Behavioral Economics and AoE3

[deleted_user]

1) Loss Aversion

Loss aversion states a person dislikes losing $5 more than they like winning $5.

2) Risk taking

Below a certain reference point (taken as one's current wealth) one tends to be risk-loving, while above it be risk-adverse.


Does this apply to AoE3? Would you rather not lose 5 PR than, say, gain 5 PR? Or for us 50% win rate folks, is AoE3 a negative suns game? Human nature naturally dislikes one loss more than they like one win? And if you are below your average PR, do you take more in-game risks? If you are at a PR record, do you play more conservatively?

[fightinfrenchman]

For me it's all about time. The longer the game the more satisfying the win and the more crushing the loss. If I win just a few minutes after the treaty is up it doesn't feel that good, but if I lose just after the treaty is up I don't really feel too disappointed.

[Jaeger]

I think the fact that for many players the higher rank they are the more they avoid rated games/playing on stream says a lot.

[deleted_user]

For me it's all about time. The longer the game the more satisfying the win and the more crushing the loss. If I win just a few minutes after the treaty is up it doesn't feel that good, but if I lose just after the treaty is up I don't really feel too disappointed.

It does seem like a gamble that way. We are investing time and how we value the time is contingent on the outcome -- and the larger the investment the larger the payoff (or payout).

[fightinfrenchman]

I think the fact that for many players the higher rank they are the more they avoid rated games/playing on stream says a lot.

It's shameful behavior imo

[deleted_user]

Or I guess why do people enjoy gambling? It's objectively a negative sums game but not necessarily. There's the psychological thrill you could "get lucky" so people like the experience even expecting to walk out with less. So is AoE3 betting too?

[gibson]

I think the fact that for many players the higher rank they are the more they avoid rated games/playing on stream says a lot.

@KINGofOsmane

[deleted_user]

Euro bump

[Radix_Lecti]

We are hardwired to seek out randomised rewards which answers your question about aoe or any game being ''enjoyable just like gambling''.
Aoe3 is NOT enjoyable however and rly bad for your body/health.

[deleted_user]

O:

O fuq

[Radix_Lecti]

btw ur loss aversion analogy doesn't explain the risk/reward mechanism at play in making people check their cell phones as often as possible so i dunno if it can be applied to game theory.

[momuuu]

Or I guess why do people enjoy gambling? It's objectively a negative sims game but not necessarily. There's the psychological thrill you could "get lucky" so people like the experience even expecting to walk out with less. So is AoE3 betting too?

Theres a general thrill of playing aoe3. In the sense that it makes all time spent on aoe3 a bit of a positive experience. The losses are more negative than the wins, but any game time started out as a little bit positive, so its maybe barely a positive experience.

[[Armag] diarouga]

That's quite true. I hate losing before the finals in a tourney more than I like winning a tourney.

[HUMMAN]

I thought this about in game decisions.

If you are ahead in army, would you take a critical fight to finish the game or go for late game?

[[Armag] diarouga]

Yea, I'm also a very safe player when it comes to army maneuvers. I'm not very safe when it comes to build orders though, but I can get away with my greed most of the time, that's part of my play style.

[Garja]

Risk and loss adversion is subjective, tho there may be a trend of course.
It is true than when you are at a PR you become more conservative but that's because the payoffs change (the negative payoff of a loss grows while the positive payoff of a win decreases).
About the "the general thrill of playing aoe3": I think it's more the fact that you can't always get a game when you want.

[duckzilla]

Loss aversion and risk taking in the context of a monetary reward/loss can also be seen as a proxy for "status". Also, the distribitution of money/status within the society plays a crucial role. The distributions for wealth as well as status/prestige are highly skewed, such that there are many individuals with a relatively low amount of wealth/status and very few individuals with high amounts of it. At the same time, the distance between an individual and the next one in the hierarchy increases considerably with an increase in wealth/status. This can explain ovi12's observation quite nicely if you think of winning a game as "aquiring status" by being better.

Two scenarios arise:

• I have relatively low wealth/status. Gambling can increase my current position in the hierarchy considerably in the case of a positive outcome. In the case of a negative outcome, there will be not real change since I do not have wealth/status anyway.
• I have relatively high wealth/status. Gambling cannot increase my current position in the hierarchy considerably, since the distance to the next individuals is higher than if I were poor. In the case of a negative outcome, I will fall downwards in the hierarchy by more than I would rise in the case of a positive outcome.

[momuuu]

Though isnt one of the big problems of competitive gaming this exact problem? Its one of the reasond why I like playing vs ai.

I was even thinking, with the rise of very good AI, it would be possible to create a ladder where all human players have a >50% winrate.

The other solution is to throw a bunch of games on purpose to deflate your ranking. For example in sc2 I quit 1/3 match ups, and thus have a 67% winrate in the other two. Beside the fact that I dont really like the mirror match up and prefer to not play it, the fact thay Ill have more winning experiences is actually a very positive feature to me. In aoe3 I honestly avoid playing people that are much better than me.

[[Armag] diarouga]

In aoe3 I honestly avoid playing people that are much better than me.

But that's exactly what prevents people from improving.
I'd say that overall I don't really care about losing (or not at all), I care about people knowing I lost.

[Goodspeed]

Does this apply to AoE3?

Don't see why it wouldn't. I can imagine that, on average, we expect to win more often than we expect to lose because humans tend to overestimate their own ability. If you expect to win and lose, that feels bad. If you expect to win and win, it's good but not great.

This is another reason Go is such a great game. I always expect to suck and either straight up lose or throw a won game, so it's fine when I do.

[momuuu]

In aoe3 I honestly avoid playing people that are much better than me.

But that's exactly what prevents people from improving.
I'd say that overall I don't really care about losing (or not at all), I care about people knowing I lost.

Why would you want to improve? In aoe3, I dont. Improving means its harder to get games, harder to be creative and that your opponents are saltier. If I could choose, Id like to go back to when I was a bit worse even.

And in sc2 you still improve, especially since the game is very mechanical and actually needing to maintain 67% winrate is enough incentive to get better still. Its just more fun, Im just having more fun that way. I detest the mirror and losing anyways so its really for the better.

And even still, whats the point of improving? To feel good about yourself? Because Im already happy with how I feel about myself. That you think the main goal of strategy games is to get better at them doesnt mean thats the only way to think about it. Maybe some enjoy the games as they are or simply enjoy slowly discovering the game.

[Goodspeed]

Discovering the game IS improving at it. Improving is the process of learning to understand something. Understanding things is rewarding, at least to me. You as an aspiring scientist should be able to relate.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Yea, improving in RTS games means you get a better knowledge, which is rewarding.

[deleted_user]

God I've got the worst headache, and forgot to put away the rum.

[momuuu]

Discovering the game IS improving at it. Improving is the process of learning to understand something. Understanding things is rewarding, at least to me. You as an aspiring scientist should be able to relate.

If you were a scientist you'd know reaching understanding isnt necessarily a worthwhile process. I find that feeling out a game and trying to find out its general systems is rewarding. I find that going beyond that in strategic understanding is a bit of a hassle and hardly worth it really, unless its your degree/job (then there is at least some reward in something thats boring otherwise). Aoe3 is still fun because just playing the game is fun aswell, at least to me. But I cant enjoy it for the improving alone.

Kinda unnecessary jab towards me btw.