Game Theory

[Slayn]

Anyone familiar with this field of study? It's sort of linked to economics (the winners of last year's Nobel Prize for Economics were game theorists) but really it's a sort of discipline all by itself.

It's about asking theoretical questions about the way a person will act under certain tightly controlled situations. An example is the famous prisoner's dilemma, which works as follows.

---

Two guys rob a bank and get caught and arrested. Their sentence for the robbery is 1 year each, but they both have commited many other crimes in the past. The cops tell each one, separately, that if he informs on his partner about the other crimes, he can walk free and serve no sentence, although his partner will get 25 years. If they both try to inform on eachother they will get 5 years each.

---

The conclusion is, that if one prisoner is kept in isolation, and forced to make a choice, he will go for informing, as it means he will either walk free, or he will serve a 5 year sentence. If he doesn't inform, he will risk serving 25 years. However, were they able to communicate, they may be able to agree that both remaining silent, and only serving 1 year each, is far better than both informing, and getting 5 years each.

The dilemma is that if you stop the prisoners talking, they will choose an option that is worse for them both compared to if they had been able to agree on what the other would do. In other words, the most sensible decision for each individual is not the same as the most sensible decision for them collectively.

Anyway. To cut to the point. I think rvr in daoc is very much ripe for the application of game theory. It has certain very interesting conditions that aren't generally replicated elsewhere. For example, there exists no communication (ingame at least) that rvr'ers may make their intentions clear to the other. It does however, offer repeated instances that create an incentive for people to act well with eachother (if you do something a person doesn't like, there is the chance they may do it back the next time). This allows the idea of repuation to enter it which is a whole other piece of game theory in itself.

Anyway, this can be approached in different ways and from many angles. I'm going to add my own thoughts in a bit when I'm back home, but in the meanwhile stick up any thoughts you have yourself, only try to keep it in the spirit of 'game theory'. i.e. You have to think in terms of 'the most rational action available', based on a person's needs. In game theory, there is no such thing as saying, 'prisoner A will inform but prisoner B will not because he's more noble', because in game theory all participants are treated equally, and expected to think in the same way. It's for this reason that it's a powerful estimator of human behaviour.

/WAR! Slayn Out!


p.s. it's better for the health of the thread if people give imaginary examples rather than actual ones of events in daoc/rvr

 

[Farbaute2]

i think there is much more communication in daoc then in reality. for example if you kill someone in real life, he stays dead and will never say anything ever again. in daoc he is even able to message others while dead on the ground. in daoc a person that got dead once can improve his beavour so that he might survive next time, also impossible in real life where only the most coward survive.

 

[Gear]

Prisoner's dilema, problem of the commons etc. Simple UG theories in social studies

 

[Void959]

Well I've always thought that whatever some people say about honour, their motivation is ulitmately selfish, even if they don't realise it, and it can be pretty much explained by this. For the people who are genuinely after 1v1s or 8v8s, it makes more sense to not add than to add, because what they gain by adding - a few hundred, maybe thousand RPs - is outweighed by the loss - whoever they added on will add on them in future. There is of course the risk that whoever they did not add on will ignore this 'favour' and add on them in future anyway, but in general it does pay off.

It also explains why certain people will add constantly. Players for whom the gain in not adding is small anyway, either because they generally outnumber their opponent (certain stealth zergers for example), or because they're crap and don't stand a chance 1v1 (most bow specced archers for example) or 8v8 (many PUGs or realmhunters for example), or because they only zerg and never attempt 1v1 or 8v8, have nothing to lose by adding, since they would not 'win' anything from fair fights even if those were available.

 

[Maril]

For the IRC community you have a decent comunication served by IRC and these are most likely the good players. They tend to sort things out in a good manner. Worse players that can't really compete in RvR will just add/zerg and play it casually, but maybe if you were "connected" to them things would take a turn for the better.

 

[scarloc]

Im more a fan of the cats that couldn't see vertical edges cause they were kept in rooms with only horizontal edges :]

Oh look a table *thwack* Oh look a chair *thwack*.

 

[illu]

Interesting thread.
Not quite sure really how it applies to the game, but I think there is a "do unto others as you expect done to you", if you play the game regularly.

