Red Resigns: What will Anet do about this?

I still don't understand why people are suggesting "fixes" for RR day or HB in general.

For the third time, they're removing HB. It doesn't matter. We'll get one more RR day MAYBE. It's not going to asplode GW for there to be 1 more RR day.

Let it go, people.

Which explains why you don't get the problem. The problem isn't that players can communicate to solve a cooperative dilemma. It's that the cooperative dilemma exists in the first place. HB shows that Axelrod was more right than we thought; if the behavioral rule is well known, you can get communities to engage in repeated tit-for-tat behavior.

Behavior in the Hall of Heroes shows the impossibility of your approach. A similar tit-for-tat problem exists because the quantity of elite players is small. People gank for friends on long win streaks with the expectation of reciprocity. There's no way that you can prevent people from knowing who the holding team is, or the length of their win streak.

You solve these problems by altering the payoffs. Strip the zkeys so that only players interested in playing HB for its own sake (scarce as they are) do so. Punish people for failing in Halls when there are three teams.

EDIT:

Then economics would not apply. The entire discipline of economics has no meaning if there is an infinite quantity of desirable shinies. The math blows up.

There's this thing called time. You can only acquire the items so fast. They have value because you have to exchange something valuable (your time) to manufacture them. (And for the really scarce stuff, there's no guarantee that they will ever drop for you irrespective of time investment.)

Were you around during the dupe? A large enough influx of currency will have a lasting impact, even if the influx is short in duration.

If 95% of them get used, then the other 5% still hang around. The fact that a good zkey sink exists reduces the magnitude of the problem. It doesn't eliminate it.

You've forgotten that gold is generated in addition to the faction.

True enough, given that HB is either removed from the rotation or removed entirely very soon.

I wouldn't even bother with HB if it wasn't for the zkeys.

And that's where you, and almost everyone, have it DEAD wrong. What you wrote is common belief, but shows a lack of understanding of why RR works. RR doesn't require tit-for-tat to work. Not resigning is strictly dominated by resigning. In fact, considering that the likelihood of facing the same player twice on RR days is almost zero, RR is the least tit-for-tattable format in the entire game.

Even if tit-for-tat could exist in HB, any tit-for-tat behavoir other than something that looked EXACTLY like RR (which is not tit-for-tat) would be non-equilibrium and thus worse off for everyone involved.

1) Not resigning is NOT strictly dominated by resigning. If you cared about your rating, you'd always play. Your statement is true for most players on RR day, but not all.

2) This IS reciprocity on a mass scale. You map out because you can reasonably expect your opponent to map out when you draw blue. If you couldn't, it would make no sense to map out. Of course, you wouldn't be in the arena in the first place if you expected to have to fight.

What's interesting is that the T4T punishment mechanism isn't necessary for the cooperative equilibrium to obtain. You expect to see 'tit' obtain only because of the threat of 'tat'. What appears to be happening is that the expectation of observing 'tit' in the future makes the arrangement self-enforcing.

But that makes no sense. If the situation is as you stipulate and you never face the same player again, you're better off acting as though you want to play. The opponent will map out, your win rate improves with sufficiently low time investment to make doing so worthwhile, people eventually catch on and the cooperative equilibrium breaks down.

That isn't happening (yet), which is interesting.

I usually avoid threads like this because it seems they are inevitably filled with garbage. Imagine my delight to discover instead a discussion of game theory!

A handful of hypothesis in no particular order:

1. The GW playerbase is not perfectly rational.

2. The GW playerbase is not perfectly perceptive. They may believe they will see the same player again.

3. The GW playerbase is not perfectly intelligent. Working out with certainty that defecting is a better idea is probably beyond the abilities of some and, while within the abilities of others, too much mental work given that RR works "well enough" ("satisfice" mechanism).

4. RR yeilds some psychic benefits that defecting does not -- the thrill of doing the forbidden and the chance to "send a message" to a-net. Perhaps these psychic benefits are more valuable than the marginal improvement in win rate of defecting over RR.

All of those hypotheses are probably true. I'm not convinced that any specific one explains the observation fully. If the explanation is cognitive limitations, the equilibrium should be more fractured than it is.

Something systematic (generalizable?) appears to be at work here.

Wow.. have any of you ever read any game theory? You all bring up good points but somehow you fail to agree on a common model.

