|
Astus posted:You know, this is a pretty flawed version of the Prisoner's Dilemma, because If this Nonary game is anything like the last one, then you're probably right. The game in 999 appeared to encourage people to kill each other so that only a few could get out the last door, but it was actually designed to save all 9 players (except for two who I guess didn't count). Having this game actually be a trick where betrayal seems right - but isn't - would be right in line with that.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
I wonder if any of the participants have knowledge of game theory. In a purely theoretical way, the dominant strategy for both of them is to betray, however, there is more to life than pure self interest. It is interesting to note that the game is not zero-sum. Also, supposing we choose Ally and Moongirl chooses Betray, next time we choose who to team up with, we would team up with someone who also previously chose Ally, and let her go with whatever group chose to also betray. Medieval Medic fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Jun 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
Astus posted:You know, this is a pretty flawed version of the Prisoner's Dilemma, because choosing betray(outside of using Dr. Stab's plan) is the worst possible thing you can do. Mainly because it's instantly obvious who chose betray, and because they'll have to play the game more than once. Imagine if after ratting out the other guy, the prisoners were all left in the same room, told which one of them betrayed the others, and were asked to play nice while they set up the next game. This all makes a lot of sense, but it's possible to talk your way out of this situation, at least after the first time you do it (if you consistently pick betray, I think people will catch on quick). If you're in a pair, you can argue that your partner hit the button before you could stop them, and anyone who believes you may be willing to ally with you the next round. You may also be able to convince the others that you only picked betray because you specifically don't trust the person you were playing against. But I agree that the best choice (for the first round, at least) is to pick "ally," in order to ensure you don't immediately lose the trust of every other player. It may be possible to talk your way out of it, but there's no guarantee anyone will believe your excuse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
I just beat the game a few days ago! While I do have my own thoughts about how it compares to 999, it is still a great game that I do not regret playing, and it looks like this LP will do it justice. EDIT: I do look forward to discussing the enigma that is Sigma's hideous T-Shirt. Unlucky7 fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Jun 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
Yeah, so this is a pretty well-discussed problem. Even if betray is effectively zero-risk to you, it makes it really hard to get any further ahead for everybody. Selecting betray even once sets a precedent like nothing else and makes it hard for anyone to pick ally again - which means you're stuck at the "everyone gets zero" instead of "everyone profits". Also hah, zero sum games, zero escape, I see what the writers were doing here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
In this case, the overall numerical results don't favour betray, especially if you want to get everyone out. There are a few snags though: As Phi says, one cant be sure if anyone is really going to betray or ally. From a self defense standpoint, it might be more prudent to avoid losing BP. Even if it doesnt take one down to 0 on the first go, it leaves one open to a later betrayal. If people start getting BP now it would be harder to kill them in the future. The higher one's BP gets the more it takes to bring one down to death level - unless they change the ambidex game later. And if 999 is any indication, there definitely may be people who want to kill. So far very little has been revealed and aside from a door decision which had little impact. Luna could just be acting right now, for example, much like Ace had a quite dramatic character shift. A person might be able to make an excuse for the betrayal as well - "I panicked, I was afraid, etc" - though it might be flimsy. All it takes is a seed of distrust or fear for one to want to choose the selfish option in the prisoners dilemma, even if one isn't inherently selfish. For the first one though I still think its safer to choose Ally though, yeah. We'll see how that pans out though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
booksnake posted:Also hah, zero sum games, zero escape, I see what the writers were doing here.  This is not a zero-sum game. In a zero sum game we would be competing directly for eachother's points. Everyone has 3 right now, so in a zero-sum game those 27 points would be all the points we ever get. You'd have to compete to be one of the maximum 3 people who gets 9 points and leaves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
For the math thing on the previous page, you can't think of it as +6, because you're locked in with your pair for the whole game. It's not that Sigma gets a +2 and Phi gets a +2, rather Sigma/Phi get a single +2. The split changes would come in to play if you could change your pair, but as far as I know, you can't do that, so it's only a +4 change for Ally/Ally, and all the rest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
beru04 posted:For the math thing on the previous page, you can't think of it as +6, because you're locked in with your pair for the whole game. I really hope the pairs change up or something, because then we're just stuck with Phi and Luna/Alice/Tenmyouji for the rest of the game. That's pretty limited compared to 999.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
I'm mostly curious how, if we're remaining with "Red, Green, and Blue" colors, how they cast is going to go through the second set of chromatic doors. Unless everyone goes into their own color. Edit: I saw them in one of the exploration posts. This is not a spoiler or anything, I haven't bought the game yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