Last night I saw some lowbie Hibs that waved at me that were being nice. I reciprocated and was nice back. But those that attacked me, I attacked them. I was so happy by a little Savant going out into RvR and being brave that when time came to log off, I decided that I would like to kill myself by him so he gets lots of nice RP to get stronger.
As I was in the process of trying to get him to kill me, a high RR caster took me down. This delayed my going to bed for another hour whereby I took down the caster a few times as payback.
It was a nice night of RvR last night. Why Albs tried to destroy it by taking Dun Nged T3 to pee off the hibs, and then Crim T4 killing off our port for about an hour stopping a lot of Middies and Hibbies having fun, I don't know. Albs are just a pain in the butt :>

Oli - Illu

 

[Tuthmes]

The conclusion is, that if one prisoner is kept in isolation, and forced to make a choice, he will go for informing, as it means he will either walk free, or he will serve a 5 year sentence. If he doesn't inform, he will risk serving 25 years. However, were they able to communicate, they may be able to agree that both remaining silent, and only serving 1 year each, is far better than both informing, and getting 5 years each.

Cosa Nostra (omertà) tbh!

 

[Sharkith]

Yeah a nice idea and I do think it works. Although there is communication in the game because behaviour is a form of communication - a non add in FG action is a form of communication as is adding. The best example I can think is what happens to FG RvR when there is a situation like iRvR.

The vast majority of FG's when in Agramon adhere to the no add rule and observe quite a bit of respect to each other even though they cannot communicate. Not adding and moving past a fight is a signal that those who are in the location share an ideal and wish to practice a particular style of play. They are already in communication. The situation breaks down however as soon as iRvR happens. The reason - well communication between groups by not adding is less clear because it gets hard to know who the fuck is out there and who is not.

Void959 is right - we had a long discussion about just how blurred and unclear the situation is in Emain (really shit place for iRvR). At the end of the day even when we were only on about 2k rps after an hour and a half we still felt at the end of the day that we should stick to the no add rule because we would lose so much by doing it. All of this said it was so difficult to make a call - hard to tell when there was a FG fight in progress in opposition to seeing a Hibbie group being ganked by a FG+ of Mids or Albs.

So to an extent Game theory is relevant we cannot communicate in game and so when iRvR happens the shared nature of FG RvR becomes strained. This is because it looks like everyone is acting for themselves and the signals are blurred. So yes it can explain a lot in the game.

When we have to play in iRvR shite its is like when you go to a friends house and their small dog comes along and humps your leg.

 

[censi]

the theory i like, is when I beckon someone in a FG for a fight. Then I destealth next to FG and like people in that group think its funny to buff sheer or just nuke the shit out of you and then /rofl you on death.

to me thats just lame.

 

[Sharkith]

the theory i like, is when I beckon someone in a FG for a fight. Then I destealth next to FG and like people in that group think its funny to buff sheer or just nuke the shit out of you and then /rofl you on death.

to me thats just lame.

it is also a) not theoretical and b) got bugger all to do with this thread. It would be nice if you could keep your self obsessed personality in check and let a discussion happen.

 

[Phule_Gubben]

For the IRC community you have a decent comunication served by IRC and these are most likely the good players. They tend to sort things out in a good manner. Worse players that can't really compete in RvR will just add/zerg and play it casually, but maybe if you were "connected" to them things would take a turn for the better.

lol, such a clueless post. just beacause someone is using IRC doesn't really make em good mate. Can't remember how many times I've gotten a message from a fellow realmmate, who's using IRC, forwarding an enemys comment about why I did this or that or whatever with whine from that same person.

 

[Phule_Gubben]

the theory i like, is when I beckon someone in a FG for a fight. Then I destealth next to FG and like people in that group think its funny to buff sheer or just nuke the shit out of you and then /rofl you on death.

to me thats just lame.

I'd do that any day on you and then we'd all laugh about it, atleast in my grp.

Dumbnut!

 

[censi]

right on mudda fudda phule!!

it is also a) not theoretical and b) got bugger all to do with this thread. It would be nice if you could keep your self obsessed personality in check and let a discussion happen.

lets analyze this and in doing so, progress, digest and digress. What become obvious to me is nothing. Self obsession is good for personal progression!

and stop stressing, I was just expressing.

 

[Aloca]

right on mudda fudda phule!!



lets analyze this and in doing so, progress, digest and digress. What become obvious to me is nothing. Self expression is good for personal progression!

and stop stressing, I was just expressing.

Cens dont be drunk in the morning.

 

[censi]

ill be sober tommorrow you will be thick forever!

 

[Slayn]

Censi, you havn't been thinking metaphysically again, have you?

