Ganking and Game Theory

[Adam]

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 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 (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?

[Crumb]

Well the standard answer to the prisoner's dilemma that I have always heard is that if it is a one time dilemma it is always better to defect, but if you are engaging in a string of interactions without a known endpoint the best strategy is a 'tit-for-tat' where you start by cooperating, but from that point on give what you get.

That being said the game you describe (I have never played the game) does not seem to present a symmetric prisoner's dilemma. If my character sees another character battling automated beasties only I get to choose whether to defect or cooperate, he just hopes I will be nice to him. (Isn't this the case? again I haven't played the game.)

Also, if the game is so large that the odds of your encountering the same player (or knowing that you are encountering the same player) is such that you can't play tit-for-tat, then you are effectively playing a one off prisoner's dilemma, in which case defection is the only strategy to use.

This is interesting, I think the prisoner's dilemma is fascinating no matter what the specifics.

[Adam]

Well the standard answer to the prisoner's dilemma that I have always heard is that if it is a one time dilemma it is always better to defect, but if you are engaging in a string of interactions without a known endpoint the best strategy is a 'tit-for-tat' where you start by cooperating, but from that point on give what you get.

It's been a while since I've done any real reading about the Dilemma, so I could of course be wrong, but what I remember is that tit-for-tat isn't necessarily the best strategy in all cases, but it's considered a stable strategy because it does very well in a population in which it is common, and likely to encounter other copies of itself.

That being said the game you describe (I have never played the game) does not seem to present a symmetric prisoner's dilemma. If my character sees another character battling automated beasties only I get to choose whether to defect or cooperate, he just hopes I will be nice to him. (Isn't this the case? again I haven't played the game.)

It varies from situation to situation, depending on who gets there first, what each player is doing at the time, etc., but, yes, it's often an asymmetric confrontation.

Also, if the game is so large that the odds of your encountering the same player (or knowing that you are encountering the same player) is such that you can't play tit-for-tat, then you are effectively playing a one off prisoner's dilemma, in which case defection is the only strategy to use.

Exactly. By design, there's virtually no way to turn the situation into a true iterated Dilemma, because it's rare for the same two players to find themselves facing each other in similarly even-odds situations more than once or twice. There is a limited iteration of sorts, in that death in the game is not permanent, so if I gank you, you're able to take revenge after you've run through the ghost world, located your corpse, reentered it, and rested enough to regain your full range of abilities so, as I alluded in the essay, the temporary winner of an encounter needs to keep one eye on the loser's corpse if he/she intends to remain in the same area.

One idea that interests me is developing a way to make true tit-for-tat possible, not on an individual player level, but at a larger "societal" level. The game allows users to write custom UI mods (for example, I use a mod that gives me additional hotkeys for my abilities, one that displayes the current real world time on screen, one that tallies the number of reagents I'm carrying for my various spells and displays the count where I can see it, and several others). I'd like to craft a custom mod that would record the name of each opposing faction player that I encountered along with a flag indicating whether they were cooperators or defectors, and allow me to share my personal database with other players in my faction. Convincing several of the larger guilds (groups of players who band together to provide mutual support in the game) on each side to adopt the mod, along with a general policy of ganking those who were flagged as defectors and not those who were flagged as cooperators would provide incentive to cooperate and might lead to interesting results.

Having said that, though, I'm personally an excellent example of the arational reasons to gank. I've ben stabbed in the back by so many damned undead rogues that I'll attack one on sight, if they're bothering me or not.

[Ensign Steve]

Wow, Adam! That was an awesome read!

[Weaselboots]

I'm addicted to WOW and think its a great game. I play on Proudmoore, which is PVE, so i don't have that problem of ganking or being ganked. Though if a did i would be one of the types that left people alone, i definately wouldn't attack someone while they were fighting something and would get bloody annoyed if the same happened to me. So i don't think i'll be starting an alt on a PVP server, though if you are on PVP then i guess the game changes and you would have to realise that and give as good as you got.
I have been PVPed accidently in Booty Bay, found somewhere quiet to lie down till it wore off, and some bloody humie comes up and starts whacking me. I thought that was lame, ok, if i'm running through your town or causing trouble then fine i'm a target but not when it obvious i don't want a fight.
( see what happens when you let 10 year olds play... )

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

Wow, Adam! That was an awesome read!

