= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobinZ 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)
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.