PvP and Game Theory

[Zombie Einstein 1]

A while ago a post mentioned the Prisoner Dillema with relation to people shooting on sight. The prisoner dillema is a classic problem in the mathematics field of game theory, in which one of the main aims is to analyze competing players and the choices they should make to get the best results. As such it's usefull for looking at hows players react in a game like dayz.

The attached Pdf examines this concept and its relation to shooting on sight in Dayz in more detail. So if you're interested in a bit of recreational maths (don't worry it's not too complicated, it doesn't use any algebra and it's only a couple of pages long).

Questions and Discussion are very welcome.

(I know Einstein didn't work on game theory, I just really like the joke in the simpsons)

PvP.pdf

[Hawk24 94]

The Prisoner Dilemma implies that working together results in a favorable outcome

Let's put that on top of the DayZ gameplay, shall we?

The positive things about co-operating with a random stranger:

-maybe more firepower vs zombies/players

-maybe some additional medical/food supplies

-maybe another pair of eyes watching their sectors

(in the end you have no fucking clue how capable that guy really is when shit goes sideways)

The negative things about co-operating with a random stranger:

-high possibility of him compromising your position

-high chance of zombie aggro

-high chance of getting flanked because of him not watching his sector properly

-only avaible for a single gaming session

-bad communication unless highly experienced

Basically I'm better off against both zombies and players when I'm not carrying around 90kg of dead weight

There is no way to tell if that random stranger is an asset or a liability to me, and I sure as hell won't wait for a firefight to happen in order to find out

You both open fire: You have a chance of coming out of this alive and

getting the loot but there's also a risk that you're killed.

If a firefight becomes a 50/50 chance then you did something terribly wrong

Edited August 25, 2012 by Hawk24

[Zombie Einstein 1]

The Prisoner Dillema really says that your best choice is to screw the other person, since you don't know what they will do. Working together is better but requires communication and trust between players.

[Hawk24 94]

But the Working Together solution is - from a rational perspective - the best choice for both in the PD experiment

In DayZ this is simply not true because having someone with me that I don't know at all puts me at a huge disadvantage

And I don't mean the possibility of him putting a bullet in my head

Even if he would never ever betray me he still becomes a major problem, because I don't know if I can rely on him when things go to shit

Edited August 26, 2012 by Hawk24

[gywidion@msn.com 80]

For most who are not new to Dayz there is nothing to lose through death, so it is better to shoot on site.

[Zombie Einstein 1]

The main problem in the prisoner dillema is that the prisoners can't communicate. If they could tell each other that they will work together then that's the best option. But since they can't their best choice is to screw the other person.

I guess in the same sense you can't trust a random stranger to do things properly, then it's really the same problem, then shooting them is still the obvious option.

Either way the payoff for not shooting will still be lower and shooting on sight the dominant strategy.

The Prisoner Dilemma implies that working together results in a favorable outcome

Let's put that on top of the DayZ gameplay, shall we?

The positive things about co-operating with a random stranger:

-maybe more firepower vs zombies/players

-maybe some additional medical/food supplies

-maybe another pair of eyes watching their sectors

(in the end you have no fucking clue how capable that guy really is when shit goes sideways)

The negative things about co-operating with a random stranger:

-high possibility of him compromising your position

-high chance of zombie aggro

-high chance of getting flanked because of him not watching his sector properly

-only avaible for a single gaming session

-bad communication unless highly experienced

Basically I'm better off against both zombies and players when I'm not carrying around 90kg of dead weight

There is no way to tell if that random stranger is an asset or a liability to me, and I sure as hell won't wait for a firefight to happen in order to find out

If a firefight becomes a 50/50 chance then you did something terribly wrong

yes this is a very simple model, obviously if you're sat 1000m away with an As50 the risk to you is much lower, but again the this makes the payoff higher, as I say the values assigned to the payoffs very much depends on the situation.

[Zombie Einstein 1]

For most who are not new to Dayz there is nothing to lose through death, so it is better to shoot on site.

Yeah if you have tents full of gear, and people to pick you up from the coast the loss in payoff from dieing is much lower, then you can afford to get into a firefight.

[Hawk24 94]

I guess in the same sense you can't trust a random stranger to do things properly, then it's really the same problem, then shooting them is still the obvious option.

Pretty much, yes

I won't even bother to think about if he will shoot me or not

I know that I have nothing to gain from cooperation, just someone that I probably will have to watch out for

It's like Ashley in Resident Evil 4.....god that cunt was annoying....