Here's my take on it:

1. Rational behaviour. This is basis for any model. This point should be unnecessary to debate IMO, it is something you can generally accept as given. The playerbase is large enough to expect rational behaviour on a general scale.

2. Complete/total information. This is definitely a crucial variable in economic/game analysis. It does influence how RR is played out, but as I will show the ladder element of HB will for all practical purposes remove this variable from the RR Game.

3. External effects. Chthon mentions "psychic benefits" which is one such external effect. I will get back to this as it does influence how RR is played out, however I can say already at this point that it's likely working in tandem with the reciprocal effect of the main reward. (title+faction)

In their conclusions I find traversc to be correct, and Martin Alvito wrong. (though he brings up good points!)

RR HB Game Analysis:

1. Introduction and problem layout.
AFAIK this phenomenon did not exist until about a month ago. The interesting thing is why this didn't emerge earlier and what makes it sustain itself and even grow proportionately. If you think this post is growing out of proportion skip directly to point 4.

2. Transaction costs.
Some activities may be favorable but are not set in motion because the entry threshold or the transaction cost is too high initially. In this case this is because no one was resigning, everyone played to win. Being the only one to resign would simply not help one bit. Someone(soldat and his friend I believe) became aware of how the rating system and pairing system worked(ladder). By losing a number of games in a row they would lower their rating substantially("tanking the rank") increasing their chances of playing each other and other low-ranked players by a significant margin. They extended their idea and invitation to GWGuru and a small base of people were effectively farming each other in the low end of the ladder. Even with waiting times and only winning 49% of matches this method proved quicker than playing "legit". In other words they had by sharing information and paying the initial transaction costs set up a favourable system for themselves.

3. A simple game.
To quickly show how rational behaviour can be generalised into a model I'm adding a simple game. This shows how acting in pure self interest will always be favourable in an unregulated system.
My action:
Selfish
Altruism(solidarity)
The action of others:
Selfish
Altruism(solidarity)
I would add this into a table at this point but I cba Basically it sums up to show that when acting individually it's always favourable to act in self interest(selfish). If everyone is altruistic(sharing the fruits of their labor for instance) I can still reap more benefits by not sharing the products of my own work. If everyone is being selfish it would still pay off for me to act in self interest, ie. why should I share when no one else is? If we assume(and we can) that everyone is rational and sets up this argument everyone will end up acting selfish in this system. This is a "law" and is the main driving force behind market theory. (Adam Smith and all that)

4. Why RR is a market model.
How does this translate to RR? Simply because the RR system that has been set up works the same way a market does. When everyone is acting in their own self interest it will be to the benefit of all. This is due to how the matching system in HB works. The system will try to pair people who have a similar rank(based on your rating), this is done to reach as many fair matches as possible(hence being more fun for the community, and it's a good thing). The winner will receive rating and the loser will lose rating based on a formula I don't really have present in mind.

Instead of actually playing games it is much quicker to resign half your matches and win the other half, the RR system lets you do just that by setting a common rule that "Red Resigns". This is not arbitrary, because red is always the player with the highest rating him resigning ensures equilibrium. If blue was to resign the higher ranked player would eventually climb out of the "RR area" and get into the "serious area" where people who play for fame and glory rather than faction alone prevail. This means that for both players it is rational to have red resign. Any other way of doing it will be unfavourable for both, the blue player will lose(bad) and the red player will only get an immediate reward. He will have to "tank" his rank back down again by losing about the same number of matches to get back into the RR area. So as long as this state of affairs has been set up it is indeed reciprocal and will remain so for as long as players find it rewarding. If the rewards are removed or rewards can be obtained more easily elsewhere the system will collapse and might not easily be started up again. (Reference to 2 about transaction costs)

5. External effects.
The main model can be modified by adding in other variables. However, I can't identify any variables that strictly oppose how RR works. For one as chthon mentions we have psychic effects. I would speculate that one effect would be the feeling of belonging to a community. When someone "is kind" and resigns to you you will want to pay the favour back in kind increasing your chances of resigning next time you are red. I believe this is true for the majority of players, it's human nature to repay good with good. Of course you have other elements like people who are upset about "cheating the system" and similar who will refuse resigning, maybe verbally abusing others etc. However, these are in a clear minority and the majority still finds it rewarding to partake in the system. Also chthon(wow dude, hardest nick ever to spell?) brings up lack of intelligence. This is true, some players out there(you don't know who you are! hehe) will not understand how the ladder works and will think they are being really smart by never resigning. Of course they will initially reap all the benefits but will ultimately bring themselves out of "friendly RR zone" and end up facing more people of their own kind (people who don't resign for whatever reason).

