A Simple Mathematic Formula Is Starting To Explain The Bizarre Prevalence Of Altruism

[EnigmaMaitreya]

While this does NOT reference UO directly, it does deal with an aspect of UO that I believe a number of people agree is important.

How A Simple Mathematic Formula Is Starting To Explain The Bizarre Prevalence Of Altruism In Society

An extract (One could view Diversity as Templates/Class's as well as a more conventional definition --- Human Beings)

Since PGG are represented as a mathematical formula, diversity was introduced as a new variable in the equation. Then Santos, Santos and Pacheco used this new altered formula to calculate the percentage of collaborators in the community, in function of population diversity (in PGG this would refer to the number and type of games each individual participated or, in other words, his/her “popularity”). And in fact, it was found, that in populations with high diversity, as diversity increased also did collaboration levels.

The way PGG work is that each individual pays a certain amount to play (defectors play but do not pay/cooperate) and in the end profit, which is the total amount gathered in a game, is divided by all players. The reason why diversity increased cooperation had to with the fact that those few individuals with more connections and playing more games (the cooperators) would also have much higher “profits” and their impressive success would lead the other players to imitate their behaviour (even when the behaviour per se did not seem to improve directly their own life) resulting in an exponential increase of cooperation. In the same way, in real life the more connected/popular individuals are emulated, becoming role models and opinion makers.

Equally the model also predicted that even when no-cooperators lead to new no-cooperators (as it happens many times in real life where this kind of behaviour can spread within groups) this will result in less profit, less success and eventually their own self-extinction with only a few sporadic ones left to parasite cooperators.

Furthermore, it was also shown that the increase in cooperation was particularly accelerated when all individuals contributed to the games with the same total contribution, independently of the number of games played. This corresponds, in real life, to saying that if the act of contributing to the public good was seen as more important than the amount contributed, the percentage of collaborators in a community would grew much faster.

Interestingly, the model, when applied in a more economical perspective, also suggests that these communities, with high diversity and where the act of cooperation is what matters, will also have a much fairer wealth distribution.

In conclusion, social relations, in this case differences in “popularity”, tested when introduced into PGG , are suggested to be crucial for the spread of cooperation throughout society.

 

[Fink]

While this does NOT reference UO directly, it does deal with an aspect of UO that I believe a number of people agree is important.

I disagree.

 

[Lord GOD(GOD)]

I disagree, both that it's viewed as important and that the mathematics are relavent, I think it's over stating somethng simple (in both cases). It's all very well using a formula to chart the effects in any given scenario but maths rarely takes in to account the 'human' factor. Consider this, if that article was true that would mean managers/bosses were the most cooperative people on the planet, in my view their not.

In short that article doesn't take in to account pessemistic persolnality traits such as greed, it also doesn't take in to account that cooperation specifically in PGG's usually isn't done with any forethought and is done just because a group of friends want to do something together. (for fun or whatever other reason) As neither greed nor reason which are always random can be calculated it is (imo) impossible for a formula to predict especially when theres usually a mix of both which can change/increase/decrease at any given moment.

 

[Landicine]

A lot of game theory stuff is problematic since real people sometimes make really bad decisions or really strange decisions or no decisions. It can be interesting stuff when taken with other ideas from other fields. Raph Koster talked about it a bit in this talk I think (been a bit since I looked at it):

http://www.raphkoster.com/gaming/smallworlds_files/frame.htm

 

[Trebr Drab]

Heh, it got moved.

This gets pretty complicated, no doubt why you didn't say much about it yourself.

Suffice it to say that variety is good. Rewarding variety is a good thing.

Elite powergamers that dominate games currently aren't going to be too keen about upsetting their applecart though.

 

[EnigmaMaitreya]

The "Important" I was referring to was UO Communuity. I do believe most UO Player view Community as important.

I am not going to disagree that if this gets to far down into detail predictions/modeling it probably wont float..

But if one stands back and looks at the generalizations, then I do believe they may be on to something, in terms of Diversity having an impact on how the Community is.

It would seem relatively clear,

that if a Community were closed / of a finite makeup that Community then would tend to form vertical social structures.

that if a Community were diverse, then that community would tend to form cooperative / horizontal social structures.

I assume the driving force in both cases is ones perception of "I can do it all".

