Adam
03-08-2005, 06:50 PM
This is an essay I've written primarily for my own interest, in an attempt to explain a certain category of behavior in an online game that I play. I'm considering posting it on the community forum that game's publishers maintain, but I'm fairly certain that 90% of the responses I see there will be along the lines of "Wow. Too many words." or "OMG u have a lot of time on ur hands, ROFLCOPTER!!!1!!", so I figured I'd post it here to satisfy my intellectual exhibitionist urges. :) Feel free to ignore me.
I should probably explain some of the names and terms found in the essay. Briefly, World of Warcraft (http://www.worldofwarcraft.com) is a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG) developed by Blizzard Entertainment. If you're not familiar with the genre, the basic idea is that numerous player-created characters inhabit the same online game world, where they can either oppose each other (player vs player, or PvP)or cooperate to overcome challenges posed by the game world itself (Player vs Environment or PvE). In this particular example of the genre, the setting is the aftermath of the events of Blizzard's previous game, Warcraft 3, and players can choose to create characters in either the Alliance faction or the Horde faction. By design, there is no easy way to communicate in-game with a player from the opposing faction, so the intentions of such players are always, to some degree, an unknown quantity.
The server I play on is a designated PvP (Player vs Player) server which means that, depending on the area one's character is in (there are designated areas of "Alliance Territory", "Horde Territory", and "Contested Territory" in the game world), one may be vulnerable to attack by members of the opposing faction. While there are many shades of meaning to the term (similar to the various similar meanings of the term "troll" as it is used on internet fora), the general sense of the term "to gank" is "to initiate PvP combat against another player who is occupied with PvE concerns, and does not wish to engage in PvP." Additionally, the term usually implies an unfair fight, in the sense that, if you were fighting some horrible monster and I were going to gank you, I wouldn't wait until you had finished the fight, rested to regain lost health/mana, etc., but would attack you midway through the fight, when you were most vulnerable.
Anyway, on to my actual thoughts about the behavior...
Ever since I got my girlfriend into the game, we've had semi-regular discussions about why people (including me) gank other, apparently innocent and unthreatening, people. She is devoutly anti-gank, won't attack anyone who has not attacked her first, and reacts with something approaching amazement when that undead rogue she waved at thirty seconds ago sneaks up behind her and stuns her while she's fighting whatever random creature the quest giver of the moment has asked her to gather bits of. In addition, if we're questing together, as we often do, she begs me not to gank Horde that we encounter, on the grounds that they aren't hurting us. In trying to explain to her why I'd prefer to go ahead and smack down someone who hasn't harmed me than to take the risk that they will attack me when I turn my back, it occurs to me that, at least in one specific situation, there is a possible explanation from game theory for ganking behavior, specifically the Prisoner's Dilemma (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/) (PD).
The classic PD involves two criminal accomplices who have been apprehended and, individually and without being able to communicate with each other, offered a deal (quoted from the link, above): "You may choose to confess or remain silent. If you confess and your accomplice remains silent I will drop all charges against you and use your testimony to ensure that your accomplice does serious time. Likewise, if your accomplice confesses while you remain silent, they will go free while you do the time. If you both confess I get two convictions, but I'll see to it that you both get early parole. If you both remain silent, I'll have to settle for token sentences on firearms possession charges."
There are other versions of the Dilemma with a similar format (two parties who can either cooperate with each other or not) but using different situations as their settings. I've also read about experiments done where participants were given the opportunity to win money based on the outcome of the dilemma. In any of these situations, the key point is that "defecting" (the jargon term for betraying one's accomplice in the classic Dilemma) while the other person "cooperates" (the jargon term for remaining silent in the classic Dilemma) is the best outcome one can get, "cooperating" while the other person also "cooperates" is the second best outcome, "defecting" while the other person also "defects" is the next best outcome, and "cooperating" while the other person "defects" is the worst possible outcome. These four possible outcomes are sometimes referred to as "Temptation", "Reward", "Punishment", and "Sucker", respectively, and they always follow the same order of desirability: Temptation > Reward > Punishment > Sucker.
To quote the link again, "The 'dilemma' faced by the prisoners here is that, whatever the other does, each is better off confessing than remaining silent. But the outcome obtained when both confess is worse for each than the outcome they would have obtained had both remained silent." I see this as roughly symmetrical to the choice faced by WoW players in one particular gank-prone situation: the case where two more or less evenly matched players or groups of players from opposing factions are attempting to complete PvE quests in the same area. I'm assuming that, in most such situations, the primary motivation of all players involved is to complete their particular PvE goals and move on. The situation can, of course, be clouded by other player motivations, such as desire for vengeance for previous ganking, dislike for a particular race or class (i.e. undead rogues are KoS for me), or simply enjoyment of PvP combat.
When two such players (or groups, but I'll assume single players for simplicity's sake from here on out) confront each other, each side is confronted with the choice to gank ("defection") the other or not ("cooperation"). The four possible outcomes of these decisions are, I believe, similar to the four possible outcomes of the PD, as described above:
"Temptation" - I gank (I "defect") and you do not (you "cooperate"). This is the best possible outcome for me, as I'm almost certain to win the ensuing PvP match, and I then get the benefit of having the quest area to myself, at least until you resurrect, at which time I'll likely still have the advantage over you, as you'll be weak from rezzing.
