think like 20% of our total calorie consumption goes into powering the visual system alone.  It takes us up to 15 years to sexually mature and we're useless for most tasks for probably 10-12 years. 

As far as food acquisition goes we're specialized for endurance running.  We're not as fast as a gazelle but a conditioned human can run a gazelle to death on a hot day and still have energy to carry it home. 

A jack of all trades might be able to beat a specialist on its weak suit but it comes down to effective utilization.  So the question is, ceteris paribus, who wins between a force of specialized units and a force of jacks of all trades?  Assuming optimal strategy on both sides it seems obvious that the specialists are going to win.  Optimally-used specialists supporting each other will beat the jacks of all trades on all fronts.

[Neonivek]

Also this is where language unfortunately has to come in because all animals are "highly specialized", even the human diet can be said to be highly specialized in eating a wide variety of food.

Optimally-used specialists supporting each other will beat the jacks of all trades on all fronts.

But, is a team of all specialists superior to a team of specialists with jack of all trades.

A team of specialists breaks apart as soon as they lose a single member, without anyone to pick up the slack in case anything goes wrong. (this is actually why few people in real life super specialize. The key to being good at your field is usually to at least be somewhat knowledgeable about others.)

But sure a team of 5 specialists versus 5 jack of all trades... Surviving in the woods.

The 5 jack of all trades would win every single time. Because Jack of All Trades can pick up their own slack. Sure, they might not be able to catch 5 fish like the specialist can... but they can each catch three. They might not be able to pitch three tents like the specialist can... But they can pitch one.

This is actually why specialists in our society can only exist with a strong support structure. Why General stores existed before specialty stores. Why Blacksmiths might need to know how to make everything.

Specialists need more then specialists supporting them. A Sniper needs a spotter, needs a commander, a operations expert, a field of soldiers, someone who made their gun, made their food, created their clothes... A generalist is self-sufficient.

In a fight of self-sufficiency... Jack-of-all-trades wins.

[Shadowlord]

Specialists in what, though? If it's survival in the woods that's the challenge, wouldn't the specialists likely all be specialists in the same thing (wilderness survival), in which case they would do better than the generalists, who probably wouldn't have a clue what they were doing (because that isn't a skill people normally learn)?

[Neonivek]

Specialists in what, though? If it's survival in the woods that's the challenge, wouldn't the specialists likely all be specialists in the same thing (wilderness survival), in which case they would do better than the generalists, who probably wouldn't have a clue what they were doing?

Generalists would all know what they are doing. They would all do a bit of everything involved with survival and could pool their abilities to single tasks if need be.

While the specialists would all do exactly ONE thing related to survival (Lets hope none of them get sick). So they are all on their own with whatever it is they are doing.

Yet because the specialists have to support eachother as well... Their specialization becomes a detriment.

Mind you this is where language kind of comes into play... because in many ways the generalists ARE specialists in this scenario. Because by knowing a bit of everything they are perfectly suited to the task at hand. While the specialists could be "over-specialized" being amazing at what they do, but without the supporting skills that allow them to survive as a group.

But this is all history.

[Shadowlord]

While the specialists would all do exactly ONE thing related to survival (Lets hope none of them get sick).

lol.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

A team of specialists breaks apart as soon as they lose a single member, without anyone to pick up the slack in case anything goes wrong. (this is actually why few people in real life super specialize. The key to being good at your field is usually to at least be somewhat knowledgeable about others.)

This, somewhat...

You need to escape this one directional thinking.

Do you purposefully incite people? Stop that. This happens in a vast majority of Neonivek-created threads; don't ask a question and then try to convince people they're wrong as soon as they give you an answer. In this particular case, which is now straying from the original question, both parties are right to an extent. If you wanna talk about it in game, there a multitude of examples to support both high-specialized and jack-of-all-trades type characters. If you wanna actually go back to the original question, there are very few games that focus on someone/something "average" and it remains so throughout the game. Also, by pure definition of the word, someone who is average really can't have an overwhelming advantage, and being average pretty much never works out in your favor. You really can't equate "Average" to jack-of-all-trade types either, so the analogy doesn't exactly hold up. Has there ever really been any GOOD creative work that focuses on the "average" person or thing? Not really, because they all end up unique or extraordinary.

[Cthulhu]

This is where language comes into play because the definitions for specialization and jack of all trades you're using are not shared by anyone else you're talking to.

In what universe are you positing a team of survivalists where one guy only knows how to fish, one guy only knows how to start a fire, and one guy only knows how to build tents?  Wilderness survival is a specialization.

The military scenario was more workable.

Also people in real life do tend to super-specialize.  Look at how rapidly higher-education goes from general to specific as you go up the ranks.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

It's mostly contextual really, which is why is a horrible way to explore the advantages of being "average".

