For those who don't know what Game Theory is, a simple definition of it is: Game theory attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic situations, or games, in which an individual's success in making choices depends on the choices of others. Take one of my favorite examples of Game Theory, The Prisoner's Dilemna. The Prisoner's Dilemna is a classic example of the conflict between rational self-interest and group cooperation. How does this relate to Halo: Reach? I want to introduce Game Theory to the way players interact with maps and other players more than ever before. Game Theory has been in practically all video games, but let's look at Reach. Using Game Theory when you are playing a Matchmaking game against complete strangers, it would be beneficial to both teams if they cooperate and end up tying thus making both teams the winner. But does this ever happen? No, because an individual's rational self-interest takes precedent over the interests of strangers. What I plan to do is make a new game style preferably in Multi-Team whose outcome is determined heavily by Game Theory. The reason for Multi-Team is for the allowance of multiple teams (for some reason I am leaning towards 4 teams of 4) to interact with each other and have the possibility of co-operating with each other to take advantage of the other teams. Here's an example: There are four teams: A, B, C, and D located on four corners of a map, the game is CTF. Team A and B team up to overwhelm C or D (who have not allied) and capture the enemy's flags easier and more efficiently (K/D spread for teams A and B will most likely be universally better than C and D). How exactly can this be implemented into Reach? A basic idea would be to create a square map with each of the four teams' bases (A, B, C, D) and spawns situated on a corner: A---1---B C---2---D As shown here (numbers explained soon). There would have to be incentives to vastly increase the benefits of allying up with another team instead of not allying with anyone. Instead of just having Teams B and C allying up to dominate A from both sides in a vanilla usage of Game Theory, I introduce an improvement fitting for Reach. The idea would be a switch on both sides of either team's bases, at points 1 and 2 (also 3 & 4 between A & C and B & D). If Team A wants to ally with Team B, both teams A and B will have to press a switch at point 1 which will unlock a secret passage/weapon armory that will help both teams attack C & D more efficiently. This secret passage/armory will only be unlocked if both teams press the switch. in order to stop all the teams from simply unlocking all their switches right at the start, the switches will have to be a double-edged sword. It will unlock benefits to those teams but it will also open up a fast route into the heart of your base that your "ally" could use against you, so whichever team you ally up with has a good method of killing you/capturing your objective (likewise, your team also has the same advantage over your "ally"). I don't have a map thought up for this yet, but like I stated above I want it to be Multi-Team, preferably 4 teams, and the map has to be symmetrical for obvious reasons. Maybe after the Forgetacular contest I'll think up some ideas to bring this theory to reality. So go ahead and list your opinions on Game Theory in Reach and how to go about the successful implementation of this idea into a map. This isn't a foolproof idea and I haven't thought of everything that needs to go into this game style, so I need some help making this idea practical.
This is very interesting. I like the idea of making alliances on the battlefield which will definitely affect the outcome of the game. I think you may have something here, and I'd love to see the game that comes out of it.
Oh my god, I love game theory. I never took a class on it or anything, but once I discovered it, I pretty much absorbed as much of it as I can (and still do). I'm so glad to have come across this thread of yours. Anyways, that is an interesting idea for a map, no doubt, and just thinking of other possibilities/ideas of how to incorporate the risk vs reward of allied agreements, well, it's making my brain all fired up. Before I got to the part of your post where the little chart is, I was already thinking of the square map with each team spawning in their own corner. I wasn't thinking of the switches though. Instead, I was thinking of having a choke point in the center of the map, which is the only way across to the other side. Sure, 1 team can be greedy and kill the other team on its side, but its going to have a hard time getting across the choke point because the 2 teams on the other side could be "allied", and thus never get to the objective. In order to pass the choke point, they must work together. In the same scenario as above (4 teams/square map), another way to implement a little game theory would be: A---1---C ________ B---2---D So it's a 4 team CTF game, but only 1 team can win. BUT, the map is divided in a way so that teams A and C cannot get to the other side where teams B and D are. They can fire their weapons across and kill them, but they cannot cross over, let's just say that there's a cliff that separates them. This separation essentially makes it a 4v4 happening next to another 4v4. It's A vs C, and B vs D. There could be a switch at 2 that if team D hits will open up another way for C to get across, or even spawn a power weapon for C. This means that if team A does not want that to happen, they would have to "ally" with team B, and help them defeat team D. And vice versa of course. In order to get an advantage over the enemy team on your side of the map, you would have to help your enemy on the other side of the cliff.
