Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[schadd]

this is a pain game. that is an autocorrect of "phun"

[faust]

we probably want to iron out a Philosophy of Points. would, for example, everyone having 101 points be better than everyone having 99?

Yes. That is clearly intended in the setup post and that's how I'll play.

[faust]

I put all my gold on +15 points

I put all mine on +10.

[Calamitas]

we probably want to iron out a Philosophy of Points. would, for example, everyone having 101 points be better than everyone having 99?

Scott already said this is about maximazing ones one amount of points. The relative comparison to others shouldn't matter.

A should therefore prefer a scenario with A:101,B:10^6 to A:100,B:0

[schadd]

mm. i was thinking about sunshine (an autocorrect of dynamics) of people pursuing alternate win conditions and stuff


it is maybe Adrianne (an autocorrect of apparent) that i am interested in the psychological aspect of these games as much as the menstrual (an aircraft of mathematical)

[2.71828.....]

Sounds like people are mostly going for an all or nothing strategy. All the gold on one item, hope no one else copied you. I can see some merit to that.

But again, do we want to cooperate? I haven't placed my bid yet, willing to listen to suggestions. Currently leaning 8 gold on 1 point. (Not really. But it would almost guarantee getting that point)

[GendoIkari]

Also, this game (this round) is a more complex version of a number game I tried to host a couple years ago, but never got enough people to go for it:

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=6372.0

[UmbrageOfSnow]

I'm going to say this: if Gendo follows through on his threat to deny Calamitas points, I'll do Gendo a solid in the future.  Not sure in what form, and I'm open to suggestions, but at the very least any "I can screw over player A or player B" decisions from me will break in Gendo's favor.

Nothing against Calamitas, but I'm opposed to winning the game under threat of "well I'm going all in, so either I win or we both lose" and it going to a particular person because they got there first.

And the way to defeat that kind of strategy is cooperation.

This isn't a 0 sum game, but there is a winner.  I don't think we're going to be able to make it a perfect tie, nor do I think that's ever going to be in the interests of a majority of people.  But I'm going to try to reward people screwing up the strategies that create runaway winners.

And yeah, the social aspect of this is really interesting too.  We aren't going to act perfectly randomly or all obey whatever the equilibrium strategy is in any given game, and that's fascinating.

[UmbrageOfSnow]

I'm also probably not going to claim what I'm doing specifically this round.

[Calamitas]

I'm absolutely not intending to do this evem close to every time, I am not stupid and I know that this wouldn't work.

[UmbrageOfSnow]

I'm absolutely not intending to do this evem close to every time, I am not stupid and I know that this wouldn't work.

It's not personal, and I don't think you're stupid.

But I don't want you to have a runaway lead, Gendo doesn't either, or he wouldn't be threatening to call your probably-not-bluff.

But the only way that is prevented is someone (Gendo in this case) takes a personal hit for the public good. (Good of everyone not named Calamitas or Gendo.)  He's probably a bit inclined to do that anyway, and I don't expect such a vague promise to sway him much, but I think there is value in promising it now and following through on it.  Other than a sense of fairness, the only motivation to take a personal hit for the public good is the idea that your deed will be rewarded by others later.  So I'm going to play to reward altruism, at least partly.

I'm thinking I can do this without being purely altruistic myself, but I'm sure I'll take a hit for it myself at some point.

[Calamitas]

This is not about relative ranking but absolute ranking only so the runway lead part is absolutely invalid. The altruism  part doesn't really fit either. In this specific setup the maximum sum for everyone is reached when no tie occurs. So real cooperation isn't possible (at least in regard to the first round) and trying to make ties happening is not altruistic.

[UmbrageOfSnow]

I don't mean to not play to my win condition, let me think about this.

(Also, I'm a bit sick but realized I needed to start thinking about this game.)

I stand by my thoughts about rewarding altruism, but I wonder if this isn't a good example of it.

There may be benefit to me making such a promise to someone anyway.

[Calamitas]

Rewarding altruistim is absolutely fine in scenarios like prisoners dilemmas or so and I'm totally going to cooperate there. But this doesn't apply here.

[UmbrageOfSnow]

Okay, well having thought about it, I stand by the idea that I will try to reward anyone who does something I regard as altruistic.  I do think that's valid.

I guess Gendo isn't doing so in this case, need to think more on it.

