Armageddon is Zero Sum

[Kryos]

Zero Sum is a term from game theory, if you aren't familiar, where in order to advance or win, other participants must give up or lose an equal share proportionate to the winner's gain.  In Armageddon, this is the aspect of perma death.  Now, game theory depends on rational actors working with an accessed and understood information set as well.  The idea of Armageddon being Zero Sum, and the flawed notion of perfect rational actors(and perfect information) has been an undertone in several topics in the GDB lately, perhaps not pronounced directly, but the subtext is there.

I'll just go ahead and admit I'm not a perfectly rational actor when it comes to Armageddon(or other zero sum style games).  Any staff member could look up my notes and see that I've stood my ground in judgement of things I've perceived negative (regardless of being right or wrong, and I've been wrong and right alike) or that I've been enraptured by the game and made a blunder or two.  I'd hope they also convey I do my damn best to play a role.  Experience and age has tempered me more towards being a rational actor, yet I can admit I'm still flawed.  I've seen hints or outright presentation of this elsewhere, in others, as well.  This is not an attempt to finger point and accuse, but rather to draw a simple consensus that we are not perfectly rational players.

If you can give me that caveat, I can give you a suggestion as to why things like prioritizing stats, how to become buff in combat, how to be a ninja, or pwn noobz with leetzor magicks in pvp holds gravitas and attraction to those who aren't normally inclined towards competitive behaviors.  That reason is when your character dies, all their story and your engagement with them die as well.  I would speculate that engagement, be it to the character's story, triumphs and exploits, failures and suffering, or wonder at discovery, (or all of these) may be a strong influence on what makes us imperfectly rational.  Our emotions as human beings, even if we are play the role of something alien, muddy our behaviors with this and other factors in mind.

And what could be more disheartening for a player to have these things trampled on by what they perceive to be someone with no story, no engagement or wonder, just a pile of skills and desire to flex them?  There's a subtle, ever present fear of failing to those who abide no concepts of engaging in a story, just acts of superiority or malice.  Or, perhaps, if you can't demonstrate a certain level of capability in some aspect of your character, you will not be able to create these stories, find these wonders, or strive for those great achievements.  In short, you've got to keep up with the Jones, Jones being that nameless 'twink'.  

I can tell you I've personally met Jones, I've worn its face in games past, and seen it in games present.  I got so annoyed with Jones once I made him in Armageddon, and was victorious in its creation.  It was never flexed though, just a nameless death in a nameless place.  So I know the fear or concern well.  So why bring all this up and give you a wall of text?  I'm curious if you think it holds merit, and if you think the trajectory of current changes helps to alleviate this subtle, present fear.

Me:  I vote yes, changes in code and mentality seem to be going this way.  And I really do hope staff continues this path.

[Desertman]

Just to make sure I understand, is this the tldr version?

"Twinks twink so in return if you want to win Armageddon you have to keep up with the twinks.".

Just want to make sure I understand before I vote.

[Kryos]

Not trying to be an ass in this reply, but sort of?  Yes?  I made it long, and pointed to validated approaches to modeling behavior with the intention of doing just that.  Its a big thought.  I suppose it doesn't have to even be a "twink".  Just someone who had/has superior resources to you.  In the case of the twink, they have no restraint on behaviors in order to maximize their footprint and power set in the Zero Sum game.

Add:  to also be relevant.  Without a certain level of proficiency, irrelevance may leave you out of stories, plots, and interactions.

[Desertman]

Not trying to be an ass in this reply, but sort of?  Yes?  I made it long, and pointed to validated approaches to modeling behavior with the intention of doing just that.  Its a big thought.  I suppose it doesn't have to even be a "twink".  Just someone who had/has superior resources to you.  In the case of the twink, they have no restraint on behaviors in order to maximize their footprint and power set in the Zero Sum game.

Not trying to be an ass at all. I just don't want to reply unless I'm sure I understand what you are trying to say.

So the tldr version is: "Some people will do things to get stronger than you. Some people unfairly so. If you want to win, you have to keep up with them.".

More or less?

[Kryos]

I meant to say, 'I am not trying to be an ass.'  I really don't like that level of ambiguity the tl/dr has, though.  There's some granularity I'm using on purpose, with ties in to applied sciences I've had exposure to and studied in during my life.  So, yes with a question mark.

[John]

The idea of Armageddon being Zero Sum, and the flawed notion of perfect rational actors(and perfect information) has been an undertone in several topics in the GDB lately, perhaps not pronounced directly, but the subtext is there.

Are we talking about OOC winning or IC winning? Because there are people who OOCly play to have their IC character, in all likelihood, lose. They do this because it results in an OOC win by having their character be memorable, have interesting interactions with PCs and the game world and create interesting stories.