"Reward" - Neither of us ganks (we both "cooperate"). We both get the benefit of using the quest area, but we still have to keep an eye over our shoulders for each other, and we may possibly suffer from depletion of mobs in the quest area, as I'm killing mobs you'd like to kill, and vice versa.
"Punishment" - We attack each other (we both "defect"). In this case, whichever of us is better at PvP lives and gets to use the quest area, but without the clear cut advantage of Temptation, and will likely have to deal with the loser popping up to harass him or her later. The winner is likely weak from the fight, and not able to deal with both mobs and the respawning loser as effectively as he or she would be able to in a Temptation outcome.
"Sucker" - I leave you alone (I "cooperate") and you gank me (you "defect"). In this case, I probably do not get the use of the quest area, as I'm most likely dead, and will have to rez in a disadvantageous situation.
Of course, all these scenarios assume that you and I are roughly evenly matched, as I said earlier. This includes the possibility that we have friends or guildies we can call in as backup. All these scenarios break down if one of us has a clear advantage over the other. In those cases, whether or not the person with the advantage ganks is generally up to whether that person feels like being charitable or not.
Mush like the classic PD, no matter what you do (and, if you don't see me, you can be thought of as "cooperating" by default), I'm better off attacking you, and vice versa, because Temptation is better than Reward, and Punishment is better than Sucker. This leads me to the conclusion that the rational thing to do in any evenly matched situation is to attack and, based on my observations in-game, it appears that a majority of my fellow players have reached the same conclusion.
The point illustrated by the PD, however, is that the rational pursuit of individual self-interest in certain situations leads to a suboptimal outcome. If we're both acting rationally, we're both always going to end up with the "Punishment" outcome, which is worse than the "Reward" outcome we could have if we had a way to communicate an agreement and enforce adherence to it. Blizzard, however, has designed a game world in which it would be difficult to come to such an agreement and all but impossible to enforce it. I'm sure this was a conscious decision on their part, as the Horde vs Alliance PvP dynamic is a significant portion of the appeal of the game.
One other large question with the potential to invalidate my thinking is whether or not Temptation is really preferable to Reward. Given the fact that a carefully timed rez can shift the advantage from the original winner/ganker to the original loser/gankee, Temptation is arguably not that much better than Punishment. My girlfriend has actually made a similar point to me, and I'm not sure I can refute it. For the purposes of this argument, though, note that the only thing that matters is that Temptation is perceived to be better than Punishment by most players, as it seems to be. Who wouldn't prefer to win the initial PvP by a nice margin than to die and have to endure a corpse run plus a hazardous rezzing environment?
I should probably explain some of the names and terms found in the essay. Briefly, World of Warcraft (http://www.worldofwarcraft.com) is a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG) developed by Blizzard Entertainment. If you're not familiar with the genre, the basic idea is that numerous player-created characters inhabit the same online game world, where they can either oppose each other (player vs player, or PvP)or cooperate to overcome challenges posed by the game world itself (Player vs Environment or PvE). In this particular example of the genre, the setting is the aftermath of the events of Blizzard's previous game, Warcraft 3, and players can choose to create characters in either the Alliance faction or the Horde faction. By design, there is no easy way to communicate in-game with a player from the opposing faction, so the intentions of such players are always, to some degree, an unknown quantity.
The server I play on is a designated PvP (Player vs Player) server which means that, depending on the area one's character is in (there are designated areas of "Alliance Territory", "Horde Territory", and "Contested Territory" in the game world), one may be vulnerable to attack by members of the opposing faction. While there are many shades of meaning to the term (similar to the various similar meanings of the term "troll" as it is used on internet fora), the general sense of the term "to gank" is "to initiate PvP combat against another player who is occupied with PvE concerns, and does not wish to engage in PvP." Additionally, the term usually implies an unfair fight, in the sense that, if you were fighting some horrible monster and I were going to gank you, I wouldn't wait until you had finished the fight, rested to regain lost health/mana, etc., but would attack you midway through the fight, when you were most vulnerable.
Anyway, on to my actual thoughts about the behavior...
Ever since I got my girlfriend into the game, we've had semi-regular discussions about why people (including me) gank other, apparently innocent and unthreatening, people. She is devoutly anti-gank, won't attack anyone who has not attacked her first, and reacts with something approaching amazement when that undead rogue she waved at thirty seconds ago sneaks up behind her and stuns her while she's fighting whatever random creature the quest giver of the moment has asked her to gather bits of. In addition, if we're questing together, as we often do, she begs me not to gank Horde that we encounter, on the grounds that they aren't hurting us. In trying to explain to her why I'd prefer to go ahead and smack down someone who hasn't harmed me than to take the risk that they will attack me when I turn my back, it occurs to me that, at least in one specific situation, there is a possible explanation from game theory for ganking behavior, specifically the Prisoner's Dilemma (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/) (PD).
