The Bandit Dilemma: An Inner Look at the Economics and Psychology of Banditry

[Chiefmon 93]

I see forum members constantly posting about penalties against bandits. I notice a very wide schism between the Pro-PvP and the Anti-PvP. This post is an ATTEMPT at bridging the schism by explaining the underlying psychology and logic behind being a bandit and by showing the basic flaw in balancing bandits with survivors.

The biggest problem with the Bandit issue is the disproportionate ratio of Bandits:Survivors. Right now I would have it pegged at 6:4. This leads to what I would call 'The Bandit Dilemma'. Here is Survivor Bob. He is scavenging and surviving. He sees a survivor across the street in Cherno. What can he do? He has 3 choices: Evasion, Diplomacy, and Elimination.

1. Evasion: Simply avoid the other player. This is often not feasible since they will usually see you first or at the same time. Risk^{Relative chance of loss compared to gain} :None Gain:None Loss:None As you can see, there is no risk in a successful evasion, but cannot be relied on, leading to our intrepid survivor to the other two choices. SUCCESS YIELDS NOTHING TO BOTH SIDES
   
2. Diplomacy: Try and talk to the other and forge an alliance. This is, for many, the best outcome. Both players gain a better chance of survival, but at the risk of death on their first encounter. They could gain a companion, or they could be shot on sight. Risk:Med-High Gain:High Loss: Increasing relative to life length The loss in this one is unusual. If Bob is a new player with just a bandage and a flashlight, death is not a big loss for him. If He has a helicopter waiting outside of town, a gillie suit, and a GPS, death would be a huge loss. So, the more progress He makes in this game, the higher the risk with diplomacy. SUCCESS YIELDS GAINS TO BOTH SIDES
   
3. Elimination: Attempt to kill the other player as expediently as possible. IF I fire first, I have a low chance of death. A n00b with only a Makarov can kill an experienced player with a rifle if they can get a good burst off before the other player has time to respond. This decision will prevent the other player from harming Bob. Also, the other player could have better loot on him. Risk: Low-Med Gain: Variable based on location Loss: Increasing relative to life length Bob open firing on the other player could yield excellent loot, especially if they are further inland where the better equipped survivors loom. This is not discounting the chance of a super player on the coast or a n00b on the NW Airfield, but is instead relying on statistical tendencies. The CHANCE of death is lower than risking diplomacy even though the loss is equally severe. If they BOTH choose elimination, one or both will die. SUCCESS LEADS TO GAINS FOR ONE, DEATH TO THE OTHER
   

So, what should Bob do? Anyone who has taken a Economics class has surely heard of the prisoner's dilemma. It's the same as the Bandit's Dilemma. 2 prisoners are called on to testify against each other. If they both stay silent, they both get 1 year in prison. If they both talk, they both get 5 years in prison. If one talks and the other doesn't, the silent one gets 20 years and the talker goes free. Both are naturally inclined to talk to avoid the 20 year sentence, but they could both get the 1 year sentence if they work together. The problem is, much like with the Bandit's Dilemma, they have no idea what the other will choose.

Early game, the logical choice is to work together. Even if you die, you lost only an hour of play. Late game, everyone will logically choose to kill each other. If you die, you lost 5 hours of play. I myself adopted a shoot-on-sight policy when I went to the NW Airfield because I didn't want to lose all my stuff. (Thankfully it was abandoned, so I did not have to kill anyone.) For the good of both, they should work together. Late game, an extra sniper providing cover fire is a great advantage. But what if he shoots you instead? He would get all your stuff and you'd respawn kicking yourself for trying to be diplomatic.

Here's the flaw in balance: The more items a player gets, the more reason they have to kill anyone who gets near them. The less they have, the better reason to be diplomatic. So we are stuck in a world where, through natural selection, Bandits are well armed and the diplomatic are either constantly killed or are forced to take up banditry as a form of self defense. If EVERYONE stopped being bandits, everyone would prosper. But now we are moving toward a exclusively PvP world. When the ONLY way to become fully armed is through banditry and shoot-on-sight tactics, the bandit population will only grow.

Back to survivor Bob:

B=Bob S= Other survivor D=Diplomacy E=Extermination

BD/SD- Both call out friendly and salute. They team up and exchange supplies. The other survivor is low on food but has tons of soda, Bob has tons of cooked meat, but is low on water. They both benefit and continue on, covering each other and scavenging. Working together, they eventually get a car repaired and set off on a grand adventure.

BD/SE- Bob waves and is promptly shot in the face. Bob dies.

BE/SD- The other survivor calls out friendly and Bob empties a M1911 into his chest. The other survivor dies and Bob picks his corpse clean of supplies, making out with more food and water than he could consume. He comes across a repairable car later, but doesn't have the time or inventory space to repair it.

BE/SE- They open fire on each other. Bob kills the other survivor and survives with 1000 blood and a broken leg. He doesn't last long against the zombies that heard the gunshots.

That is the Bandit's Dilemma in a nutshell. This does not take into account the jackasses who kill for fun. Seriously, those guys are asshats. WHO KILLS A SURVIVOR 5 SECONDS AFTER HE SPAWNS!? YOU HAD NO REASON TO WASTE A SNIPER ROUND ON ME! Also, for those interested, just gonna put this here:

Yeah.

I don't usually do this, but please do comment. I wish to know whether people feel that this is accurate or not.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Chiefmon

[Charisma Justice 7]

Brilliant insights. Thought about this myself quite a bit, but some bandits are just freaking sadistic. Had a guy tonight, come up to me, say he's friendly, come up to me, we had a conversation, then he says, WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU TRUST ME, boom, shotgun to the face. It's an issue that I dont think we'll be escaping sadly.

[Spartan114 21]

This is how I operate. I'm not sadistic and horrible, like in Charisma's example, but I try to be friendly if I'm not in the mood to kill, or if I have nothing to lose. I'm a bandit with morals.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Spartan114