• The Evolution of Trust
    16 replies, posted
[url]http://ncase.me/trust/[/url] Go through this little webthing. You might learn something. I did.
Well, I learned that in most environments, always cheats wins. Sounds good.
Never thought I'd see a mathematical explanation for the Christmas Truce of WWI and actually make sense to me.
i love this dude. his coming out simulator game hit me really, really fucking hard
Good thing the world is not this simple!
[QUOTE=Noob4life;52518672]Good thing the world is not this simple![/QUOTE] No idea what that means without further elaboration
[QUOTE=t h e;52518729]No idea what that means without further elaboration[/QUOTE] trust is complicated, something one learns to gauge with life experience and many factors, can't completely understand it by listening to a 30 minute seminar (or in this case, game). Although in the end of this exercise it is not to tell when and when not to trust, but an educated guess on why trust is less frequent this day. 2 cents
Well that was interesting.
[QUOTE=Noob4life;52518794]trust is complicated, something one learns to gauge with life experience and many factors, can't completely understand it by listening to a 30 minute seminar (or in this case, game). Although in the end of this exercise it is not to tell when and when not to trust, but an educated guess on why trust is less frequent this day. 2 cents[/QUOTE] well it is kinda what he said at the end of the game. In a real life scenario, there are way more elements that need to be put into consideration when we are building trust, and this game just showed the bare minimum you need for trust to evolve.
[QUOTE=kharkovus;52518430]Well, I learned that in most environments, being a[sp]Copykitten[/sp]always wins. Sounds good.[/QUOTE] ftfy
I would go through the whole thing before jumping to conclusions
[QUOTE=Noob4life;52518794]trust is complicated, something one learns to gauge with life experience and many factors, can't completely understand it by listening to a 30 minute seminar (or in this case, game). Although in the end of this exercise it is not to tell when and when not to trust, but an educated guess on why trust is less frequent this day. 2 cents[/QUOTE] Sounds like you didn't go through the entire game.
[QUOTE=Noob4life;52518672]Good thing the world is not this simple![/QUOTE] Wooosh
The main thing I gained from this was the awesome free album by Komiku with trust-building tones to carry you through the adventures of life.
This is pretty neat. Simulations like that are a powerful way to both explore and demonstrate complicated concepts from game theory, and maybe sociology / psychology too.
I really loved that, and it's sparked my interest in game theory.
Something I found interesting in sandbox mode is that if you adjust the population of different "players" so there is only one of all but 'random' which takes up all 18 of the rest of the slots is that the grugder always wins. Everything else including payoffs and game rules at standard values. I wonder how reproducible it is, I have ran it for 5 times, all of the times the grudge type of player won in the long run, sometimes sharing space with copycats for a few rounds. This can easily be broken down it seems, however I would recommend trying to adjust failure chance to see if the end results change in any way. [editline]31st July 2017[/editline] Interesting, at 1% failure chance it seems that the copycat wins instead. This has been a profound experience for me so far. Experiment results with tweaked failure rates seem to be too sporadic, but my observations generally include the grudger getting the chicken dinner and sometimes sharing space with the copycat, who is the usual endgame opponent for the grudger in this set up of 1, 1, 1,-..etc 18 At 5% failure rate it seems that the grudger always wins. [editline]31st July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Nikita;52520243]This is pretty neat. Simulations like that are a powerful way to both explore and demonstrate complicated concepts from game theory, and maybe sociology / psychology too.[/QUOTE] It has inspired me to start programming in Python and Unity, my ultimate goal, I think, is to be able to create multiplayer probability sandboxes with a focus on interesting actor behavior, with the client being written in C# with Unity and the server itself being written in Python for ease of development. Survival games, however shitty they can be quality-wise, are actually pretty good "trust sandboxes" if viewed from that perspective, it is the only way I can enjoy games like Rust for example, by having an analytical approach and seeing it more as an experiment than a game experience. Because trying to play a true sandbox(where there is no overall defined gameflow and which entirely relies on emergent gameplay, usually zombie games like Unturned or asshole olympics venues(this is a compliment by the way, if any Facepunch employee comes across this) like Rust) as a game is a horrible tactic. This "game theory" stuff satisfies an earlier me in a funny way, I like it. Used to be a huge fan of Game of Life as a kid, not the board game, but the zero player game made by Conway.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.