Game Theory

[Huntingtons]

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.

such a clueless post, he's not saying irc is making them good players, but then the good players (high gg's etc) use irc because they can communicate. I.E they loose a fight they can go on irc and whinea bout how they had you adding on one of your shit chars - im not saying they do it in a good manner tho.


anyway for me i'd take the chance of the 25 years (as in not adding = not ratting and as getting added on = 25 years even tho i didnt add on that guy).

On the other hand if i were a crook and i've been doing the job with some shit retard i'd rat (add) anyday - if i knew, certainly positive, that he'd rat (add).

 

[Reza]

The problem is Daoc is not an enviroment/situation where the players act "under tight controls". Its actually quite a loose world. There isnt one set incentive structure you could apply to the theoretical avg player to then start analysing what behaviour you would expect under different situations.

Over a typical 'playing career' in daoc peoples goals/incentives change significantly over time, and most players are pursuing several simultaneously. Further as the game evolves and the expansions are added new possible goals/incentives are added. You end up with the situation where people/players who are interacting with each other are actually pursuing totally different goals (ie acting under different incentive structures) whilst at the same time their actions often effect each other and their abilities to achieve these goals. Being able to acurately assume who is pursuing what incentive at any given time is something i wouldnt be confident of.

In theory the 1 overreaching goal/incentive that colours everything is/was meant to be capturing all the relics. For obvious reasons (the main one being the perpetual nature of the relic war, with no way to actually win ie finish the game ) most people dont actually have relic capture at the heart of all the decisions they make (be they in RvR or not).

 

[Slayn]

The problem is Daoc is not an enviroment/situation where the players act "under tight controls". Its actually quite a loose world. There isnt one set incentive structure you could apply to the theoretical avg player to then start analysing what behaviour you would expect under different situations.

This is true, however it doesn't render the idea of game theory useless. For example you can hardly say that international relations operates under 'tight controls' as there are all sorts of things in play - personalities of word leaders, technological changes, differences in cultures, chance occurences etc. Nevertheless, game theory was applied quite productively to the question of nuclear conflict during the cold war, as well as being used to illuminate the actions of countries involved in border disputes etc. In a way, the fact that all these complications exist makes game theory all the more useful as a way of cutting through the complexities of the situation and actually getting some straight answers.

 

[Slayn]

The question that really puzzles me, and what led to me starting this thread is that there seems to be a gap between what people would like to see happen regarding adding, and what actually happens.

By this I mean that a big majority of the people i speak to in my own realm, of all playstyles and softcore/hardcore hues, will say 'adding is a bad thing'. This to me should mean that in practice you see relatively little adding happening. Yet, in practice, adding does happen and very frequently. It's a similar thing with people saying 'it's a bad thing when solo'ers are ganked by fg's', yet in practice you see it happen frequently.

Isn't this puzzling? I can't believe that it's because all these people are being plain dishonest. I think it must be because they believe what they say when they say it. But in practice, other constraints on their actions i.e. 'i will only add on someone who's proven that he won't add', or 'i'll add back on someone who's added on me', create a set of criteria where it becomes inevitable that almost everyone will add on almost everyone else almost all of the time.

Agree/Disagree?

[edit]It could well be that I'm skewed in my picture of what people think about adding in the first place. Maybe the vast majority does think it should be done. Gonna try a poll to see what comes up.

p.s. insomnia 4tw : \

 

[Belomar]

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

[snip]

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.

You're right; my game theoretical reasoning above is probably sufficient, but not so tractable to most people.

Taking a step back, we can see that DAoC is actually designed incorrectly from the viewpoint of preventing adding since the Nash Equilibrium (i.e. the stable point) is in the condition when all parties add (not that preventing adding is a design goal). If Mythic ever wants to promote an add-free environment, they would probably have to create instanced RvR.

And yes, adding is inevitable as long as there are no hard constraints (i.e. game rules) preventing it, regardless of people's good intentions. (There is a reason the way to Hell is paved with them!)

 

[Bracken]

I think it must be because they believe what they say when they say it.

That's a very generous way of putting it. It's more like they are hypocritical tossers who only say "Adding is bad m8s" to sound k00l and make themselves seem better than the "peasants" who add. The so-called "constraints" you describe are just excuses to add.

The reality is that there are very few people who genuinely play the game that way, who do so simply out of personal preference (and not to make to try and make themselves feel superior) and who are able to accept that it's a chosen playstyle rather than some competition of k00lness. And that genuine minority don't make a big song and dance about it - they just get on and play the game in their chosen way.

There's nothing more nauseating than all the nouveau-fg'ers parading their "non-adding" around the boards like slappers trying to convince the world they're no longer an easy lay. No matter how much make up they throw on everyone knows they're still just an old tart.

 

[Sharkith]

Bracken,

there is nothing more nauseating than someone using unwarranted and totally unfounded generalisations to take a cheap shot. I am not sure just who is the cheap whore here. But you ought to put your handbag away.

 

[Bracken]

Bracken,

there is nothing more nauseating than someone using unwarranted and totally unfounded generalisations to take a cheap shot. I am not sure just who is the cheap whore here. But you ought to put your handbag away.

Nothing unwarranted or unfounded in what I said. Slayn highlighted the common contradiction between what many say and what they actually do. I just added a little juice to the point

 

[Sharkith]

Nothing unwarranted or unfounded in what I said. Slayn highlighted the common contradiction between what many say and what they actually do. I just added a little juice to the point

I know and it was funny - hence my reply . Ok lets move on its cool you got the point and we didn't get into flames.

The problem here (and this point is for both you, Slayn and Reza) is that theory is always underdetermined. When we relate the complexity of expereince to theory theory is always somehow a reduction and in some way a simplification. That doesn't mean it is useless. Equally it is vital not to generalise too much from experience because as Braken has pointed out in his saucy reply - that path leads to unjustified generalisation.

If we were to constantly go around trying to justify everything we did from the perspective of experience we would end up with no collective memory and certainly it is not really likely that we could sort out the problem. By this I mean 'adding' is a problem that does justify a degree of attention with an aim to find a solution. Well most likely a range of solutions actually.

Whilst you and Slayn may have very different experiences (and you personally might like to be saucy about it!), it might be better to and think carefully about ways around the problem. Does game theory help us do that? I don't think it does directly. Although it does help to open the problem up to a better understanding and perhaps there are some suggestions for some solutions.

What solutions do people think it suggests?