I'm thinking more now about how it can apply to Player behaviour in multi-player games.
I've already encountered some form of cooperation in a competitive game (MMORPGs: grouping).
Here, each player wants something (experience, items, quest) and in order to achieve his goal, he enlists the help of others, who all have their own goals to achieve. They share their strength, but they also have to share the spoils.
I've always been fond of a particular kind of game type where at first participants work together, only to eventually end up fighting each other.
If we add an AI element to this in the form of an AI opponent (or more than one) we get the following situation:
Player 1
Player 2
Player 3
Player ...
Player 10
AI
Each player now has to decide for himself what he wants to do
a) fight other players in order to eliminate them
b) help other players in order to first eliminate AI opponent
c) help other players in order to eliminate strong players
No matter what choice a player makes, he realizes that in the end, it will be a one-on-one fight between the last two remaining participants. So, if he chooses to match up with a strong player, in order to easily defeat all others, he has to know that in the end, this temporary 'friend' will win.
Think of current RTS games like Age Of Empires. Imagine a multi-player game, where an AI opponent of a random skill level can be added to the mix. Players will have to make a choice if they want to team up with other players in order to locate and destroy this potentially very powerful force, or if they want to let others do the job, while they sit and hide, slowly growing in power, hoping to be able to easily defeat what is left of the enemies' forces after they battle the AI.
Not sure if this really makes use of the 'game theory' but I think that it adds elements of choice, reminding me of the different strategy scenarios mentioned above.
EDIT: Watching Beautiful Mind at work now, so I'm afraid I'll be influenced by Hollywood a little too much on this matter.
[edited by - Silvermyst on March 21, 2002 12:57:10 PM]
John F. Nash
quote:Original post by Silvermyst
I''ve always been fond of a particular kind of game type where at first participants work together, only to eventually end up fighting each other.
[clip]
Ever watched that game show with the British chick? "The Weakest Link." That is exactly how the show works, the better your team does the more money the winner gets, but to be the winner you have to beat everyone else. So the better your team members, the more money is raised but the less chance you have of winning it.
However, it ends up being pretty formulaic. What happens is the strong players last until there are 3, then the 2 weaker ones vote of the strongest one.
So then the question becomes, as the strongest player can you purposely tank to throw people off? Probably the best strategy is to do well in the first rounds to help collect money, then appear to suck in the last round or two...
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