 

[Belomar]

Interesting. I applied game theory to the dilemma of getting a buffbot or not for the purpose of increasing your happiness some time ago: https://forums.freddyshouse.com/showthread.php?p=389473#post389473

Similar thoughts could be applied here. Let's figure out the Nash equilibrium.

 

[Belomar]

So, how about it? Let us assume we study this game from the original point of view it was designed for, i.e. where we have three realms of enemies where no one can communicate with each other. While this is not really true for the IRC crowd, who communicate regularly, it is certainly still true for the general DAoC crowd.

The scenario is this: We are studying the relationship of player A and player B (or group A and group B). A and B are in different realms. When A comes upon B fighting someone else, the question is whether A should add or not (and the reverse situation for B).

If we first study the "happiness" of A and B as payoffs, we will get a similar situation as the buffbot situation from before. No one choosing to add would result in high payoff on both sides, since both sides have an equal chance of winning. However, the dominant strategy for both parties (given that they act rationally) is to add, since that would mean they would win more fights (at least if the other one is not adding). Taken together, this means that the Nash equilibrium is when both parties are adding on each other--their happiness will be lower than if none were adding, but the dominant strategy makes it inevitable.

You can probably make a similar argument for "percentage of won fights" as payoff as well.

 

[rure]

Let's figure out the Nash equilibrium.

While we are at logical problems, feel free to explain Fermats last theorem to me and the solution.

 

[Sharkith]

right on mudda fudda phule!!



lets analyze this and in doing so, progress, digest and digress. What become obvious to me is nothing. Self obsession is good for personal progression!

and stop stressing, I was just expressing.

yeah nps

 

[Matriarch|Sneakers]

Very good thread, covers many areas that i for one tryed to bring up in the past.

I got one quiet intersting 'exampel' that is in the area of stealthzerging.

Stealthzerging is bad and imo wrong/lame/gamebreaking b/c:

If hib stealth zerg, making mids do it making albs do it then alb will gameover and kill the game due to superior stealth classes when it comes to grping.

Minstrels and scouts, then add spec af. In an enviroment where the fight is equal in nummbers albs will win every time in theory.

That is sort of a game theory

 

[Void959]

If we first study the "happiness" of A and B as payoffs, we will get a similar situation as the buffbot situation from before. No one choosing to add would result in high payoff on both sides, since both sides have an equal chance of winning. However, the dominant strategy for both parties (given that they act rationally) is to add, since that would mean they would win more fights (at least if the other one is not adding). Taken together, this means that the Nash equilibrium is when both parties are adding on each other--their happiness will be lower than if none were adding, but the dominant strategy makes it inevitable.

I agree with most of that, but the flaw is in assuming that acting 'rationally' means to add, for many people its not the winning that they want to maximise, but the enjoyement which cmes from good fights. A smart player will do whatever gives themselves the overall greater gain, and to do that they have to predict what the opponent will do. I think most people who don't add on fair fights do so because they realise the overall gain is greater, they've already come to this conclusion with or without actually analying it in such a methodical way. Those who do regularly add do so because they are incapable of the simple logic required to get to this conclusion OR because for them the overall gain is not greater, they may be crap players who will generally lose fair fights, or they may simply not get enjoyment out of fair fights.

 

[Belomar]

The flaw is not in the "acting rationally" part, that is just a natural result, the flaw lies in (a) there being no communication between the realms (this forum itself disproves that), and (b) that happiness is tied only to your victory over the other party, regardless of cost. If all you care about is winning as much as possible (i.e. RPs), I claim that the dominant strategy is to add, because as a whole you will be amassing more victories/RPs when you add than when you don't.

The moment things like "honor", "empathy" and "fairness" enter the picture, things go askew. In most people's case, these factors do play a role, but there are notorious examples where they don't.

 

[Void959]

The flaw is not in the "acting rationally" part, that is just a natural result, the flaw lies in (a) there being no communication between the realms (this forum itself disproves that), and (b) that happiness is tied only to your victory over the other party, regardless of cost. If all you care about is winning as much as possible (i.e. RPs), I claim that the dominant strategy is to add, because as a whole you will be amassing more victories/RPs when you add than when you don't.

The moment things like "honor", "empathy" and "fairness" enter the picture, things go askew. In most people's case, these factors do play a role, but there are notorious examples where they don't.

Yes I agree with the part, but what I was saying is that many peoples aim is not gaining RPs or killing the enemy as much as possible, but having enjoyable fights, these are the people who will in certain situations refrain from adding.

 

[Slayn]

Nice thoughts, Belomar. I was thinking something along similar lines myself.