Our PCs are not rational. Dwarves are obsessive compulsive, half-Eli's are as insecure as all hell, half-Giants are morons and everyone is a racist bastard who hate elementalists despite all the societal and personal advantages they bring to the table. Is as players have varying degrees of rationality. But even the most rational player may have an irrational character.

I've seen hints or outright presentation of this elsewhere, in others, as well.  This is not an attempt to finger point and accuse, but rather to draw a simple consensus that we are not perfectly rational players.

I am by no means rational. I'm stubborn and set in my ways. But I do have my moments of rationality.

I can give you a suggestion as to why things like prioritizing stats, how to become buff in combat, how to be a ninja, or pwn noobz with leetzor magicks in pvp holds gravitas and attraction to those who aren't normally inclined towards competitive behaviors.

People have always obsessed over getting every coded advantage. It use to be stats were the primary source of most people's angst while magicker's spammed like crazy. That's because these were the only elements people could get objective feedback as to how strong they were. We now get that feedback on skills so it is logical skills would become a greater source of angst than it was "back in the day".

That reason is when your character dies, all their story and your engagement with them die as well.  I would speculate that engagement, be it to the character's story, triumphs and exploits, failures and suffering, or wonder at discovery, (or all of these) may be a strong influence on what makes us imperfectly rational.  Our emotions as human beings, even if we are play the role of something alien, muddy our behaviors with this and other factors in mind.

And what could be more disheartening for a player to have these things trampled on by what they perceive to be someone with no story, no engagement or wonder, just a pile of skills and desire to flex them?

Back in the day there was an infamous character called Pearl. It seemed at least half the player base hated her and there were quite a few attempts to kill her. All but 1 of them were unsuccessful. Her guild was merchant and her subguild was equally meaningless. She didn't survive because of a list of coded skills, she survived through role playing. She arranged her enemies' deaths and was possibly one of the most powerful PCs in Allanak at certain times. And she was a merchant (also the player's first character).

There's a subtle, ever present fear of failing to those who abide no concepts of engaging in a story, just acts of superiority or malice.

If someone wants you dead bad enough, you will eventually be killed. No amount of skills will stop that. But nor are coded skills required to avoid it.

Or, perhaps, if you can't demonstrate a certain level of capability in some aspect of your character, you will not be able to create these stories, find these wonders, or strive for those great achievements.

Some of the best players who've crafted exciting plots have done so irrespective of their own coded skills and quite possibly have succeeded in creating those plots because of their inadequate coded skills.

So why bring all this up and give you a wall of text?  I'm curious if you think it holds merit, and if you think the trajectory of current changes helps to alleviate this subtle, present fear.

Me:  I vote yes, changes in code and mentality seem to be going this way.  And I really do hope staff continues this path.

I personally think we need role models whom can inspire us and demonstrate to us just how meaningless their own coded skills are in creating memorable plots. I've never equaled the likes of Pearl or others from that era, but I continue to strive. I'm sure there are characters who can similarly act as role models to show how unimportant skills are in acquiring power. They are either busy away shining or are on the cusp of revealing their awesomeness.

I understand what your saying and I do see staff taking steps to make the game easier. I see people saying things like "food and water should be easily acquit able for newbies." I don't like it. Make the game fairer on an OOC level (so make it so indies and clanned characters have the same opportunities to skill up). But at the same time I think it's important the harshness and IC difficulty level remain. If getting combat skills is easier, than the wildlife should receive power boosts to compensate (and it's possible staff are doing this, or plan to do this).

[Desertman]

The better your coded skills are the more likely you are to survive.

To win Armageddon the key factor is to first survive.

Other people might try to kill you.

If your coded skills are higher than theirs, you are more likely to survive.

Thus, you are more likely to be able to eventually "win".

So yeah, I agree. If you want to win, you have to survive, and if you have better coded skills that is more likely to happen.

[Eurynomos]

I thought Pearl kept getting resurrected. 

The things you learn from gossip aren't always true.

[Malken]

We're never going to have an objective zero-sum game because of two things: not everybody knows all the rules, and the rules are enforced differently against different people. The very construct of karma represents staff favoritism; that's one of the roots of a player and their characters.

I have plenty of karma and I'm pretty sure that I'm as far as what you would consider a staff favorite.

[Delirium]

Pearl got resurrected once because of a grief character created specifically to kill her using abusive code tactics. It was also a different era of the game.

People hate on her because... she was successful, manipulative, and wasn't afraid to resort to down and dirty tactics and politics. She'd win, and people hate losing.

The playerbase suffers from epeen envy and an unwillingness to be the support character in someone else's story.

There's not a lot we can do about that but keep trying to be better roleplayers.

This is a MUD, so the game is at its best when people realize that a successful, fully realized character comes from knowing how to roleplay and knowing how to use the code to support your roleplay. The amount of code necessary for your role will depend on the role, and the roles you play will depend on your playstyle. One is not necessarily better than the other.