If one is in a vertical social structure then one is probably with peers. Such as a Guild of Paladins, Guild of Necromancers etc.

If one is in a horizontal social structure then one is probably amongst a diverse group. Some Paladins, some Necromancers etc.

I would assume the horizontal structure would tend to pressure the people to specialize (but may be a generalist with specializations).

I would assume the vertical structure would tend to pressure people to be tiered. First rank, Second Rank etc. This probably would tend to deny generalization.

So if we have two structures, one tending toward generalization and one tending towards Ranking then they each would require a different rule set, to survive.

I assume the generalization would favor cooperation.

I assume the ranking would favor obedience.

An analysis was published comparing (this was shortly after the Cold War Ended) U.S. and Soviet armed forces.

In General, the U.S. forces have (since WW II) been more successful with fewer members. This is attributed to the delegation of decisions to the group (battalion, platoon, squad etc) performing the action. These groups tend to be generalized rather than specialized OR if you will generalized with specializations.

The Soviet forces tended to be Ranking and as such there was little to no delegation.

Were I believe it is relevant to UO is based in my beleif that what is best for UO is a strong community, both in game and on the message boards.

For this community to be at its best, I believe there needs to be a diverse set of people. I believe these people need to be able to advocate for a diverse set of templates.

*Steps off the Soap Box*

 

[Trebr Drab]

I pretty much agree with you except that you don't need to look at a single player and say that their choice, such as being in a guild that's not diverse, means much here. It's the overall diversity that you want for more socialization and cooperation. Let people specialize, but as part of a bigger picture of variety.

Your final point about diverse templates is on the money. But equally important is play styles. UO used to be filled with a wide variety. The cooperative events included things like stage plays, chess competitions, buy-a-date auctions, roleplay events of all kinds such as murder mysteries, public and private auctions, PvP competitions, repair arms events, tamer competitions, and on and on.

Now, UO is specialized in items powergaming. And lost is the wide variety of anything else.

 

[Landicine]

I think powergaming and item collection are a big part of many online games out there. I also think that UO does have other parts. PvP and Roleplaying are the big ones. Having talked to a few friends on a "roleplaying" server for WoW, I can say more actual roleplaying goes on even on the deadest UO shard.

I think looking at individual character's specialization isn't as important as looking a player's account's makeup. I would say most accounts follow a similar breakdown of characters. I'm not sure what it is exactly, but maybe something like this:

1. Warrior
2. Mage
3. Crafter
4. PvM Template (bard, tamer, treasure hunter) or Gatherer (lumberjack,fisher)
5. Secondary of one of the above

My main account for example:
1. Warrior (Paladin Swordfighter)
2. Mage (Treasure Hunter)
3. Crafter (Smith/Tailor)
4. Gatherer (Fisher)
5. Secondary Warrior (Ninja)
6. Secondary Mage (Tank Mage in training)
7. Holder Character

Since most people use their accounts to do everything, they have less need of others.

 

[Salty Pete]

I think looking at individual character's specialization isn't as important as looking a player's account's makeup. I would say most accounts follow a similar breakdown of characters. I'm not sure what it is exactly, but maybe something like this:

1. Warrior
2. Mage
3. Crafter
4. PvM Template (bard, tamer, treasure hunter) or Gatherer (lumberjack,fisher)
5. Secondary of one of the above

My main account for example:
1. Warrior (Paladin Swordfighter)
2. Mage (Treasure Hunter)
3. Crafter (Smith/Tailor)
4. Gatherer (Fisher)
5. Secondary Warrior (Ninja)
6. Secondary Mage (Tank Mage in training)
7. Holder Character

Since most people use their accounts to do everything, they have less need of others.

Mine is kind of similar I guess...

1. Beggar (stealth/mage/fisherman/beggar)
2. Tamer (mage tamer)
3. Necromage (necro/mage)
4. scribe (magery/inscription)
5. Bard (mage/bard)
6. crafter (a character I never use and should just delete.)

 

[Coppelia]

I disagree, when collaboration is needed and that people doing it well are rewarded, others don't magically start to imitate them to get the same. They ASK to get the same while not changing their behavior.
That formula forgot the great power of the attraction of the comfort. "I do that perfectly well with my method, I sure don't want to try anything else".