Nice. I'm liking some of the discussion this thread is causing. Hopefully, this will be beneficial to everyone reading this in the sense that we can all make better maps utilizing these ideas, thus improving Reach maps in general. Then again, it might be more beneficial for an individual mapmaker to keep their ideas and theories secret untill they succesfully make a map utilizing said ideas. This will give the idea-maker more credit, but might cause the map to take longer to finish than if other members of the community made it, thus reducing the overall quality of Reach maps. ... ... Seewhatididthere?
That sounds like a great idea. I like the whole "two different battles" set-up better than my idea, it would provide for less hectic gameplay. To add on to your idea, perhaps the switch Team D activates spawns a bridge leading to C's base, but the bridge only goes halfway across the canyon, so in order to complete the passageway Team C would need to activate their switch and their bridge will spawn and connect with D's bridge. This would provide for a more simpler usage of Game Theory, where you only have one alliance choice instead of my idea in the OP. I think your idea would end up being more practical and less confusing to the players in the game. Though one question is raised: How do you tell the opposing team that you want to ally with them and you aren't just activating your bridge so you can get to the enemy's base quicker? Some sort of signal would have to be made (lol raise a flag? flares?), or a neutral negotiation house with four rooms designated to each Team that are separated by windows so you can't just get to the enemy base from the negotiation house. Perhaps the act of spawning the bridge itself is a sign of alliance as both of my methods are susceptible to deceiving the other team into spawning their bridge so you can capture their flag and serve little purpose. lol, very true. But I have high hopes for the altruism in the community of Forgehub.
okay, if you had the A----1-----C __________ B----2----D idea, you would have to ask yourself, would teams A and B be better off together, without the additon of power weapons, and etc., or would team A be disracted and less able to defend their own flag? If A and B allied, C and D would also probably ally, and it would end up as a big team battle capture the flag with two flags per team, in which case you have to ask yourself, why don't you just make it 8v8 with two flags per team and have bridges between A and B, and C and D I probably am wrong, but it would be an interesting map, a whole new meaning to multiflag
The enemy of my enemy is my friend (MW2). That and the level on Halo 3 where you team up with the flood come to mind when I read this. The theory is excellent. If you managed to pull of creating a map without major issues then I think the game type would be wonderful. The biggest challenge would be to figure out how the players could team up. Also, what would make the first team start the alliance trend anyways? If each team is equal in ability to score based on weapons and routes, then why would I need to open a quick route to my base for some weapon upgrades? I am good with the weapons I have, so why would I do such a thing? Once one team pairs up then you would assume that the other two would pair up. What if the other teams didn't want to pair up with one another? What if they wanted to pair up with a team that already had an ally. Would that be possible? Would you and your teammate be able to open up a route without actually making another team your temporary ally? If so, then the game could very well end up being a normal multi-team style match. In a situation where one team is dominating the other three teams, I could see the three teams joining up to catch the team in the lead. They would probably end up breaking an alliance that they have to catch up, or break their alliance as soon as the leader has been taken out and then go after their ally. I think a game like that would be great. Most people tend to forget when playing with random people that they can team up with other people in game without saying a word. In a multi-team slayer game it would be as simple as recognizing what color team is in the lead and making them a priority target. When you see that team fighting another team you take out the points leader then go after the others who may be weak. When you see the leading team in one direction and another team in a different direction you pick the leaders and try to take them out before they can secure the win. The map needed for such a game would have to be tested a lot, with a variety of players. And the best way to get good results would be to tell the players minimal things about the theory. This would ensure that the players are going to act very random. Also, making sure each team does not know each other, and does not know their opponents skill level before entering would be best as well. If everyone knew this theory and understood what kind of impact it had they might use it currently in multi-team games. Sadly it seems as though its just a kill stealing festival. You pick on the people fighting to score easy kills (which is a strategy in itself), but you don't think of stopping the leader in points before giving yourself the easy kills. Using those strategies together, where you help out an enemy to keep the leader from scoring is probably used by the people who play a lot of multi-team and FFA games but not so much by the people who play it just for the heck of it. One way to change that up would be to put an way-point over the leaders. Then everyone will know who is leading in points so they can effectively make them their target. It takes less thinking to do so, and some may trash talk and say that its noob friendly. It would be effective though. If you go through with making a map for this I wish you the best of luck, as it will be a tough road ahead with the tools you are given.