I think I've covered the most important aspects, and... long post is long I guess. Also I don't know why i use british spelling not american.. don't flame on that account, I'm just as likely to write american english in another post.

Edit: Screwed up my numbering..

I took this screenshot back in 2006:



This isn't anything new.

They removed the option of /roll in pvp for that specific reason long ago.

Yeah, you have a point. But RR is something new. Earlier it required players to accept on a system of rps and it was not directly linked to staying in "favorable RR range" so to speak. The transaction costs were significantly higher, you had to face up to a guy willing to roll where it would always be favorable to win the roll. This increases the incentive to cheat by various means. Each match required players to discuss and agree on rolling, performing the roll, abiding to the agreed upon outcome etc. The RR system is much easier to execute in this respect.

Last, but not least /rps command was removed. I think the /rps system was more similar to a tit for tat-system where agreements were made based on the assumption that people would play by the rules. The RR system does not require people to play by any rules.

The bolded statements are where you argument is flawed. There is ZERO benefit to staying on as red, simply as a result of the peculiar mechanics of the way HB works (which is different than any other PvP format).

Also, if you take the fact that most people aren 't completely rational actors and a percentage would rather punish others for trying to "beat the system," then there is quite a bit of downside to staying on as red.

Regardless of what your opponents do, it is better to both leave as red and to leave as blue if your opponent doesn't.

This is a side point, so let's keep these arguments separate. Tit-for-tat REQUIRES a reasonable expectation that you will face your opponent again. Even if it is "reciprocity on a mass scale" (which I argued above, it is not) that's not tit-for-tat; you'd have to call it something else.

I'd like to point out it isn't anything "new." Coupled with the z-quest it is, but not the concept itself. I posted on the update thread as well as the HB forum (my thread there was promptly deleted by mods) within 2 hours of the update that removed /roll that everybody was just going to switch to resigning over the color, although I suggested blue resign, instead of the alliterative, and more popular RR. If cape color was taken away, HB players would just come up with something else, like rock, paper, scissors, or West/North player resign.

You're missing my point. I'm not saying farming HB is new. I'm saying the RR system with it's self-sustaining ability and market model functionality is. Contrary to any other method mentioned it will always pay off for the red player to resign, meaning that once the system is in place it will sustain itself until the functionality/reward gets manipulated by a 3rd party(Anet).

I made a rather elaborate post on this earlier in the thread. I'm fully aware that HB has been farmed by other methods before. The new feature here is the "game theory" aspect of it, fundamentally different from the other concepts.

This can't be a stable equilibrium. If this were true, then an individual player can game this system by never leaving. By doing so, that player wins 100% of matches rather than 50%, and increases the haul per unit of time invested. Perhaps not in the long run due to the mechanics, but there is no HB long run.

Coin a term for it if you want to be precise about semantics.

If we had the expectation that HB will stick around, this is true. However, we know that the arena and the quest will be removed soon. You're implicitly assuming an infinitely repeated game here, or at least one with an unknown endpoint.

The fact that red is always the higher rated player is interesting (and explains both why red resigns and why you get punished in the limit for deviating). It's unnecessary to equilibrium. If the blue/red assignment were random, either color could be the designated resigner. You'd still win and lose half of your matches on average, and the rating problem would even out (usually) by chance.

EDIT: Sankt, you're missing the forest for the trees. Hawk is correct that there is no difference between /roll resigning and RR. It's functionally the same game. The only difference is that you're not relying on chance to take care of the rating issue.

Don't you think you're being a bit charitable calling them "HB players"?

It is a stable equilibrium. When setting up for farming HB you are indeed planning for the long run, you wouldn't bother to tank your initial rank by losing 50 games or so just to play a couple of games. The concept of farming implies doing something repeatedly over time. I've written a long post earlier about why it will always pay off at the individual level to resign as red.