I'll take for a starting point your idea that adding is the 'dominant strategy', at least when it comes to gaining RP's. I think what this means is, that adding (although it could equally be any other behaviour that other players dislike) becomes the pervasive way of playing the game.

One thing this means, is that most people rvr with the expectation that everyone they meet will be an adder, unless proven otherwise. So most alter their playstyle to fit this expectation. i.e. If you are a fg and see a solo'er you kill them, because chances are they will add on you if they get the opportunity. This, of course, will further reinforce the aforementioned expectation for the person who gets ganked.

To illustrate this, let's say as a hypothetical, out of every hundred people playing the game, 10 have decided they will always add(no matter what), 10 have decided they will never add(no matter what), and the other 80 are non-commital and basically say 'I will do to others what they do to me'. Now when you toss everyone into rvr together, what I reckon is that once there is the first fight with an add, this sets off a chain reaction which will lead to all 80 of the 'on the fence' people adding on all fights the majority of the time. I think this is inevitable with the starting attitudes of the people.

I think the only way to overcome this is to have areas/times where the very presence of a party will confirm that they are not an adder. This seems to bear itself out by the rather low numbers of adds within Agramon, since most people who rvr there regard it as a place where no one adds, and those who do quickly become notorious.

The interesting question for me is: 'isn't there some way to make this the case *outside* of Agramon. i.e. is there anyway to prevent adding become the prevailing mode of play throughout the frontier, at least for those who wish this to be the case?

Two possible ways occur to me:

a)
That for a certain period, all parties who would prefer to not add (so long as the action is reciprocated by others - i.e. the 80%) stop adding no matter what. That way they may establish themselves as a group preferring not to add and all other likeminded groups will see it. If the majority act this way, the minority who want to add no matter what will become easily identifiable.

b)
If there was a /slash command ingame that identified to your realm enemies that you prefer add-less fights, and will not add on others. There needn't be anything obliging others to respect it, and there needn't be anything forcing you not to abuse and lie about the command. I think merely the fact that the 80% can easily identify themselves would solve the problem, even allowing for mis-use etc. of the command.

Anyway, this post is mainly rambling but I made it like that so ppl can absorb whatever points in it they wish. I might try and lay it out more concisely and in less words, although that will probably take 10x as long.

 

[Zardoz]

What happens when guys in the same realm do not communicate? What happens to game theory then.

Like a player from midgard /yelling for help as he was jumped by a higher RR alb and the other player from midgard not adding as "I dont add in fair fights"

DAMN! soz I forgot we are not spozed to use examples from the game...

 

[Sharkith]

What happens when guys in the same realm do not communicate? What happens to game theory then.

Like a player from midgard /yelling for help as he was jumped by a higher RR alb and the other player from midgard not adding as "I dont add in fair fights"

DAMN! soz I forgot we are not spozed to use examples from the game...

ermm re-read the original example.... maybe?

 

[Phooka]

Cosa Nostra (omertà) tbh!

dude most people here arn't gangstaz like us

 

[rawr]

Using Belomar's example of the Nash Equilibrium; the "rational" conclusion from such players would be that everybody adds, as the pay-off is greater in terms of staying alive, fighting for your realm etc. What I understand, is that the "B" players; those who decide not to add rather than those in the "A" category are ultimately opting for a destruction of game-play in the whole if they ask for "A" to change their style of play. Players need to accept that the other players have different needs, "A" will not find the "B" style of play enjoyable, however "B" can work around the style of "A". The problem with add-free areas as a solution can quickly lead back to the style of "A", as add-free fights in an add-free environment do become stale and the excitement of challenge from equality versus the excitement from random variables cannot co-exist. These variables are what many find enjoyable, such as adds; being outnumbered and coming out on top, for example, cannot exist in an environment that prevents the style of "A", therefore does not occur. The challenges a group of equal size can face without the variables from lack of equality are much more limited, as such, I believe the greater equilibrium would be gained from players of "B" to accept "A" and try to fit their style of play into this. Without a balance, the game would probably not be as enjoyable if you are restricted to category "B".
I believe players are ultimately seeking this balance; groups that are widely known as non-adders get a greater pay-off from their chosen category, by people also within that category, because they get their chosen style of play with the possibility of variables arising (adds) elsewhere. To assume groups are all like this would be naive, however if groups wish to ignore the adds, they have Agramon. In the whole, players of category "B" and category "A" lose out if players from "A" change their style of play.

I hope you understood that/ it made sense. Feel free to point out flaws or points to discuss.