You must sign in to post. | Infighting / Prisoner's Dilemma :: Jan 16, 2007 @ 9:06pm |
|---|
 l.w.
Joined: Jan 16, 2007
Posts: 13 | More philosophy than strategy, but it's some of both. Basically it's an idea from economics class, but it's interesting (actually much more interesting) in terms of Galcon as Galcon is also a zero-sum game since the goal is basically to grab more production and thus kill the opposition. Sounds a lot like business eh?
Are you familar with the Prisoner's Dilemma? It's an concept from game theory that seems similar to this situation. Basically the idea is that "two players in the game can choose between two moves, either "cooperate" or "defect". The idea is that each player gains when both cooperate, but if only one of them cooperates, the other one, who defects, will gain more. If both defect, both lose (or gain very little) but not as much as the "cheated" cooperator whose cooperation is not returned."
Basically, the reward for cooperation (not killing each other) is greated that the outcome of attacking each other and dying. Once you're positioned too close to another player though, this scenario is basically the result, unless you call a truce. Even then though you'll have to stab the other guy in the back eventually, or he will stab you in the back.
If this is a confusing explanation, try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_Dilemmapost updated on Jan 16, 2007 @ 9:07pm | | Re: Infighting / Prisoner's Dilemma :: Jan 16, 2007 @ 10:56pm |
|---|
 philhassey
Joined: Nov 30, 2006
Posts: 761
Location: Zarcon | I haven't played Go, so I can't comment on the other post, but the stuff you say here makes quite a bit of sense. It would be interesting to put together a chart of all the possible "scenarios" and the results of the different actions you could take in a 3 person game. | | Re: Infighting / Prisoner's Dilemma :: Jan 20, 2007 @ 11:49am |
|---|
becephalus 
Joined: Jan 19, 2007
Posts: 130
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota | The standard example of a prisoners dimlemma problem in Galcon is imagining one strong player and two equally weak players in second place.
In the two players cooperate they each now have a chance for first place. If one tries to cooperate and attacks the strongest player, and the other defects and helps the strongest player the defector ensures himself second.
Finally if both players defect and attack each other they die almost immediately.
Thus you have a classic prisoners dilemma where it only makes sense to cooperate if you know your friend will also cooperate.
Galcon also creates tons of problems related to the prisoners dilemma. Decisions theory is a lot of fun, and applies most strongly in games such as this where the players stances towards each other are vitally important.
There are interesting metagame strategies (in the sense as strategies across many games) people could also pursue. Such as always going all out vandetta against whomever first attacks you. Having a reputation for acting such would probably discourage people from attacking you (whether this discouragement would increase your win % enough to counter the effect of often pursuing a non-optimum strategy is hard to determine). Of course playing like this might also discourage people from playing with you at all if it is annoying enough. | | Re: Infighting / Prisoner's Dilemma :: Jan 20, 2007 @ 12:18pm |
|---|
colbert Joined: Jan 20, 2007
Posts: 5 | Yeah, I've noticed diplomacy is a big metagame strategy. Players with more social standing can be more convincing when they ask for a truce or alliance against a stronger player. However it also works the other way, players perceived as being too strong or "dangerous" might be attack because the greater perceived threat that they represent.
Other tricky decisions:
- The choice between rapid expansion and defense
- Deciding when and where to fight
- Whether it's appropriate to run away and attempt to rebuild if the battles goes badly.post updated on Jan 20, 2007 @ 12:18pm | | Re: Infighting / Prisoner's Dilemma :: Jan 22, 2007 @ 12:10am |
|---|
carn Joined: Dec 16, 2006
Posts: 74
Location: LA | You're missing an important point. Second is meaningless. The optimal strategy is to *always* cooperate because defecting means you lose. Why would you ever defect if it ensures a loss? If you were rational then you wouldn't.
Titus points this out in his strategy guide under misconceptions: "There is no second place!!"
so this is not the prisoners dilemma. | | Re: Infighting / Prisoner's Dilemma :: Jan 22, 2007 @ 7:54am |
|---|
thirdparty 
Joined: Dec 20, 2006
Posts: 279
Location: Eastern U.S.A. | Here's a different example, then (though there are situations where backstabbing an ally gives you the best chance of winning):
It's a multi-sided FFA. You and another player start in roughly the same cluster of planets (i.e. no natural boundaries).
You each have two options in the opening game:
C: attack neutral planets, expanding your empire
D: hoard ships (leaving all but very cheap neutrals alone) and wait for a chance to jump on the other player
Best for you is if you do D while the other player does C: you end up with uncontested control of the cluster, and so a decent chance of winning the entire FFA. Second best is if you both do C: you end up with control of roughly half the cluster, and so have some chance of winning. Third best is if you both do D: the cluster will remain mostly unclaimed while you and he sit on your homeworlds staring at each other; you don't have much chance of winning, but at least you haven't been eliminated. Worst is if he does D while you do C: you get wiped out. | | Re: Infighting / Prisoner's Dilemma :: Jan 23, 2007 @ 5:54am |
|---|
becephalus
Joined: Jan 19, 2007
Posts: 130
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota | No carn:
Defecting doesnt always means you lose. It just means you ar ein a worse position. That is not at all the same thing, and can actually be desirable. |
You must sign in to post. |