Yes and no. The model I laid out implies a lasting state obviously. I agree with you that when the knowledge of a final date gets more fleshed out people's behaviour might change trying to maximize a short term goal. (I'm speculating but for people farming in their last hour might want to play the "chicken game" with his opponent even if he is red, even at the expense of raising his rating since rating will end soon anyway.) The explanation is found in the theory itself, it does not oppose the theory. And let's be honest, plans made by Anet do have an unknown endpoint.

I'm not actually. It's just that you guys keep missing my point. I'm solely trying to highlight the game theory aspect. The fact that higher rating is linked to being red is the core issue. With /roll or /rps or north/south or whatever you have to deal with a number of other factors. I will only name a few: For instance you have some motivation to cheat, even after losing a roll you might want to stick around and see if the other guy gives up anyway. It would be much harder to actually convince people of using this method. Using the method is not linked to being in a certain "rating zone", meaning you would end up facing people not abiding the "rules" considerably more often.

That's all I'm saying. I know it sounds very abstract and might not be so easy to see the direct impact on practical play. In short RR is a vastly more efficient way of farming and in all likelihood increasing both the players involved and the total output of zkeys compared to any other method(by a lot).

Oh I'm not disparaging anything else you said. Very nice application of economic theory and game theory.

It isn't just a question of semantics. There is no term for "reciprocity on a mass scale" because there is no equilibrium associated with it. Unlike tit-for-tat, defecting all the time would strictly dominate, since you wouldn't expect to play the same player twice (and hence, no retribution). Whatever equilibrium in place would be unstable, and quickly break down. (You even alluded to this situation in your initial post.)

However, the fact that the system hasn't broken down and won't any time soon shows a flaw in your line of argument. Sankt's post is basically spot on.

What you're saying, in one sense, is actually obvious. If color were decoupled from rating, the name of the game would simply change from Red Resign (RR) to Higher Rank Resign (HRR) with complete isomorphism. (Although, let's be honest, numbers are a difficult concept for the GW population compared to colors.)

I know several people that have RR'ed THOUSANDS of games. Heck, the HB title itself requires 50,000 matches, and there are people who have RR'ed pretty much all of it. If you don't believe that is a "long run" I'd like to see what you think is.

I think /roll is much more similar than you think (though not to disparage your analysis of RR). /roll was actually very, very common, especially in the lower ranks. When z-quests came out, /roll exploded naturally. Actually, HB z-quest was the reason /roll got removed, IIRC.

Actually, I'd say that /roll grew much faster than RR did. Given more time, the "range" would have developed naturally, and similarly, cheaters would push true /roll-ers down in rank, simultaneously, they would rise in rank and have to tank to get back down.

As martin pointed out, you don't need rank information to approach an equilibrium. You just need a way to make the game non-symmetrical, which color designation and /roll both do.

The difference I think is mostly psychological. With /roll, it feels like you always have a chance to win the game, even if it's always 50%. It doesn't feel so much like you are just giving up, as with RR. This could explain why it took so long for RR to catch on.

So your "solution" to the problem is to make all these complicated changes (that we know will never happen), when the simple solution is to remove the REASON for exploiting (or better yet never have introduced the reason to begin with)?

The removal of /roll was probably one of the most hilarious things in the history of Guild Wars looking back at it. Anet introduces people to things that make them WANT to exploit the game, and instead of removing this, they make a sad attempt at removing the exploit. The problem? As long as these things exist, people will always find a way to exploit your game to get them.

Yes they are removing it, so this thread is mostly worthless. But I think the events here speak to a greater position I have...that it shows how Anet manages things.

They introduce a problem into their game (titles), and instead of removing the problem (because too many people like it), they try to fix everything AROUND the problem (obviously to no avail).

Then they introduce another problem (HB), and instead of fixing the problem (because they can't), they remove it from the game (because not as many people like it).

It is a bit humorous to think about in this way.

It is the following:

Every time you win, your rating increases.
The higher your rating, the higher your likelyhood of facing non resigning enemies.

=> The more you win, the more avarage time will you need to win the following match.

The opposite is true as well.

The more you loose, the less avarage time will you need to win the following match.


