View Single Post
Unread 29 Sep 2010, 07:52   #52
Sun_Tzu
Arrogant Fck
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,031
Sun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Alliance Size for next round

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marka View Post
Where is the scientific study relating to alliance sizes in online games? :P
I believe that economics might disagree, regarding the distribution of a limited resource (moderately skilled players) in a market to create optimal competition (avoiding monopols & cartels).
There are plenty of studies pertaining to group size and group dynamics, risk aversion and other such traits. The Market for Lemons, which jester originally brought up, is one such theoretical framework which supports the idea that the collective good is best served in this case by means of not curtailing the ability of alliances, should they so want to, to expand beyond their current limitations.

As for your understanding of economics, I'm afraid the prognosis is not good. Regardless of the fact that your choice of resource to focus on is questionable (leadership is the far more scarce resource in this equation), the simple premise that economics would encourage an active steering of the market forces is quite absurd.

Dominant companies, or alliances, are not a problem, as they have achieved their position by working within the fair constraints of the market. A problem only arises when a company reaches a position wherein it can leverage its market position to prevent competition. This is not the same as to say that an alliance would dominate a round, or indeed even multiple rounds, as they can never deny other alliances from being formed with the intent of competing with them. A true monopoly is one which could prevent other alliances from even entering the game to begin with.

An illustrative example here would be Microsoft, who use proprietary technologies such as DirectX and the Windows platform as well as their market position to force companies to create products for their platform and consumers to keep using their platform in order to have access to their favourite programs. Further, Microsoft uses the Windows platform and bundling to force other products of their upon their customers as a default option, including Internet Explorer, Outlook and Windows Media Player.

On the other hand, Google has a similar market position in terms of searches and internet advertising, however where as they facilitate easy access to their other services by using a common login for other services such as GMail, Google Docs and Blogger, they do not force these options upon anyone. Google, whilst being quite dominant within its own field, does not generally act in a monopolistic fashion.

How would the world of internet searches be better off if Google was forced to operate only 10 servers worldwide? This is essentially what you propose economics believes.
__________________
[OLMIT] / [TreKronor]
Sun_Tzu is offline   Reply With Quote