= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Matt_Simpson comments on Swords and Armor: A Game Theory Thought Experiment - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (68)
If you assume the payoffs are damage and not just victory, you can treat this as a 4x4 zero sum game since weapon choice has no effect on armor effectiveness and vice versa. Then you can calculate the damage per minute for every weapon vs. every armor, and dominance reasoning yields: blue sword, green armor.
But that assumption is probably not accurate and I'm too lazy to compute the 16x16 win/loss payoff matrix, so what Steve Rayhawk said.
Blue sword, green armor loses to green sword, blue armor: it deals (100-12)*0.9*80 = 6336 damage/minute and takes (50-0)*0.76*180 = 6840 damage/minute. rosyatrandom has the 16x16 table.
But green sword/blue armor loses to something else. Dominance reasoning isn't supposed to guarantee that your strategy beats everyone.
OTOH, my 4x4 table doesn't look like the one rosyatrandom linked to, so I may have made a computational error.
Oh! I thought you were using the game-theoretic definition of "dominance", where one strategy always beats (or always beats or matches) another strategy. For example, in this game, any red-sword strategy is dominated by the corresponding blue-sword strategy.
Well I was, but I didn't mean to say that blue/green dominates everything else (imprecise language on my part). If you iteratively remove dominated strategies on both sizes you're left with blue/green - which is thus a Nash Equilibrium. At least on my table, but I don't trust my numbers anymore.