[Tawa]

Mind you this is where language kind of comes into play... because in many ways the generalists ARE specialists in this scenario. Because by knowing a bit of everything they are perfectly suited to the task at hand. While the specialists could be "over-specialized" being amazing at what they do, but without the supporting skills that allow them to survive as a group.

Lel, wat? The entire point of a jack of all trades is that they don't specialize. Specializing in something by definition means you're not too good at anything else, which contradicts the idea of a jack-of-all-trades.

Knowing "a bit" will never make you "perfectly suited" at anything. If, for example, you know "a bit" about, say, world history, literature, and trigonometry, you're not "perfectly suited" to publish a detailed book about Renaissance inventors, write a 200-page thesis on early 20th-century literary achievements, or design a skyscraper. Maybe you could pass a set of high-school examinations, but you would need to specialize to be any better.

[IronyOwl]

A team of specialists breaks apart as soon as they lose a single member, without anyone to pick up the slack in case anything goes wrong. (this is actually why few people in real life super specialize. The key to being good at your field is usually to at least be somewhat knowledgeable about others.)

But sure a team of 5 specialists versus 5 jack of all trades... Surviving in the woods.

The 5 jack of all trades would win every single time.

Depends on the specializations. Specialization wins every time if nothing goes wrong. Generalization starts to pull ahead when things do go wrong. A group of specialized survivalists will kick the everloving shit out of a team of generalized survivalists in a game of survival, until and unless everything goes to hell. But note that one aspect of that shitkicking is that the specialists are usually better suited to handling everything going to hell; a specialized doctor is going to be able to assist himself better than a gaggle of people who know first aid, so even the "our doctor has gotten sick" part doesn't mean that the generalists win.

You don't really get a generalist victory until somebody starts dying of an incurable disease, or the wildlife mutates outside of anyone's expertise, or everyone was specialized and generalized as talent agents, not survivalists. At which point the generalists don't win by virtue of being awesome and pulling together, they win by virtue of being slightly less fucked than the specialists.


Hence by bit about games that lack player control tending to reward generalization. The easiest way to encourage players to spread themselves out is to tell them they're fucked if they don't.

Mind you this is where language kind of comes into play... because in many ways the generalists ARE specialists in this scenario. Because by knowing a bit of everything they are perfectly suited to the task at hand. While the specialists could be "over-specialized" being amazing at what they do, but without the supporting skills that allow them to survive as a group.

Lel, wat? The entire point of a jack of all trades is that they don't specialize. Specializing in something by definition means you're not too good at anything else, which contradicts the idea of a jack-of-all-trades.

Knowing "a bit" will never make you "perfectly suited" at anything. If, for example, you know "a bit" about, say, world history, literature, and trigonometry, you're not "perfectly suited" to publish a detailed book about Renaissance inventors, write a 200-page thesis on early 20th-century literary achievements, or design a skyscraper. Maybe you could pass a set of high-school examinations, but you would need to specialize to be any better.

In that example, you wouldn't be "perfectly suited" to doing anything equivalent to those things by shifting your bits of knowledge into any one category, though. A better example might be that a housewife isn't "perfectly suited" to cooking food, she's just the best available in a lot of likely scenarios. A gourmet chef is "perfectly suited," because there's literally no one better at it other than a better gourmet chef.

He's correct that specialization and generalization are relative; "a doctor" is a generalized medical guy and a specialized profession, more generalized than "a neurosurgeon" and more specialized than "a life guard with first aid training." A gaggle of survivalists are similarly generalists or specialists depending on what you're comparing them to.

[Darkmere]

Well, this whole thing turned into a circle jerk, because this

You need to escape this one directional thinking.

Do you purposefully incite people? Stop that. This happens in a vast majority of Neonivek-created threads; don't ask a question and then try to convince people they're wrong as soon as they give you an answer.

is pretty much all I see of these threads. But I'm going to try and answer the question anyway, so Neo can tell me my definition is wrong. Here goes:

Venus adepts in Golden Sun, specifically Isaac and Felix. They have some direct spells, some healing, some aoe spells, decent buffs to melee abilities. They aren't as strong spell-wise as Jupiters, but they can take more of a hit, so won't likely be knocked down by an AoE and a focused attack on one turn. The can't heal as well as Mercury, but again they don't die as fast. They can't tank quite as well as Mars, but Mars can't heal and has better party buffs than Venus (that I remember). In short, Venus is easier to keep around and hold the party together if someone else gets focused, and lasts long enough to get healed if they get focused.

Likewise, sentinels in Mass Effect 2 and 3. They don't have an engineer's field control or a biotic's crowd manipulation... but they can strip any kind of defense and do tech/biotic combos with almost any other squadmate, and have massive shields. The strength of a Jack or Mario character should be working well with anyone else, and playing that flexibility as an advantage against varied groups of enemies.