ParanoidAltoid
Spectator
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2012
- Messages
- 10
- Reaction score
- 4
I would like to have a focused, abstract discussion about this game and game theory.
Here is my question:Why attack other players? EDIT: Why enter fights with other players?
(Changed it because chasing down obviously weaker players still makes sense, since you know you won't die.)
THE ARGUMENT
If you engage and win, the benefit is that you have one less opponent, and you get his stuff.
If you lose, you are dead.
My argument is that since the harm from losing a fight is much greater than the benefit from winning, you should almost never engage. Engaging is a bad bet.
WHY THE BENEFIT IS SMALL:
Having one less opponent is only a small benefit for yourself. The easiest way to see this is by recognizing that when you kill an opponent, you are essentially doing the other 22 players a favour. They benefit from having one less opponent just as much as you do. This leads to a free rider problem: I'm better off letting other people do the killing while I hide in safety. Kind of like how I'm better off staying home from war, letting my neighbors risk their lives.
Gaining the stuff of your victim isn't a large benefit because if you win, they probably bad equipment. If they have good equipment, they will probably kill you.
SO WHY DOES KILLING OCCUR?
Possibilities:
1. There is some third benefit to killing I have failed to see.
2. Players like killing other players intrinsically, not because it will help them win the game.
3. Players don't understand the free rider problem. This is like people who think it's in your best interest to vote, failing to see that your vote won't make a difference.
4. What else?
EDIT
5. I have underestimated the value of the two benefits I mentioned (gaining equipment and removing opponents).
MORE THOUGHTS
Most of you seem to be appealing to 5, saying that you need to kill to get good equipment. But the fact that a person wants to fight you is very good evidence that they are stronger than you and will kill you.
I will sketch it out a game which exemplifies this, in case you find this sort of thing interesting. I hope it's clear enough, I think I might be bad at explaining things.
Two generals have armies of power level 1, 2, or 3. Each general doesn't know the other's power level. They can choose whether to engage or not, and both must agree to engage or else they tie. If they engage, the one with the highest power level wins (and they tie if their levels are the same). Their first preference is to win, second preference is to tie, and the worst outcome is engaging and losing.
-If you are level 1, the best you can do by engaging is to tie, so you might as well run away.
-Therefore, if your opponent is rational, you can be sure that he won't engage if he's level 1.
-Therefore, if you are level 2, you know that the best you can do by engaging is tying. So again, you might as well stay home.
The conclusion is that players only attack if they're level 3, which would result as a tie in my model. So rational players would never have a reason to engage. (This is the reason poker has blinds. If poker didn't have blinds, rational players would only bet if they had royal flushes.)
Does my model apply to survival games? I can't see why not. Winning an engagement is slightly good for you, running away is okay (since you can still win the game by getting good equipment from chests), and dying is very bad for your odds of success.
Here is my question:
(Changed it because chasing down obviously weaker players still makes sense, since you know you won't die.)
THE ARGUMENT
If you engage and win, the benefit is that you have one less opponent, and you get his stuff.
If you lose, you are dead.
My argument is that since the harm from losing a fight is much greater than the benefit from winning, you should almost never engage. Engaging is a bad bet.
WHY THE BENEFIT IS SMALL:
Having one less opponent is only a small benefit for yourself. The easiest way to see this is by recognizing that when you kill an opponent, you are essentially doing the other 22 players a favour. They benefit from having one less opponent just as much as you do. This leads to a free rider problem: I'm better off letting other people do the killing while I hide in safety. Kind of like how I'm better off staying home from war, letting my neighbors risk their lives.
Gaining the stuff of your victim isn't a large benefit because if you win, they probably bad equipment. If they have good equipment, they will probably kill you.
SO WHY DOES KILLING OCCUR?
Possibilities:
1. There is some third benefit to killing I have failed to see.
2. Players like killing other players intrinsically, not because it will help them win the game.
3. Players don't understand the free rider problem. This is like people who think it's in your best interest to vote, failing to see that your vote won't make a difference.
4. What else?
EDIT
5. I have underestimated the value of the two benefits I mentioned (gaining equipment and removing opponents).
MORE THOUGHTS
Most of you seem to be appealing to 5, saying that you need to kill to get good equipment. But the fact that a person wants to fight you is very good evidence that they are stronger than you and will kill you.
I will sketch it out a game which exemplifies this, in case you find this sort of thing interesting. I hope it's clear enough, I think I might be bad at explaining things.
Two generals have armies of power level 1, 2, or 3. Each general doesn't know the other's power level. They can choose whether to engage or not, and both must agree to engage or else they tie. If they engage, the one with the highest power level wins (and they tie if their levels are the same). Their first preference is to win, second preference is to tie, and the worst outcome is engaging and losing.
-If you are level 1, the best you can do by engaging is to tie, so you might as well run away.
-Therefore, if your opponent is rational, you can be sure that he won't engage if he's level 1.
-Therefore, if you are level 2, you know that the best you can do by engaging is tying. So again, you might as well stay home.
The conclusion is that players only attack if they're level 3, which would result as a tie in my model. So rational players would never have a reason to engage. (This is the reason poker has blinds. If poker didn't have blinds, rational players would only bet if they had royal flushes.)
Does my model apply to survival games? I can't see why not. Winning an engagement is slightly good for you, running away is okay (since you can still win the game by getting good equipment from chests), and dying is very bad for your odds of success.
