These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Game Theory
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Herbwise Freeman
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2015-01-21 10:59:42 UTC
Axloth Okiah wrote:
Herbwise Freeman wrote:
Axloth Okiah wrote:
I love the idea but im not convinced of the validity. How do you define optimal behaviour? And how do you infer it from the correlation between number of players and the sec status of their home system?


Game theory defines optimal behaviour, whether or not it truly is is irrelevant. Basically if the trend meets the criteria set out in my last post it would be considered optimal. The reason it's considered optimal is that it presumes that the distribution allows for greatest resource acquisition per individual (on average).

Imagine if you will a fish tank where twice as much food is deposited at one end than is the other. Come feeding time you would expect twice the number of fish to aggregate on the side with twice as much food. That is optimal and the example I've used is a famous experiment used to justify the existence of optimal foraging behaviours.
I see, but wont the results change depending on how you define your "resources"? Different players are after different things. Not everyone's resource they are foraging for is rats and asteriods. Large number of players forage for resources such as kills, tears or lore.

Either way, I'm looking forward to seeing the results. And let me know if you need anything wormhole related for this.


That's a very good point. Hunting for players can be viewed in two lights, on one hand it could be seen as a defensive/aggressive act aimed at protecting ones territory (or acquiring more) on the other it could be seen as resource acquisition akin to how a lion consumes prey. Again we must consider which is the norm and model according to that, less we exclude one of the two groups and focus our research on the other. I envisioned resources as being the 'wealth' of a system, that is the average total value of assets in that system, belts, anoms etc... Obviously that would be incredibly hard to map and thus I was relying primarily on security status to assume system wealth.

That type of question is exactly what is needed and is much encouraged, thanks!

As for the corpmatre who suggested academic channels, I am not familiar with this, could you elaborate?
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2015-01-21 11:29:31 UTC
Herbwise Freeman wrote:
Axloth Okiah wrote:
Herbwise Freeman wrote:
Axloth Okiah wrote:
I love the idea but im not convinced of the validity. How do you define optimal behaviour? And how do you infer it from the correlation between number of players and the sec status of their home system?


Game theory defines optimal behaviour, whether or not it truly is is irrelevant. Basically if the trend meets the criteria set out in my last post it would be considered optimal. The reason it's considered optimal is that it presumes that the distribution allows for greatest resource acquisition per individual (on average).

Imagine if you will a fish tank where twice as much food is deposited at one end than is the other. Come feeding time you would expect twice the number of fish to aggregate on the side with twice as much food. That is optimal and the example I've used is a famous experiment used to justify the existence of optimal foraging behaviours.
I see, but wont the results change depending on how you define your "resources"? Different players are after different things. Not everyone's resource they are foraging for is rats and asteriods. Large number of players forage for resources such as kills, tears or lore.

Either way, I'm looking forward to seeing the results. And let me know if you need anything wormhole related for this.


That's a very good point. Hunting for players can be viewed in two lights, on one hand it could be seen as a defensive/aggressive act aimed at protecting ones territory (or acquiring more) on the other it could be seen as resource acquisition akin to how a lion consumes prey. Again we must consider which is the norm and model according to that, less we exclude one of the two groups and focus our research on the other. I envisioned resources as being the 'wealth' of a system, that is the average total value of assets in that system, belts, anoms etc... Obviously that would be incredibly hard to map and thus I was relying primarily on security status to assume system wealth.

That type of question is exactly what is needed and is much encouraged, thanks!

As for the corpmatre who suggested academic channels, I am not familiar with this, could you elaborate?


Don't forget that roams occur just for fun too.
Herbwise Freeman
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2015-01-21 11:39:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Herbwise Freeman
Whilst I appreciate your feedback, I don't think you're getting the point. I'm not saying that everything need be optimal, of course suboptimal behaviour occurs in game and in nature. If fun ganks were the norm then quickly a resource defecit would manifest rendering them too costly to undertake. I'm aware a portion of the populous of eve have wealth untold but the fact that eve sees consistent inflation indicates that the wealth (resources) generated are not being consumed as fast as they are acquired. Granted its a tangent point but it is indicative of the player base as a whole are at least trying to forage optimally.

I'll admit that because resources and isk are distinct it muddies the water some what but its safe to say that the sum material generated is greater than that destroyed.
Axloth Okiah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2015-01-21 12:58:25 UTC
Just a thought: wouldnt SD modelling work better for this than GT? It allows for tracking larger number of variables over time...

SSC Brokering Service
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#25 - 2015-01-21 14:55:43 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
HiddenPorpoise wrote:
CCP doesn't like being datamined. It I recall: high, null, wormholes, low is the order of where people live.

so, population wise, they live in Safe, safest, dangerous, camping-land? honestly first two should be switched (though honestly about null that is slightly LESS true after recent and hopefully future changes)


The last available data showed that null is about 15x more dangerous than hisec going by numbers of ships lost per capita.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Desvath Benepeth
Einherjar Yggdrasils
#26 - 2015-02-24 12:52:34 UTC
sounds like a "legal department" mine field
FireFrenzy
Cynosural Samurai
#27 - 2015-02-24 14:55:22 UTC
Okay: my masters degree at work:

Yes it is possible to make the details so obscure that as "strategic intel" the data becomes meaningless you have no idea that Character number 783484r732 in corp 0900023138347 Currently in Amarr is called FireFrenzy of Satan's Unicorns.

That said, even this HIGHLY obscured data which has no direct correlation to anything you could use in a big sweeping overarching plot. That said it might tell you where to go find unsuspecting clusters of people to go bomb on or do whatever you want on... Bunch of people living in some out of the way dead end lowsec where they are mining and stuff and everyone has forgotten about them would suddenly be swarmed with people wondering why Nowhereville in Solitude has a population of 80 more or less all day...

So yeah, Never gonna happen. Interesting as though the data would be from a gameplay and statistical standpoint.
Previous page12