If you want to have 2 teams of 4 vs 2 teams of 4... why not just have 8v8? I see what you are going for kinda but it is pointless IMO. What happens when one of your 'allies' kills you because he was going for an overkill... or he wanted the rockets your holding? There doesnt need to be a specific map for this as nearly all multiteam games have this by themselves. Whenever team A comes up on a member of Team B and a member of Team D fighting they usually assess the situation and shoot 1 of the enemies more than the other... thus a 3rd party deciding the outcome of a battle. And how would this work if neither side 'allied' or only one side did.... or somehow it turned into a 3v1 situation with 3 teams using 1 weapon cache against 1 team? Like others have said there just isnt the proper tools to be able to make up this complex scenario. Given just the options in Forge, and no way to make voice chat go from team to team... and no real incentive to allieing or even not allieing... because your not really allied in the first place, i dont think this is possible. If you continue on with this idea I strongly suggest 4 teams of 3.
When you have four teams of two that have the option to align with a positive and negative outcome, it means that your actions can actually hurt you if you are not careful. In a game like that you would have to first decide whether the weapons gained are worth the eventual betrayal (because you know it will happen). The only question is when would it happen. In an 8v8 situation you do not have to worry about your own team mate winning while you lose because of something you or they did. The alliance would not be forced and could be used as a front to betray someone immediately to improve you score (score not being simply based off of kills but flag capture). In the same regard you can make the weapons obtained limited to a point where you only gain so much for so long. (Order weapons and AA's with balance and set re-spawn timers higher to decrease them being overused. The betrayal of your ally is at no consequence to you in kills because they are still your enemy. The added complexity of the game type/map requires you to think more critically about your actions and possible actions of others. There is more to it than when you simply kill one opponent who is leading in kills to save a losing player to keep the leaders from scoring. In multi-team most people do not think about that. They usually see two people fighting and address the situation as an easy way to score points. They don't go after the leader to keep them from scoring while getting points on the way. Its usually as simple as run to where the action is and engage in the first encounter you see. Four teams of two could work and the same goes for Four teams of three. The only thing that will make or break the game is really the map. The map is whats going to make the players actions change. That happens all the time in games now. All you are doing is going deeper into the way people address the map and game when you create it to make them think and play a certain way. Do able...yes, but extremely difficult due to forges limits and the limits you have in the ability to predict how a player acts. And usually when someone comes up on an encounter in multi-team they usually throw grenades first then shoot later. That seems to be the general reaction by the majority of players in games for now. The main reason they do this is because they want both kills...the greed causes the player to lose sight of the fact that if they don't get the kill on the leader that he will win. Also, this form of temporary alliance has no real benefit for the persons already in the battle, unless the person who is winning is kept from doing so. Usually the person to play cleanup is the one who is most beneficial.
This is an interesting idea giving people the choice of alliances. My idea for a "door" allowing passage between connecting teams would be to have a mine that can be removed when shot by the controlling team. It will eventually respawn so if the alliance goes bad then you just allow it to respawn and don't remove it.
However doesn't this scenario already take place in peoples head when playing multi team. I know that when I play odd ball I will sometimes let one team take the ball and keep it instead of giving it to the winning team. or something to that effect. There has not been a map that forces the cooperation between two teams, however what is to stop it from just being two capture the flag games? Also how would one set up the map to stop it from being basically a corridor game, right now the game would be a linear game with whomever can spawn kill winning. Because one can shoot towards the other team then there must be a wall in between and one that prevents the ability to traverse it. If it prevents travel between then doesn't it also prevent a proper layout on each side inorder to full fill this?