Prisoner's Dilemma --- Congratulations to Sudo_Nym and Tamuz

[Sudo_Nym]

Before I definitively state anything, I need to know more about how you plan to adapt the game to more than two players, especcially if we don't all cooperate or betray. If there are ten players, and three cooperate and the rest betray, what happens?

[Sudo_Nym]

Now I'm kinda curious as to how this will shake out. Count me /in.

[Sudo_Nym]

The game theory for this is obviously much different than the two player version. What I always found so interesting about that was that each player would be individually better off by defecting, and yet both players defecting would be worse than both cooperating.

In this version, I'm not sure that that holds true. Let's see if I can build a square

Not Defected Defected
Cooperate- 3 -3
Defect- 0 -1

See, the major change I see here is that in the two player version, a person is better off defecting no matter what his opponent does- here one's better off defecting if they believe they'll be defected against, and cooperating otherwise.

Like I said when I first signed up, it will be very interesting to see how this all shakes loose.

[Sudo_Nym]

The biggest part of a winning strategy in this game is adaptability. Obviously we don't know yet what future rounds will be, so I think the best we can do it play the current round and worry about future rounds, well, in the future.

The only mark for considering the future is the possibility of retribution. Those who betray players constantly are likely to be betrayed against, knocking them from the game. But those who constantly cooperate and build a huge lead are likely to be teamed up against.

In the end, the best thing I can think to do is to try and ride the middle ground, as it were.

[Sudo_Nym]

Trying to convince everybody to cooperate is like herding cats. We're going to have to accept that people who are playing to win aren't just going to play nice.

[Sudo_Nym]

If we want to merge all the phases into one, I'm fine with that, but first I'd want to know about action limits- could we send any number of actions and have the last one count? Or just one action per charge? And would our actions be revealed immediately, or everyone's action all at once when they're all in? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Sudo_Nym]

The merge will speed up play, but it's hard to know whether that's a good thing. I'm all for keeping things moving, but I also like having a turn-based system. If we wind up going to a merged system, expect me to be among the last to send in my actions.

Also, Khelvaster- should we all defect against you, what's your policy? There can't possibly be enough rounds for you to enact revenge against us all.

[Sudo_Nym]

That's exactly the point of the game- there is absolutely no way to know what your opponents are going to do, so there is no safe play. There's not even a way to guarantee that your actions will be useful- the three backstabs against me only count once.

[Sudo_Nym]

Sure, go ahead.

Also, is there any point to discussion this time around?

[Sudo_Nym]

Did I miss something? Could you explain how you came to calculate each point total, or have you done that already?

[Sudo_Nym]

You got a problem with me, Guzame?

[Sudo_Nym]

Ain't nothin' 'gainst ya, Khelly- just going for the victory, and that means I gotta knock down those above me.

[Sudo_Nym]

That top dog ability seems to give a powerful advantage to those who have it. As for you, Khelly, expect me to react in kind.

[Sudo_Nym]

And now everybody is within shouting distance of death. Get defected against, and you're gone!

[Sudo_Nym]

That does seem likely. Hell, this is my last round, unless I cooperate and nobody defects against me. If I defect, I'm guaranteed to lose, regardless of whether I get defected against or not.

[Sudo_Nym]

So now what do you want to do, Tamuz? We're now facing mutual-assured destruction, I believe.

So honestly, who thought I'd make it through the last round? Now the leaderboard shows the big Sudo leading the pack, and he plans to cash in on a big come from behind win.