Thanks!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Weaselboots

I'm addicted to WOW and think its a great game. I play on Proudmoore, which is PVE, so i don't have that problem of ganking or being ganked. Though if a did i would be one of the types that left people alone, i definately wouldn't attack someone while they were fighting something and would get bloody annoyed if the same happened to me. So i don't think i'll be starting an alt on a PVP server, though if you are on PVP then i guess the game changes and you would have to realise that and give as good as you got.
I have been PVPed accidently in Booty Bay, found somewhere quiet to lie down till it wore off, and some bloody humie comes up and starts whacking me. I thought that was lame, ok, if i'm running through your town or causing trouble then fine i'm a target but not when it obvious i don't want a fight.
( see what happens when you let 10 year olds play... )

I'm on Stormreaver myself. The PvP dynamic is actually a big part of what entertains me about the game, which is the reason I chose a PvP server. I tried other MMORPG's (i.e. Everquest) and was bored to tears by the endless grind against AI critters. Oddly enough, given my preference for a PvP server, I spend probably 95% of my time in WoW doing PvE stuff, but the constant threat from other players, and the way it changes the PvE dynamic is what I enjoy about this particulr game, as opposed to opther examples of the genre that I've played.

Oh, and to relate to your story, I *hate* the Goblin towns. All the Warlock class quests past level 20 seem to send me to Ratchet, so I'm constantly looking over my shoulder while I'm trying to talk to key people in town, watching for high level Horde with nothing better to do than slap me down.

[Clutch Munny]

Why yes, Adam, that should be in the Articles section!




Okay, I failed Subtle Hinting 101.

[viscousmemories]

OMG u have a lot of time on ur hands, ROFLCOPTER!!!1!!


I can't believe nobody else said it first.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Why yes, Adam, that should be in the Articles section!




Okay, I failed Subtle Hinting 101.

Thank you for prompting me to go back and reread what I'd written in an attempt to figure out what could possibly be Articles-worthy about it. I've discovered several flaws and areas to be improved upon.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

OMG u have a lot of time on ur hands, ROFLCOPTER!!!1!!


I can't believe nobody else said it first.

I was wondering who the first would be. Come on, people, I put a big obvious "KICK ME" sign on my back and it takes you more than 24 frickin' hours to oblige me???

[seebs]

Isn't there a rule against applying game theory to an actual game?

[livius drusus]

Wait. You have a girlfriend?

[Farren]

I recall reading in some book discussing both evolution and tangentially social darwinism (I think it was "How the Leopard Changed its Spots" that as a statistical outcome of many "Prisoners Dilemmas" is that co-operation benefits all the most and so is a better choice if entire populations can reach some consensus in choosing. The selfish option ("defection") always produces a worse overall effect. In MMORPG's, of course, the welfare of the society generally doesn't ultimately benefit the player, so this dynamic is absent (except in certain MMORPG's specifically designed to let the player reap the benefits of large scale cooperation)

[Ensign Steve]

ROFLCOPTER!!!1!!

What does this mean? I was driving home from work (this is the shit I think about when the local rock stations are both at commercial) and all I could come up with is, "rolling on the floor laughing, cause only people tell every rumor." It's a stretch, I know. Sadly, it was the best out of several I came up with, most of which I mercifully cannot remember. Please school me.

[pescifish]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Wait. You have a girlfriend?

Yeah, what she asked! I apologize; although your article was fascinating and well written, this really is my burning interest at this time.

[pescifish]

Well, that, and what does "ROFLCOPTER!!!1!!" mean?

[Ensign Steve]

Maybe it should be "evil rumors." "Evil rumors" sounds better.

And, Adam, it's okay for you to have a girlfriend. But only cuz I got married already.

[viscousmemories]

Don't you people have Google?

ROFLCOPTER.

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Don't you people have Google?

What's a google?

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Adam

Thank you for prompting me to go back and reread what I'd written in an attempt to figure out what could possibly be Articles-worthy about it. I've discovered several flaws and areas to be improved upon.

My earlier flippancy aside, I agree with Clutch that it would make an excellent article as it is. If you insist that it needs some fixing up I hope you'll consider submitting it when you're done with the modifications.

As a former MUDder with a fetish for studying social dynamics I think it's a fascinating read. I mostly avoid RPG's these days 'cause they're black holes of time suckage, but I'm sure I'll be drawn back in eventually.

[Soubrette]

I'm with your girlfriend Adam - I'm not a great games player myself but my kids have Jak and Daxter on the playstation (they're only little ) and my eldest takes great pleasure in killing as many innocent bystanders as horrifically as possible

It actually upsets me a little bit

Sou