So I kill him because it may get me some gear

If I see that he's clearly not well-geared I might also spare him and move on

But nobody will ever get me to cooperate with a random person in DayZ

That's what I have my group for, people I know for several years, people I can actually trust with my (virtual) life

The Prisoners Dilemma may only apply to 2 solo players that have no group and no advanced skills in DayZ

You know...people that can't go through a town without aggro'ing a bunch of zombies....people that actually die from zombie attacks

Those might fit in the risk/reward mathematics involved in the game theory

Edited August 26, 2012 by Hawk24

[Zombie Einstein 1]

Similarily if the two prisoners can completely trust each other not to talk, then they get the best payoff. That trust is really the only way to get the best payoff.

[Virfortis 111]

Stop trying to apply science, logic, reasoning, and math to the human mind.

There is no concept of balance, or even thought that runs through the average DayZ players mind when he lined up his sniper rifle on a hill. There is never anyone asking if something worthwhile will be gained in-game, and there is no intelligence to dictate whether it's cost effective to risk interacting with someone.

It's simply "hurp derp, points for teh winz!"

Nobody rationalizes what they do in DayZ, most just admit to being a mindless kill-toy and move on. Why? Because to think, to process, and to comprehend what such a pointless endeavor the KoS system is would be to do more thinking than the neolithic level of the mind-numbing FPS does today.

tl;dr

Your intelligence level is too damn high!

For DayZ and its community, anyways, I'm perfectly happy poking around the hypothetical like this.

[sostronk 334]

You are all wrong. It is not best to team up or to KOS. There are cons to both sides of this. It is best to altf4.

[gywidion@msn.com 80]

Without real consequence real trust cannot be achieved. I do not shoot on sight though, I avoid it all together.

[Zombie Einstein 1]

Ha, yeah I failed to include the intelligence and motivation of your average dayz player and the ability to altf4. The model would become far to unwieldy.

[bayers 28]

the mathematics field of game theory

mathematics field of game theory

Is that a joke, does such a "field" even exist? You're a charlatan, sir. I read your pdf, its mathematics the same way that 2 + 2 = 4.

[Zombie Einstein 1]

the mathematics field of game theory

Is that a joke, does such a "field" even exist? You're a charlatan, sir. I read your pdf, its mathematics the same way that 2 + 2 = 4.

Not sure if troll, or joke but if not, yeah it's a very important field. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory for a start. At least three nobel prizes have been awarded for developments in game theory and it's used in lots of different fields. The stuff in the Pdf is one of the simplest examples possible, and is really intoductory game theory.

[gywidion@msn.com 80]

I would hope they were a troll.

[Dankine 377]

I would hope they were a troll.

nope just dim

[Zombie Einstein 1]

Maybe they just wanted something more mathy looking. In which case for a player with n available strategies and opponent with m strategies and the payoff for the player

u_ij where 0<i<n+1 and 0<j<m+1

strategy a strictly dominates strategy c if

u_aj>u_cj

for all j=1,2,...,m

and thats why people kos

[bazbake 456]

Maybe they just wanted something more mathy looking. In which case for a player with n available strategies and opponent with m strategies and the payoff for the player

u_ij where 0<i<n+1 and 0<j<m+1

strategy a strictly dominates strategy c if

u_aj>u_cj

for all j=1,2,...,m

and thats why people kos

Beans for appropriate user name.

I argued pre-hero skin that PVP in the game was easier for bandits since the prisoner dilemma makes KOS the mathematically logical response to random player encounters (more importantly, bandits were more likely to get free loot than survivors were to survive random encounters). Interestingly enough, the bandit skins should make survival higher for non-bandits than bandits. I'm still waiting for the game to adjust to the new dynamic, though.

[Zombie Einstein 1]

Beans for appropriate user name.

I argued pre-hero skin that PVP in the game was easier for bandits since the prisoner dilemma makes KOS the mathematically logical response to random player encounters (more importantly, bandits were more likely to get free loot than survivors were to survive random encounters). Interestingly enough, the bandit skins should make survival higher for non-bandits than bandits. I'm still waiting for the game to adjust to the new dynamic, though.

I guess the skins add a form of cooperation, which breaks the prisoners dilemma, if you have some knowledge of the other players intention then you can act appropriately. In the parlance of game theory you've gone from a cooperative to a non-cooperative game.

Althought I'm sure most bandits hate the idea that they're cooperating

[gywidion@msn.com 80]

I have posted elsewhere on the skins, but in short it should not be skins so much as animations/ sounds. Skins should be environmental tools for concealment and temperature.

[killcamike 8]

I'm sorry, but you can't trust anybody anymore.

When the mod first came out there was a lot of cooperation.

Now people KOS, so there is nothing for players like me to do besides KOSing as well.