If you're a griefer, you get off on fucking with other people just for fun, well, you suck, but you know what, there's people like that in RL, too.

And at least those people aren't likely to gain a whole lot of trust from the staff to play higher powered roles.

Point is, code knowledge is good, it supports the ability to roleplay in the gameworld. There's nothing wrong with it.

Where it goes wrong is when you use it abusively to accomplish questionable things, like subdue-killing a long-lived PC just because you don't like them on an OOC level.

[Marauder Moe]

Eh.  I don't think the "zero sum game" notion is really apt for Armageddon, even in the pvp/permadeath aspect.  When you PK someone, you maybe gain their wealth, but you don't gain their skills, you don't gain their reputation or political clout, and you don't gain their memories.  Furthermore, resources in Armageddon are not strictly limited.  Everyone can make coded money from non-PC sources.  Everyone can gain skills.  Everyone can tell good stories.  Even if you die, you can just make a new character.

[Desertman]

[Nergal]

There have been many players who justified skill-maxing with the notion that everyone else is doing it, too. The fact of the matter is that relatively few people actually do stupid things to max out their skills, and when they do, it is painfully obvious to staff and fellow players that that's what they're doing. But there is still that lingering perception that skill-maxing is always justifiable.

At least one of the goals with some of these changes is to better reward players who play fairly. It was totally possible in the past to spin your wheels by training legitimately, and to be surpassed by players whose PCs knew the "One Weird Trick" to maxed skills. There is an ongoing effort to eliminate that from the game, by re-balancing things that are just off-kilter.

Ultimately I think the game isn't strictly zero-sum, though it can be within certain interactions as part of the larger game. Ultimately, the story of Armageddon keeps going, characters keep getting developed, and so on.

As far as karma goes, I don't doubt that there used to be a lot of favoritism in the system, but only because staff back then were beholden to fewer guidelines. The unfortunate thing about the system is that there's some good players with low karma that get overlooked and there's some not-as-good players with a lot of karma that received their karma back when there were fewer standards. That doesn't mean the system should be thrown out, it just means players ought to be reviewed more. Now that staff take notice in players that seem to have slipped through the cracks and players can put in for a karma review, there's quite a bit more flexibility in the system than there used to be.

[Lizzie]

I thought Pearl kept getting resurrected. 

The things you learn from gossip aren't always true.

And sometimes they are true. Sometimes they are rooted in truth and exaggerated - for instance - Pearl didn't "keep getting" resurrected - obviously the last time her character died, she stayed dead.

[Armaddict]

I'm less inclined to agree that it's based on fear, because there have been many discussions that bring up a lot of different reasons that people like to 'twink'.  The most prevalent is that people feel the game doesn't 'start' until they're at a certain level, followed quickly by the expectation of every character to branch every skill before it becomes fully their character.

I think your model more accurately describes raider scenes and pvp, where it's -really- hard to give up advantages you have in order to play out a scene, knowing that if you give it up and they do not, you have likely lost your character over it.  In other words, your paradigm seems more suited to immediate scenes, rather than long-term play.  In another era of the game, the 'random gib' where you got killed by another player out of nowhere was more common, and it built in a pretty steady paranoia in some players about the intent of other players.

As far as long term play, I'm more suited with D-man's explanation.  More than anything right now...it's a survival game.  Code is used to survive.  Code is very important in a code-based rpg, as opposed to a story-telling rpg.  It's how you interact with the world, and so it becomes 'in your interest' to know the code and work with it.  Not necessarily twinking, but working with it and in line with its capabilities.

Roleplay is fairly common sense.  Interpretation of code and how people use it to get desired effects in game is not, but in lieu of constantly wishing up to get things done -exactly- as the story demands it, the code is ye olde reliable.

As a side note...I played a number of PC's with Pearl.  She got hated on because she was manipulative and 'won' against a lot of people who were trying to get in her way, and as she won more and more, the players got more and more set on standing in her way, and as she kept winning...well...the frustration was real.  I think I was always in some way aligned with her though, and she was pretty stellar, and always fun to plot with.  *thumbs up*

[JackGibbons]

Just curious, what RL year-ish was Pearl? It sounds like I should be sad I missed this legend.

[tinsix]

win the game with the listen skill

[wizturbo]

Just curious, what RL year-ish was Pearl? It sounds like I should be sad I missed this legend.

Like 13+ years ago.  Pearl was the founder of the Atrium and House Terash.  

By the way, I do not think Armageddon is a zero sum game.  The fact that some people treat it like it is makes for very convincing reasons there's Karma and rigidly enforced rules by staff.

[JackGibbons]

Just curious, what RL year-ish was Pearl? It sounds like I should be sad I missed this legend.

