3 ms·
> 3. Any metric the matchmaking algorithm uses will be gamed by someone smarter than you, willing to ruin the experience for everyone else. Not necessarily; me
by jey 2y ago
> 3. Any metric the matchmaking algorithm uses will be gamed by someone smarter than you, willing to ruin the experience for everyone else.
Not necessarily; mechanism design studies how to construct systems that aren't gameable, even though everyone in the system is acting out of self-interest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_design
- bb88 2y agoDoes that include teaming together to game the system? E.g. The game of poker changes if two or three at a table are secretly working together. Counting cards in black jack is harder to detect if a there's a team behind it.
- jey 2y agoYes, in the sense that the amount of "distortion" they can achieve is bounded to be small. Frankly, I'm approaching this as an engineering problem, so I haven't tried to work out all the gory mathematical details to fully theoretically characterize the distortion achievable by coordinated action. If you want to work on this and can apply the theory of [1], [2], and [3] below, send me an email. 1. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdy042 https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdy042 2. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA7260 https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA7260 3. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA6995 https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA6995
- bb88 2y agoYes there's lying in poker, but there's also fairness to the rules. This changes when you get two or more people at a table working together. There's lots of different strategies they can employ. Side channel communications, simple agreed upon profit sharing, betting strategies, etc. Since people are expected to lie in poker, what rules do you add in to change the behavior of people to reduce the chance of coordination, without changing the dynamic of the game?