The Bandit Dilemma: An Inner Look at the Economics and Psychology of Banditry and the Inevitable Collapse of Day Z

[4L4N 276]

Stay on topic please guys. I had to clean up a thread yesterday that had a total of 35 posts in it.

4 posts were about the actual topic, and the other 31 posts were people arguing about coloured text ... wtf

Don't make me have to go through that again :P

Edited July 21, 2012 by 4L4N

[Chiefmon 93]

Hey, OP!

That was a pretty good post to read, hope you won't mind me translating it to Russian and posting it in our general discussions section?

Here's a link.

Cheers! May the Beans be with you.

Please do, I just want the word to be spread.

[Chiefmon 93]

People like you need to shut up.

Just the title alone ... "An Inner Look at the Economics and Psychology of Banditry". Are you kidding me? It's a fucking game.

To which I reply, do we not act logically in a game as we do in real life to reach our goals? I am omitting the morality from the equation completely and am putting a variable on the value of the individual's life. Why do you kill? If it's for the thrill, then this does not apply. This is all in context of seeking survival.

[skyter 299]

IMA SPESHUL BUTTERFLY IMA COLOR MAI TEXT

obvious troll is obvious :o

[skyter 299]

Well thought out thread. Beaned. :beans: :thumbsup:

[KrystoferRobin 67]

Shut your face baddie.

internet toughguy.

If you lack the brains to engage in civil discourse, refrain from opening your mouth in the first place, jackass.

Edited July 22, 2012 by KrystoferRobin

[Guest]

There is no dilemma. Not every game needs symmetry. Who is to say banditry shouldn't have the upper hand , The strong always have an advantage over the weak.

I would like to see the term bandit removed from use , simply because its a normal totally acceptable way of playing. It's just a survivor playing the game as intended , killing players for gear. I don't understand why everyone gets such a hard on from random encounters , just join a group if you want teamplay.

Didn't your mother never tell you... DON'T TALK TO STRANGERS.

[gizm0 96]

There is no dilemma. Not every game needs symmetry. Who is to say banditry shouldn't have the upper hand , The strong always have an advantage over the weak.

I would like to see the term bandit removed from use , simply because its a normal totally acceptable way of playing. It's just a survivor playing the game as intended , killing players for gear. I don't understand why everyone gets such a hard on from random encounters , just join a group if you want teamplay.

Didn't your mother never tell you... DON'T TALK TO STRANGERS.

I have a question, weren't your co-workers or even you classmates considered strangers at one time?

[Guest]

I have a question, weren't your co-workers or even you classmates considered strangers at one time?

Out of necessity. There's no reason to meet people in dayz beyond your own self desire for human interaction. Carebears tend to need it more than the self sufficient.

[A Classy Emu 24]

There is no dilemma. Not every game needs symmetry. Who is to say banditry shouldn't have the upper hand , The strong always have an advantage over the weak.

I would like to see the term bandit removed from use , simply because its a normal totally acceptable way of playing. It's just a survivor playing the game as intended , killing players for gear. I don't understand why everyone gets such a hard on from random encounters , just join a group if you want teamplay.

Didn't your mother never tell you... DON'T TALK TO STRANGERS.

How does your point about not every game requiring symmetry relate to the prisoner's dilemma whatsoever? The OP clearly states what options a player has upon encountering another player, and thus the dilemma is deciding which option to go with. Also, why would we remove the term bandit? That is a perfect definition for people who kill other players in order to steal their gear.

[Chiefmon 93]

Out of necessity. There's no reason to meet people in dayz beyond your own self desire for human interaction. Carebears tend to need it more than the self sufficient.

The problem is this: This game is played because it is a ZOMBIE survival game, not a PvP game. If I wanted to play a game with PvP, I'd play something else. I play this game for people teaming up and surviving. I'm not saying to remove PvP entirely, the point of this article is to point out how the game is constructed to encourage banditry, which I feel is contrary to the games intended purpose.

[KrystoferRobin 67]

The problem is this: This game is played because it is a ZOMBIE survival game, not a PvP game. If I wanted to play a game with PvP, I'd play something else. I play this game for people teaming up and surviving. I'm not saying to remove PvP entirely, the point of this article is to point out how the game is constructed to encourage banditry, which I feel is contrary to the games intended purpose.

Considering what we know about zombie films, the zombies aren't the real threat anyway. To say the intended purpose of this is to fight zombies is completely missing the point. Ask the developer, who also says it's about player interaction, not dealing with zombies. They merely provide a backdrop for the conflict.

[Cluckles 26]

The use of game theory here is good. However it only explains solo play, not accounting for group dynamics in the game (which is full of teams of players, of varying sizes). Also, why do you think this system has to be changed? It seems nice and simple to me, with scope for interesting and tense encounters in-game. Surely the equilibrium point of the bandit : survivor ratio is dependant on the average time of survival, due to LOSS being dependent on play time. The day Z website states this is 49 minutes, so I would assume based on this that we would see more diplomacy at the equilibrium point of this model than you are suggesting.

[Chiefmon 93]

The use of game theory here is good. However it only explains solo play, not accounting for group dynamics in the game (which is full of teams of players, of varying sizes). Also, why do you think this system has to be changed? It seems nice and simple to me, with scope for interesting and tense encounters in-game. Surely the equilibrium point of the bandit : survivor ratio is dependant on the average time of survival, due to LOSS being dependent on play time. The day Z website states this is 49 minutes, so I would assume based on this that we would see more diplomacy at the equilibrium point of this model than you are suggesting.

