Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba
Sun_Tzu everything you have is comparing the allainces to businesses and same with Jesters lemon market bullshit.. the fundemental point is that PA is a game and should be treated as one. It should be as fair as possible evrytime a new round starts for every player and alliance to acheive #1 regardless of wether they have the potential to do so or not. 100 man tags do not support this idea as they produce an elitist clump at the top of the game that over half the community cant touch no matter how hard they try.
It is possible for most allainces to recruit 50 ppl into there ranks but as we saw last round only 2 or 3 allies got anywhere near 100 ppl and they were the allainces that finished at the top
|
Firstly, we use economics arguments because economics deals with people who use resources to try and accomplish goals. Most arguments of economics can be transplanted into games, and indeed much of the vocabulary of gaming is inherited from economics. Concepts such as how long it will take for a roidcap to pay itself back are directly derived from how long it takes for a investment to produce a return for the investor.
Further, economics is in fact a study of real human behaviour. As such it studies topics such as leadership or information flow, which are generally applicable concepts. When Jester brought up the Lemon Market, he referred to it as a framework for understanding situations of information asymmetry. Indeed, all interaction has elements of asymmetry, as no two people have the exact same knowledge. Their differing knowledge and their perceptions of these differences in knowledge influence their actions, and frameworks such as the Lemon Market help us understand how it does this.
You also present an argument that at the start of each round, each alliance should have the same ability to compete. You have chosen one parameter which you believe to represent this equal starting point, however it should be quite obvious that such a simplified view of things will not accurately represent reality. Indeed by focusing on alliance size, more relative power is given to those who have the higher average quality of players. If indeed the alliance size was not controlled for, smaller elite alliances would have to compete on a more equal footing with larger less elite alliances.
Wishing dearly that at the start of each round we would all be tabula rasa does not make it so. It is then meaningless to cling to alliance size as the magic bullet that would allow smaller alliances to compete for victory. In truth, victory is decided through leadership and execution, not the size of a tag.