Every time a normal Player faces a "good" RRer, his chances of winning are ~100%
Every time a "good" RRer faces another , his chances of winning are ~0%
Every time a "good" RRer faces another "good" RRer, his chances of winning are ~50%

The two groups seperate rather fast, leading to RR nearly always facing other RR.
In the bottom regions, you will find the diehard RR players, zoning 10-15 seconds after loading, before the start of the match, sometimes even if they are blue, as waiting would cost you another 15-35 seconds to see wheter or not the opposite player may be afk. Those are the 600-800 crowed that only farm titlepoints, they are active even without the z quest and have been for month.

Actually, my point was that there exists a huge array of solutions with varying degrees of generality but despite that people act like the problems were intractable. A specific problem is mentioned, I give a specific solution. You want a general solution? I can give one:

Make all intangible (untradeable) PvP benefits into a zero-sum game. Make all tangible (tradeable) PvP benefits time capped so that they cannot be acquired beyond a set, moderate rate (like the daily Balth faction quota for the Zaishen Challenge). The cap periods should be chosen individually to match the given game formats. Loot scaling for the PvP crowd

Yes...but those solutions are overly complicated given the situation. There is a much simpler solution.

Yes, the one that I gave in my previous post. However, it would not be feasible to implement it at this point of the life cycle of the game. I agree with you that the most important point of this discussion is the concern about whether ANet learned the right things from GW1, because if they did then they can implement it the right way from day one in GW2 without half the player base ragequitting.

I think it is much deeper than that. The playerbase is not ragequitting because they enjoy this type of thing, and that in itself is a problem. Anet will give us more because people enjoy it. It is already known that they haven't learned.

We the minority are sitting here in this thread talking about RR being a problem, yet HB has 60 districts with it and 1 without it. To ArenaNet, HB is the problem that needs to be removed and whatever is causing RR is the solution.

So we can sit here all night and talk solutions to RR and claim RR is the problem, or we can realize that Anet is introducing abusive things into their game and allowing the players to exploit their game, and this trend is very likely to continue into GW2.

It is more of thing that exploiting yields rewards. Rewards that were supposed to take week, months or even years of 'normal' gameplay.

Rewards that are nearly impossible dues to commitment required, yet desirable enough to make masses shout 'gimme!'. Hence, people jump every opportunity to bypass supposed reward schedule.

So the fact they're going to remove HB suddenly makes cheating moral?

Cheating is cheating is cheating.
You may get away with it, but you remain a cheat.
If that's something you feel proud of, you have a problem.

I'd laugh if people got punished for it. It would be hilarious, not to mention the most amount of work Anet would have done for well over a year.

you shouldnt need RR day to make money, or keys.

Keys should be aquired through pvp play imo, considering how you are meant to obtain them, it was meant to be for pvp players to make some cash or use up the balth faction they had left over after getting all unlocks, and now all the pve players are coming in and getting an easy stack of keys in a day.

And if you are a PvE'er, you should be able to make money easily without having to cheat the system.

I wouldn't be surprised if we did, but the worst I can see them doing is giving people a slap in the wrist. Like I said way earlier, does anyone remember that time when Anet banned all the HFFF botters for 2 weeks instead of an instant perma-ban, because they 'felt like the title was too hard to accomplish by normal means, wich forced people to bot'. 2 weeks for botting ffs. I don't see them doing much right now, and even temporarily banning something like 7-10k people would be a gigantic dumb move by Anet IMO.

You are right that temp banning would be a dumb move...perma banning would be the correct move. Exploiting is exploiting. There is no difference between RR and duping in this regard. If Anet knowingly allows people to do it (and quite honestly encourages it by giving rewards), they are supporting exploitation of their game.

And Anet has a history of beeing light on the banhammer judging by the botters issue. But you're going way too far by comparing RR to duping and exploiting, because no one is taking advantage of a glitch in the game, and it's not any different than rolling a pvp char for repeatedly collecting the zcombat reward. Match manipulation, yes. Though the last time that happened, all they did was take away [rawr] and the opponent guild's gold capes for a month.

In any case, banning a serious chunck of the active, long time players on a declining game due to something that's gonna be deleted in a few weeks time at best, doesn't seem rational or wise.

But I'd totally do it just for the lulz.

Pretty much the same way they handled the buff to jagged strike and fox strike. Combined they spawned a meta of R/A's abusing quick sin attacks, ranger expertise and block stances. Instead of dealing with the problem(stupid buff to sin skills) they fixed nearly everything around the problem: stance ending on melee attack, death blossom recharge prolonged.