Added Space posted:
Ooh. Hurr. Game theory and lots of the word zero and brain jumps to correlate them.  Color Printer posted:I really hope the pairs change up or something, because then we're just stuck with Phi and Luna/Alice/Tenmyouji for the rest of the game. That's pretty limited compared to 999. Gotta be, right? Like, if one of the solos died right off here, that would close off even more options for doors! What I mean is, it'd be a lovely design for a game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
booksnake posted:Gotta be, right? Like, if one of the solos died right off here, that would close off even more options for doors! You can at most lose 2 points in one round, so since everyone starts with 3 it's impossible to die in the first round.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
booksnake posted:Gotta be, right? Like, if one of the solos died right off here, that would close off even more options for doors! Not if it works the way it did in 999, where the bracelet comes off when the player dies and functions as the live player did for the purposes of entering doors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
beru04 posted:you're locked in with your pair for the whole game. Where'd you get that idea? Nobody said that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
distactedOne posted:Where'd you get that idea? Nobody said that. Zero III has been saying it quite clearly all along with the "shared destiny" lines.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
Sorites posted:Zero III has been saying it quite clearly all along with the "shared destiny" lines. Yeah, that was my basic assumption. One more thing I'm wondering, I may have missed something previously, but why does Sigma say that if they don't vote then it'll automatically vote for Ally? I didn't see any mention of that from Zero III.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
beru04 posted:Yeah, that was my basic assumption. The announcer said that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
Sorites posted:Zero III has been saying it quite clearly all along with the "shared destiny" lines. "Shared destiny" could just as easily be "for now" as "forever".
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
distactedOne posted:"Shared destiny" could just as easily be "for now" as "forever". Destinies: Fleeting and mutable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
distactedOne posted:If we assume we want all 9 players out, we want to gain as many total points as possible. There lies the dilemma - you can't be sure your opponent isn't thinking this exact thing, again making betray the only "safe" option.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
Astus posted:You know, this is a pretty flawed version of the Prisoner's Dilemma, because choosing betray(outside of using Dr. Stab's plan) is the worst possible thing you can do. Mainly because it's instantly obvious who chose betray, and because they'll have to play the game more than once. Imagine if after ratting out the other guy, the prisoners were all left in the same room, told which one of them betrayed the others, and were asked to play nice while they set up the next game. But you have to think about how it ties into the Nonary game as a whole. Getting up to 9 BP requires either 3 successful alliances or 2 successful betrayals. So in a race to get 9 BP there is an incentive to betray, allying will get you the points safely but you'll lose out if ANYBODY successfully betrays (not just your "opponent" for the ambidex game). Plus if you're only playing 2 games then betraying might work even though it's a terrible strategy in the long term. And frankly I wouldn't be surprised if the bracelets lied at some point or another. That seems like the kind of dick move team Zero might come up with and we had lying bracelets in 999.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
Elite posted:And frankly I wouldn't be surprised if the bracelets lied at some point or another. That seems like the kind of dick move team Zero might come up with and we had lying bracelets in 999. Everyone who had a lying bracelet knew that, though. The deception was only on the other players.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
Elite posted:But you have to think about how it ties into the Nonary game as a whole. That's a good point. To ally you not only have to trust your opponent for the AB Game, but you have to trust every other player not to betray a couple of times and get to 9 BP. The 9 door only opens once, so trying to make sure you have enough BP to get through as quickly as possible is a good plan. If you ally even once, you'll be forced to play at least two more AB Games to get to 9 BP, and anyone who betrayed on the first round could potentially get another 3BP and escape before you have a chance to catch up. Allying is a good plan to avoid losing trust, but it's riskier than choosing betray in many ways.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
beru04 posted:Yeah, that was my basic assumption. Fedule posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
Fallord posted:There lies the dilemma - you can't be sure your opponent isn't thinking this exact thing, again making betray the only "safe" option. Except you're planning on selecting betray twice, in a row, when everyone already knows you picked betray last time. Basically, there is zero chance that your second match-up won't pick betray if you selected betray in the first game. Which means, you'd still need at least 3 games to get out. Might as well Ally-up, it's the easiest, least risky, and all-around better option.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
The biggest problem I see is that one person is Zero. That means that at some point (most likely at the end of the game) that person will betray their opponent and get out, screwing everyone else. This is, of course, assuming that Zero is one of the group.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 01:58
|
|
|