You make an excellent point. I did not include group dynamics because with groups there is a tendency for disagreement and simulating the decision matrix would be difficult. The point I was making about the average life span is that it used to be only half an hour. This means that there has been an increase of ~66%. The point I am trying to make is that there is a logical motivator towards banditry AND natural selection is leading to even more bandits. I do not have a problem with the current bandit situation, the problem is the rate at which it is escalating. IF things continue at the current rate, we will be facing an exclusively PvP game, with the only teamwork occurring with out of game friends. That is a scenario that I do not want.

[Cluckles 26]

I'm not sure, for me personally I find the tense nature of the game stems from the feeling of paranoia that can only arise from the knowledge that you might be shot at any moment. If this was compromised, I don't think I would enjoy the game as much. However I suppose this is subjective and different people expect different things from the game. As far as the strategic decision making goes from the game theory standpoint, what you've stated looks quite enjoyable to me.

[haviv[3rdid] 57]

The problem is that death in the game isn't taken too seriously. Just respawn and play again! But if you knew that if you make a dumb mistake, you won't be able to play for, say 30 minutes, you probably wouldn't make that dumb mistake because you'd really fear for your 'life'.

(Of course, this should only apply to people who have played for quite a while)

I've played games in ArmA2 where being killed meant you were out for the rest of the night and once you go through that, you become extra careful and nervous.

[SmokeytheBear 8]

As it unfortunately seems is the case with every one of these types of topics, people assume that any proposition of imbalance is a suggestion of completely removing any banditry. This I will wager IS in fact a minority mode of thinking. The players taking an opposition to the current state of the game merely want more ways to cooperate, or a greater incentive to do so. Reducing the obviously large incentives of shooting people on sight is one way to relatively boost the prospects of acting sensibly and diplomatically. It doesn't have to be complete removal, and I wouldn't want it to be. It doesn't even need to be only as advantageous as cooperation. A point made in this thread is that the strong always have that edge and it should stay this way to a degree. All I, and many others, are suggesting is that it not be as far superior to working together as it is in the game right now.

That said, +1 beans for OP.

["Lost" Alice 205]

This was a great read, thank you so much for taking the time to type it up :)

[Motion King 0]

The easiest way to stop this dilemma is to just increase the ammount of zombies in the game. So if a survivor finds another they really have to team up to survive. Maybe have random starting gear too?

[Munx 1]

As for the "strong having a edge" I fail to see how being a bandit is being "strong".

If anything being a bandit is the easy way to play, less risk, more rewards.. as such wouldnt the truely "strong" be the survivors who don't result to "kill-on-sight" ? ;) time to implent that edge then.

However if what you ment is "bandits are strong because its easier to play as one" then that again would be an imbalance. which would indeed need to be addressed at some point.

In anycase, I defo don't think bandits should be removed, I highly doubt anyone really thinks they should.. I think alot of the problems currently ingame will be removed trough simply adding new features.

Until then I would love to see a temp feature called "gluttony" the more murders you performed past a point the quicker your food/drink would deplete, this would allow savages to be savages, but at the price of making the game more difficult for themselves.

I think such a feature would add the possibility for more intresting interactions, such as robbing someone without actually killing them, or crippling them and leaving them to bleed out etcetc.

And yeah I know its not "realistic guys" but before you flame me for that, do keep in mind this is a zombie mod..

[Chiefmon 93]

As for the "strong having a edge" I fail to see how being a bandit is being "strong".

If anything being a bandit is the easy way to play, less risk, more rewards.. as such wouldnt the truely "strong" be the survivors who don't result to "kill-on-sight" ? ;) time to implent that edge then.

However if what you ment is "bandits are strong because its easier to play as one" then that again would be an imbalance. which would indeed need to be addressed at some point.

I am not saying that bandits are inherently strong, I am saying that it's the players who chose banditry have a higher chance of NOT being killed by another bandit. The lengthened lifespan leads to better loot i.e. better guns. So if a virtuous survivors get killed early because of their trusting nature, all that will survive are hardened bandits. So the only people with helicopters and sniper rifles are bandits. So what does a new player do? Become a bandit to survive. It's natural selection at the core. I feel as though the inner structure of the game i.e. Survivors vs. Zombies vs. Bandits will collapse if this trend continues. It would descend into a sandbox free-for-all shooter... with some zombies.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

I am saying that it's the players who chose banditry have a higher chance of NOT being killed by another bandit.

Except the stats say exactly the opposite.

Bandits are ~18% of the players.

But account for over 40% of the deaths.

As per Vipeax, before you ask for a source. You can find the post yourself.

[REVOLT (DayZ) 12]

I use diplomacy but they always log as soon as they hear me. :P. I

[REVOLT (DayZ) 12]

Anecdotal evidence used as the base for a pseudo-analytical look at a perceived problem? Seems legit.

He would make a great politician. :P

[Chiefmon 93]

Except the stats say exactly the opposite.

Bandits are ~18% of the players.

But account for over 40% of the deaths.

As per Vipeax, before you ask for a source. You can find the post yourself.

Hmm? I looked at the post and it is backed up by the data. My post was simply operating under the assumption that game theory held true. I will definitely link this in the OP. Thank you.