It is a bit humorous to think about in this way. Or just sad?

Let's hope you never get a job as chief of police in a dictatorial regime. Death penalty for shoplifting ftw?

I'm willing to admit that /roll probably was more widespread and executed than I initially thought. I never played /roll so I'm not sure how much time was actually put into a) setting up the agreement in each case between the players b) executing the command and determining the winner c) any extra time spent on coercion/manipulation.

From a strictly rational point of view(and disregarding the discomforts of cheating your opponent) it would be optimal to spend a little extra time to see if you could psyche out your opponent even after losing the roll. The reason is that you have already spent a significant amount of time getting into the match: Say 30 seconds waiting for a match, 10 seconds countdown timer, 20 seconds initial pre-match timer. So if you map out it will take you at least 60 seconds for your next 50/50 chance at getting a win. Spending 5-10 seconds extra might be beneficial or at least appear to be beneficial if the odds of your opponent mapping out are high. And if your opponent is rational they will be, he might not be mentally prepared to actually play out the match with uncertain outcome. Even if he was cheated it may seem wiser to map out, forfeit the win but at least only spend 60 seconds for his next chance rather than a 4-6 minutes match. Of course the same incentive to play the chicken game applies to him, he might suspect you are bluffing(in this case, rightly so) and will wait an extra amount of time to find out before finally conceding.

All in all the /roll boils down to a system of more uncertain variables and where several actions might prove favourable depending on your opponent etc. The problem with your rank rising can be more easily remedied by doing a chain of resigns, this way you skip the pre-match timer and the effort of having to deal with /roll - you're saving time. The RR system deals much more effectively with deviations from the "rules" and is thus a more efficient farming method. How much more output is gained in reality I can't hope to calculate. I would guess it could mean the difference of having 40 districts with /roll vs having 60 districts of RR, ie. an increase in efficiency by 50%. Obviously the difference could also be almost negligible like 1%, it might even be the opposite given that this "psychological factor" you mention about people actually getting a kick out of the thrill of /roll.

Now I'm putting this to rest. I understand your point completely and for all practical purposes /roll is very much alike RR. I just found myself intrigued by this beautiful, intrinsic value of RR making it appear to have a life of its own.
Also I think we(or maybe just me) are the only ones discussing this very theoretical aspect of it.

ArenaNet does not want to do this because one of the groups they're juggling are the long-time players with lots of money, who do not wish to see other players gain money.

That said, if you want easy money, go out and do your Vanquisher title track (fun and easy) then take all the money you made from it, along with any max weapon components, and any elite tomes, and any other valuable things, and start selling them off. Once you've done that you should have plenty enough money for whatever it is you wanted to buy.

This won't make you anywhere near as rich as the aforementioned players, but it will give you enough, and you get to do it while having fun.

I wonder how Anet feels about getting bent over by it's player-base, because, I already know how it's players feel about it.
"it OK to exploit/abuse it, it's being taken out"

the herd mentality sure has changed around here. or. wait. no, it prolly hasn't. it's just showing it's true colors. I'm awaiting the outcome of this. there are a few spl0its dying to be used, and this RR day abuse just might be a get out of jail free card.

-and remember, these are the same thousands that are going to be 'our' GW2 populace. the 'if you can't beat them, join them' attitude is slowly soaking in. that 's bad.

/edit
as stated, cheating is cheating is cheating. but now if no action is taken, cheating is, well, allowed.

I think that you are just paranoid over there.

Those people are minority of minority, I would doubt that there were more than 100 people with 'old money' ever.

They are exactly the same kind of people who either played hardcore, got a lot of stuff and moved on already or people who are way too attached to game to quit, well, over anything sans server shutdown.

There is no way devs would even consider them as group that needs special protection. Besides, people who achieve something in mmo and then demand noone else should get it are generally despised by devs and rest of community alike.

The next RR day is Sunday, if anyone is interested. So it should only be 1 more day of RR and hopefully the following thursday Sealed Deck comes in.

Thanks and yes absolutely, I want to experience this myself. Never did RR so far but I have a spare account that's rotting away and I wouldn't mind if it gets banned.

What's the average amount of z-keys you can make in an hour?