The optimal solution in Prisoner's Dilemma would be to ally first, then copy the other side? And the game doesn't offer that much for betraying the other party? And we'd lose trust and set a bad precedent? If that's the case, betray, obviously. We're going down in flames, starting with the worst ending in the game  "I want to observe the balance of power shifting." VVV: Welp, didn't catch that, thanks. Pierzak fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
So, between the earlier choice of door and now this, there's six possible outcomes at this point in the game. We're shaping up to have a ton of variables. I can't wait to see what changes depending on who stabs who in the back. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
Well that would explain why Zero III never said it... 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
Keep in mind, guys, outside of cases like Clover and Alice, most of these people are complete strangers. K is even more of a stranger, because you can't tell what K's gender is, and you don't have K's real name, either. Can you really trust these people? EDIT: In the interest of full disclosure, I have played the game, so to be clear, I'm not trying to influence your decisions here. I'm just curious. King of Solomon fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
Pierzak posted:The optimal solution in Prisoner's Dilemma would be to ally first, then copy the other side? And the game doesn't offer that much for betraying the other party? And we'd lose trust and set a bad precedent?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:The game is kinda broken in emulating the prisoner dilemma, since there's a strategy we can employ that does not require any trust on the part of the participants. Since a betray/ally still results in a net gain of points, and a betray/betray results in no net loss of points, if the players agree beforehand to always choose betray/ally (such that the person with the fewest points chooses betray so that nobody will ever die), then eventually everyone will get enough points. I might be misinterpreting what you're trying to say, but I think there might be a problem in your reasoning. If someone says "Hey, I'll choose ally" and then chooses betray while the other person chooses ally, then they successfully conned that person and put them closer to death. Color Printer posted:As for Luna.... If I were more clever, I'd be able to turn that into a joke about medical malpractice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
Astus posted:Except you're planning on selecting betray twice, in a row, when everyone already knows you picked betray last time. Basically, there is zero chance that your second match-up won't pick betray if you selected betray in the first game. Not necessarily; your opponent might "turn up" dead, you could put the blame of the betrayal on your partner, etc. Besides, if you get betrayed round one and end up at 1 BP, you would still hit a betray/betray cycle (since they know you will betray to protect yourself). I'm not sure if it's been mentioned yet but, as the rules stand now, there is a solution to all of this: everyone could agree to just not enter the AB rooms. Fallord fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
Another problem is that no one knew what the game was until they got into the room. So they could not all just agree to ally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 02:37
|
|
|
Fallord posted:Not necessarily; your opponent might "turn up" dead, you could put the blame of the betrayal on your partner, etc. Besides, if you get betrayed round one and end up at 1 BP, you would still hit a betray/betray cycle (since they know you will betray to protect yourself). But what if they don't? What if you choose betray, expecting them to protect themselves by betraying, and then they pick ally? Their death would be entirely your fault. You'd be a murderer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
Hobgoblin2099 posted:I might be misinterpreting what you're trying to say, but I think there might be a problem in your reasoning. His idea, assume no limit on matches played. "A, ally this round, B will betray you." result: A at 1, B at 6. "B, ally this round, A will betray you" B at 4, A at 4, net gain 1 over start. The idea here is that if you say "A and B, ally" then everyone gets out faster, but A and B can each individually gain if they switch. This method designates whose turn it is to get screwed over, so it's more resistant to sudden twists. If A is supposed to ally and betrays instead, B does not gain but he does not lose, and the round repeats. If B is supposed to betray and decides to be trusting, both folks gain in a pleasant surprise. Since advancement is uneven, it relies on whichever one hits 9 first not leaving through the door. It also requires fully rational actors (though less reliant on that than the "everyone pick Ally" method, which requires rational and group-focused). Once someone starts deviating, everything breaks down anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
Of course, since the people here had no chance to coordinate, mostly don't know each other, and are stressed out because they've been kidnapped, any "rational actor" discussion is out the window and the good money's on resorting to cannibalism by the third round.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
Bruceski posted:His idea, assume no limit on matches played. but because it's slower someone else leaves having gotten 9.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
Between the presence of a murderer and that of the real Zero hidden among them, why would you count on there even being a third round?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
Another tricky element to the game is that the reward for high numbers and the penalty for low numbers aren't equivalent. Gain points: Closer to escaping, but we don't know how much closer, since it hasn't been stated (unless I missed it) how many rounds there are going to be. Gaining points slowly and steadily could be a viable strategy, or it could be suicide. Lose points: Death.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 03:16
|
|
