In article <bf59e.15196$m31.143831@typhoon.sonic.net>, Rookie-Move wrote:
>
> the point is that the currency of bankruptcy is Monopoly money and that is
> what is used to measure whether or not another player has won (when all the
> rest have been eroded in their Monopoly money holdings to below zero). that
> all this money (and the properties they may have purchased with such money)
> doesn't go to the winning player is relevant in considering 'zero-sum',
> but gamer notions of zero-sum.
Except that the probability of winning isn't linear with respect to amounts
of money the various players have. So that you can't judge how much better
you are doing by adding and subtracting money.
> apparently "normal meaning" doesn't apply to gamer games, which is why
> you are specifying that differentiated category here and why there are
> so many confusing tangents taken within this thread, which I'm teasing
> into a diversified and stratified spectrum.
Sure it does. Its just that it is hard to make calculations for these
games because they are more complicated than the examples you would
see in economics.
> # But its value isn't linear or constant in how much it helps you win the
> # game and is a poor measure of your probability of winning.
>
> I don't know why it ought be considered such a 'poor' measure. those who
Because you can't easily tell how well you are doing by looking at the
amount of money everyone has. You can draw some general conclusions about
the relative positions. Experienced players will be able to draw some
better conclusions. But you won't be able to make useful decisions by
using game theory.
> the winner keeps the Monopoly money until the game ends. the losers
> sell off their properties and exchange it for Monopoly money and
> pay their debts until their Monopoly money is gone, at which point
> they lose the game.
Really?! I have never seen anyone but the owner of the set keep the
money after a game.
> that appears to be the primary focus: can Monopoly be stretched
> into some kind of pay-off matrix? internally it doesn't appear so
Yes.
> because of the Bank (do you agree?). considering its rules and
The main problem is that there are an infinite number of states, so that
there will be an infinite number of strategies that players might have.
Unless you can get this down to a relatively small finite number by
eliminating dominated strategies you are going to have an infinite payoff
matrix. This will make it very difficult to do anything with this matrix even
for the two player case.
> # No it doesn't. The reason analysis is hard is that the games are
> # complicated. Multiplayer games are especially limited in what
> # economic game theory has to say about them.
>
> but since this is gamer territory, economic game theory can stuff it.
Why misuse terms from economic game theory if you don't even plan on trying
to use the theory to draw conclusions about the games?
> multi-player 'zero-sum' apparently either has to do with whether one
> single player comes out on top with the others losing, or some set
> number of parts of the game are divided and won/lost by the winner
> and losers in equal amounts. then it qualifies. what economic game
> theorists have to say about it all got left behind when "game" was
> misconstrued. :)
What economic theory has to say about coallitions is useful for gamers to
know. It is rare to be able to get precise chances of winning, but predictions
can be made about what kinds of coallitions should form.
|
|