The classic PD involves two criminal accomplices who have been apprehended and, individually and without being able to communicate with each other, offered a deal (quoted from the link, above): "You may choose to confess or remain silent. If you confess and your accomplice remains silent I will drop all charges against you and use your testimony to ensure that your accomplice does serious time. Likewise, if your accomplice confesses while you remain silent, they will go free while you do the time. If you both confess I get two convictions, but I'll see to it that you both get early parole. If you both remain silent, I'll have to settle for token sentences on firearms possession charges."
There are other versions of the Dilemma with a similar format (two parties who can either cooperate with each other or not) but using different situations as their settings. I've also read about experiments done where participants were given the opportunity to win money based on the outcome of the dilemma. In any of these situations, the key point is that "defecting" (the jargon term for betraying one's accomplice in the classic Dilemma) while the other person "cooperates" (the jargon term for remaining silent in the classic Dilemma) is the best outcome one can get, "cooperating" while the other person also "cooperates" is the second best outcome, "defecting" while the other person also "defects" is the next best outcome, and "cooperating" while the other person "defects" is the worst possible outcome. These four possible outcomes are sometimes referred to as "Temptation", "Reward", "Punishment", and "Sucker", respectively, and they always follow the same order of desirability: Temptation > Reward > Punishment > Sucker.
To quote the link again, "The 'dilemma' faced by the prisoners here is that, whatever the other does, each is better off confessing than remaining silent. But the outcome obtained when both confess is worse for each than the outcome they would have obtained had both remained silent." I see this as roughly symmetrical to the choice faced by WoW players in one particular gank-prone situation: the case where two more or less evenly matched players or groups of players from opposing factions are attempting to complete PvE quests in the same area. I'm assuming that, in most such situations, the primary motivation of all players involved is to complete their particular PvE goals and move on. The situation can, of course, be clouded by other player motivations, such as desire for vengeance for previous ganking, dislike for a particular race or class (i.e. undead rogues are KoS for me), or simply enjoyment of PvP combat.
When two such players (or groups, but I'll assume single players for simplicity's sake from here on out) confront each other, each side is confronted with the choice to gank ("defection") the other or not ("cooperation"). The four possible outcomes of these decisions are, I believe, similar to the four possible outcomes of the PD, as described above:
"Temptation" - I gank (I "defect") and you do not (you "cooperate"). This is the best possible outcome for me, as I'm almost certain to win the ensuing PvP match, and I then get the benefit of having the quest area to myself, at least until you resurrect, at which time I'll likely still have the advantage over you, as you'll be weak from rezzing.
"Reward" - Neither of us ganks (we both "cooperate"). We both get the benefit of using the quest area, but we still have to keep an eye over our shoulders for each other, and we may possibly suffer from depletion of mobs in the quest area, as I'm killing mobs you'd like to kill, and vice versa.
"Punishment" - We attack each other (we both "defect"). In this case, whichever of us is better at PvP lives and gets to use the quest area, but without the clear cut advantage of Temptation, and will likely have to deal with the loser popping up to harass him or her later. The winner is likely weak from the fight, and not able to deal with both mobs and the respawning loser as effectively as he or she would be able to in a Temptation outcome.
"Sucker" - I leave you alone (I "cooperate") and you gank me (you "defect"). In this case, I probably do not get the use of the quest area, as I'm most likely dead, and will have to rez in a disadvantageous situation.
Of course, all these scenarios assume that you and I are roughly evenly matched, as I said earlier. This includes the possibility that we have friends or guildies we can call in as backup. All these scenarios break down if one of us has a clear advantage over the other. In those cases, whether or not the person with the advantage ganks is generally up to whether that person feels like being charitable or not.
Mush like the classic PD, no matter what you do (and, if you don't see me, you can be thought of as "cooperating" by default), I'm better off attacking you, and vice versa, because Temptation is better than Reward, and Punishment is better than Sucker. This leads me to the conclusion that the rational thing to do in any evenly matched situation is to attack and, based on my observations in-game, it appears that a majority of my fellow players have reached the same conclusion.
The point illustrated by the PD, however, is that the rational pursuit of individual self-interest in certain situations leads to a suboptimal outcome. If we're both acting rationally, we're both always going to end up with the "Punishment" outcome, which is worse than the "Reward" outcome we could have if we had a way to communicate an agreement and enforce adherence to it. Blizzard, however, has designed a game world in which it would be difficult to come to such an agreement and all but impossible to enforce it. I'm sure this was a conscious decision on their part, as the Horde vs Alliance PvP dynamic is a significant portion of the appeal of the game.
One other large question with the potential to invalidate my thinking is whether or not Temptation is really preferable to Reward. Given the fact that a carefully timed rez can shift the advantage from the original winner/ganker to the original loser/gankee, Temptation is arguably not that much better than Punishment. My girlfriend has actually made a similar point to me, and I'm not sure I can refute it. For the purposes of this argument, though, note that the only thing that matters is that Temptation is perceived to be better than Punishment by most players, as it seems to be. Who wouldn't prefer to win the initial PvP by a nice margin than to die and have to endure a corpse run plus a hazardous rezzing environment?