The Gameplayers Dilemma: Game Theory and NationStates
By Kogvuron
Prisoners Dilemma
The Prisoners Dilemma has been a major part of game theory for over 60 years. First developed in 1950 by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher, the game involves two players. Each player is a criminal who has been caught and has the option either to stay silent or cooperate with the police. If each player stays silent, both will receive a one year sentence. If one player cooperates while the other does not, the defector will get off free, but the other player will receive three years in jail. If both players cooperate, then they will both receive two years.
http://z4.ifrm.com/30294/192/0/p1148534/prisoners3.png
In this situation, it is better for the group for both prisoners if they stay silent. However, it is better for each individual to defect, even though this will lead to them receiving more jail time than if they both stayed silent. This balance between self-interest and selflessness is quite interesting.
Classes of Players
In NationStates, there are players. Players can either be a defender, a raider, or a neutral. Defenders seek to protect regions from invasion and to uphold the right of every region to self-determination. Defenders gain utility when they are successful in defending regions, but lose utility when raiders succeed in taking over regions. Raiders seek to bring other regions under their control and in doing so violate the sovereignty of other regions. Raiders gain utility when they are successful in invading a region, but lose utility when they fail to do so. Neutrals, the vast majority of NationStates, do not pick a side and do not gain or lose utility based on the Raider-Defender game. In every region, there are natives. As defined by Whamabama, a native is a nation which takes up residence in a region without the intention of furthering the goals and aims of a foreign force. Natives can gain utility when they are allowed to participate in their region how they see fit. However, they can lose utility when they are brought under the control of invaders. Natives have more utility to gain by being left alone/defended. However, since it is their home region that is being directly affected by invasions, they also have more utility to lose when raided.
http://z4.ifrm.com/30294/192/0/p1148533/screenshot20130331at115.png
The Gameplayers Dilemma
Players can decide to raid or defend. If both players raid, success is ensured and both raiders gain +5 in utility. However, the native loses -10 utility. So, the net utility is 0. If one player raids and the other defends, the raider gains +2 in utility and the defender loses -2 in utility (due to the success rate of raids being over 50%). However, natives lose -5 because some regions are being successfully invaded, making a net utility of -5. If both players defend, success is ensured and each player gains +5 in utility. Also, the native gains +10 in utility because their region is protected, making the net happiness +20. This is outlined below.
http://z4.ifrm.com/30294/192/0/p1148532/gameplayer2.png
Utilitarianism in NationStates
Some have argued previously that the fun gained by raiders outweighs the utility lost by natives when they lose their region. However, these theorists have underestimated the impact that a raid has on natives. During long-pile raids, the disappointment and anger felt by natives is often displayed on the Regional Message Board, often fueled further by raider baiting. Natives are sometimes even DEATed for comments they make, or for trying to hack the raider lead to alleviate the suffering of the region. I do not condone hacking or flaming. However, these examples show the full emotion that these natives feel when raided.
John Stuart Mill, famed utilitarian thinker, once said that, Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Both players becoming raiders creates a net happiness of 0. However, both players defending produces a net happiness of +20. It is clear that defending is in the right and raiding is in the wrong because defending not only provides as much individual happiness as raiding, but also provides happiness to the natives that are caught in the crossfire of the raider-defender game.
Discussion
But Kogvuron, you are a defender. You are clearly biased! Well raider critic, I have in fact raided before, and I can say with total certainty that defending is more fun for me. Now happiness is subjective, so the happiness numbers in the experiment are a generalization. However, the Gameplayers Dilemma clearly proves that the Nash Equilibrium of NationStates is defending. Defending is the best option for both soldiers and natives.
Conclusion
My paper attempted to relate game theory in the form of the Gameplayers Dilemma to the game of NationStates. I used a modified version of the famed Prisoners Dilemma to represent the different actions a player can take in NationStates. I first found the utility that each action creates and then I calculated the net utility among the three groups affected by the raider-defender game: defenders, raiders, and natives. My results clearly show the defending produces the highest utility for players. Based on this, I predict that more and more players will turn to defending rather than raiding in the future because it provides the most utilitarian outcome possible and, provides as much individual happiness as raiding.
Acknowledgments
I used the table generator on Zetaboards to create the class-utility table. I used the program Gambit to create the Gameplayer’s Dilemma table. I used Wikipedia for background on the Prisoner’s Dilemma and Nash Equilibria.