Quote:
Originally Posted by leafy
The nash equilibrium refers to a strategy which, when all players are aware of it, is the optimum strategy while accounting for any changes other teams may make in their strategy. No player has any reason to change, since the strategy they have is optimal, and any change would lead in a decrease in benefits.
The nash equilibrium of this game is not every team working to break agreements; An alliance has much more to gain if they score 0 than if they work hard, given that the other alliance is at least somewhat similar in scoring ability.
I made a long post that never appeared; expect this post to be edited ~6:30pm EST.
|
I believe you are incorrect here.
Both alliances benefit better in a high scoring tie (the reason for this, over your 'x to 0' strategy is that coopertition points are the tiebreaker ... therefore teams would wish to maximize them), so early on in the competitions they are well motivated to do just that (high scoring ties).
But as the competition goes along and rounds will score differently, teams will become more motivated to change that strategy so that they will move up in the seeding.
Applying the
Nash Equilibrium to game strategy will mean that teams will change their strategy towards scoring based upon their seeding position as the regional goes on, and therefore the
Nash Equilibrium must be re-evaluated each match.
... it's going to be a fun year