But this brings up something, not to derail the game but:

What is the value of having "more money" if it's not about having more money specifically than the other people?  Money/points aren't really something with value, but by being near the top they give you power and influence and the ability to more easily gain things that make you happy.  If a rich person could eliminate poverty and give everyone infinite money, it wouldn't actually be in their self-interest to do so.  So what is the value of a point?  And is optimal play really to play so that I have as many points as I can scrounge by being late to commit to something regardless of how many more points others will have?  I think some amount of spite might improve my odds of more points.

And it makes me feel like there's something awkward and unnatural about the wincon.  But maybe this is more a discussion for RSP (although I never go there.)

[faust]

Calamitas has a point. Someone is going to get the 15 points, or noone is. if noone gets 15 because of a tie, then who wins really?
If Calamitas settles for a lower score next time, then all is good. I mean, he's still going to go out of this with more points than the average player if he takes 15 points now and nothing at all later on; why I don't see an argument for why Calamitas is a worse candidate for the 15 than anyone else. In fact I think he's well suited because the chance that he'll cross us and try to make even more points is pretty low.

PPE: 1

[scott_pilgrim]

I've received submissions from all but two players.  If I have submissions from everyone early, I'll end the round early.

[faust]

What is the value of having "more money" if it's not about having more money specifically than the other people?  Money/points aren't really something with value, but by being near the top they give you power and influence and the ability to more easily gain things that make you happy.  If a rich person could eliminate poverty and give everyone infinite money, it wouldn't actually be in their self-interest to do so.  So what is the value of a point?  And is optimal play really to play so that I have as many points as I can scrounge by being late to commit to something regardless of how many more points others will have?  I think some amount of spite might improve my odds of more points.

And it makes me feel like there's something awkward and unnatural about the wincon.  But maybe this is more a discussion for RSP (although I never go there.)

It's true that money is more of a relative measure, but equating the "points" we get here with money is arbitrary. You could just as well equate it with some finished product, like a book, and then it makes more sense. I don't need more books than everybody else. But I do want lots of good books. I don't really care how many books someone else has. If they get 100 books and I get 1 book, then there is no reason not to do that.

[Calamitas]

Calamitas has a point. Someone is going to get the 15 points, or noone is. if noone gets 15 because of a tie, then who wins really?
If Calamitas settles for a lower score next time, then all is good. I mean, he's still going to go out of this with more points than the average player if he takes 15 points now and nothing at all later on; why I don't see an argument for why Calamitas is a worse candidate for the 15 than anyone else. In fact I think he's well suited because the chance that he'll cross us and try to make even more points is pretty low.

PPE: 1

Yep, I pledge to settle for something way lower (like +1p) or even nothing if I get the 15 today.

[Calamitas]

Calamitas has a point. Someone is going to get the 15 points, or noone is. if noone gets 15 because of a tie, then who wins really?
If Calamitas settles for a lower score next time, then all is good. I mean, he's still going to go out of this with more points than the average player if he takes 15 points now and nothing at all later on; why I don't see an argument for why Calamitas is a worse candidate for the 15 than anyone else. In fact I think he's well suited because the chance that he'll cross us and try to make even more points is pretty low.

PPE: 1

Yep, I pledge to settle for something way lower (like +1p) or even nothing if I get the 15 today.

Meaning next round

[UmbrageOfSnow]

Yeah, I at no point had any specific problem with Calamitas.

And you're right Faust, I'd rather him get it than some other personality types, (admittedly based on not much of him yet but still.)

[UmbrageOfSnow]

The thing is, though, that there is a limited supply of books and we all want all the books if possible.

I'm wondering if caring about relative success doesn't arise from this somehow anyway.  But I have a head cold and this is probably not important to by bids today at all.

[Calamitas]

The thing is, though, that there is a limited supply of books and we all want all the books if possible.

I'm wondering if caring about relative success doesn't arise from this somehow anyway.  But I have a head cold and this is probably not important to by bids today at all.

You want as many books as possible, not the highest share of books. Like, would you rather have 100 books and have everyone else have 200 books each or would you like to have 30 books and burn the rest so no one else has any?

[UmbrageOfSnow]

Yes, I'm aware of what the wincon is, but that's not really what I'm getting at.

I may not be with it enough to explain properly right now though, or I may be totally off base.  But I'm no longer confused on the concept of what we are aiming for.

[faust]

Yes, I'm aware of what the wincon is, but that's not really what I'm getting at.

I may not be with it enough to explain properly right now though, or I may be totally off base.  But I'm no longer confused on the concept of what we are aiming for.

I get where you are coming from. Somehow it is hard to not see a game as some sort of competition for the first rank. The reasons for this should possibly be discussed in RSP.