Like 13+ years ago.  Pearl was the founder of the Atrium and House Terash.  

By the way, I do not think Armageddon is a zero sum game.  The fact that some people treat it like it is makes for very convincing reasons there's Karma and rigidly enforced rules by staff.

Oh, sheesh. Yeah, I started in 2013. Well, technically I might have played for a couple of hours in 2008 before I discovered SOI in its heyday. That's cool that a player can leave that kind of legacy, though. Back on topic: there are many other things to do besides straight coded PvP, and on a player level, if we enjoy being part of the stories and happenings, then it's a mutual win, not a zero sum.

[Synthesis]

The game isn't zero sum at all.  It's a completely misapplied concept.  There is no winning Armageddon, only playing.

And listen, I skill up HARD, but somehow I still have a decent amount of karma.  If there are people out there who are doing shit to skill up that results in them getting their nuts slammed in a vise, I have no idea what the fuck they're doing, but it must be completely berserk.

That being said, I don't skill up to "win."  I skill up because I enjoy the process, and I enjoy being useful to other PCs.  I sometimes PK when it's appropriate, but it's been...I don't know...I can't even remember the last time I PK'ed someone.

(Although I have been sorely tempted.)

[BadSkeelz]

I don't think it's that big a deal.

A character who gets by on just code is not going to get very far. Sure, they might dangerous in a straight-up gank scenario (high potential-M score), but they're probably pretty boring to interact with. This will limit the amount of networking they can accomplish (low C and B scores). The most dangerous they'll be is as the lonewolf raider or assassin. I'm not really worried about them anymore than I am, say, a sinkhole or an out-of-position mekillot. They're just natural features of the landscape that the rest of the playerbase will roll their eyes at and forget about until a character people actually like dies to it. There are plenty of available counters - allies, knowledge of the game world, knowledge of tactics, certain guilds - that will allow a prepared player to minimize risk.

Outside of the most straightforward, "locked in an apartment with a dwarf with a knife" scenarios, I don't think Armageddon is terribly zero sum. Not by default, anyway. Your character is living in a world where death is cheap, you never really know how strong you are, and you should consequently tread lightly. I think this is true for a lot of players, so a lot of characters are looking for the win-win: They can get some of what they want, I can get some of what I want, and nobody dies. It's only when this bargaining and politicking between characters breaks down and someone decides someone else needs to die that we really start edging close to zero-sum interactions.

[valeria]

I've never gotten by just on code. I'm sure other people do, but my favorite and most memorable characters are just characters doing what characters do. (Which, by the way, I've never felt that I skill up shockingly show, even if I have never fully branched a single character.)

If you're avoiding playing a character to skill up, if you put skilling up over interaction and rp, I feel bad for you. You WILL lose that character eventually, no matter what, and all that time you put into grinding, but you don't lose the memories of good stories and fun rp. Unless you find grinding fun, then I guess you're doing what you love. M

[James de Monet]

I keep seeing this idea that "If I don't skillmax, someone else will, and beat me, therefore I need to."  And that can be true, sometimes, but I don't skillmax, and honestly? I've never had a problem I can think of where I was powerless before some RPless scrublord with master parry.  That doesn't mean no one has been, but it does mean (to me, at least) that it can't be as big of a problem as people are making it out to be.

This, in turn, makes me wonder (since it would be hard to prove) if the people skillmaxxing for the sake of keeping up with the Joneses aren't actually the face of twinking that everyone else sees.  "Beware that, when fighting monsters..." and all that.

[James de Monet]

Also, it might bear pointing out that simply because someone is more powerful than your character does not make them a twink by definition.  If someone has more political power than your PC, or is a magicker and you aren't, or is a 40-day character and you aren't, that power differential is not (necessarily or primarily) due to the other player skillmaxxing, and no amount of twinking will protect you in that situation.

That's what diplomacy and humility are for.

[hopeandsorrow]

I keep seeing this idea that "If I don't skillmax, someone else will, and beat me, therefore I need to."  And that can be true, sometimes, but I don't skillmax, and honestly? I've never had a problem I can think of where I was powerless before some RPless scrublord with master parry.  That doesn't mean no one has been, but it does mean (to me, at least) that it can't be as big of a problem as people are making it out to be.

This, in turn, makes me wonder (since it would be hard to prove) if the people skillmaxxing for the sake of keeping up with the Joneses aren't actually the face of twinking that everyone else sees.  "Beware that, when fighting monsters..." and all that.

It's a weird cold ware mentality, at least that what I find myself stricken with sometimes.

IF I don't do XYZ, I'm scrab food. It's how I feel to the point that a new PC doesn't feel like untapped potential more or less like a daunting endeavor before I feel comfortable with being know beyond a random cloaked sdesc you see around occasionally.