A Game Theory Understanding of Lobby Wiping
No AI was used to create this post. Verify for yourself here.
This is a long post. If you are not interested/willing to read a long post, you should just ignore this.
---
I made a post last week making two suggestions that I framed as addressing the problem of post-wipe lobbies being boring, but actually arose from a game theory understanding of why lobby wiping occurs and an attempt to address one of those causes. The reaction to this post was mixed to say the least, but mostly focused on the stated motivation for the suggestions rather than the suggestions themselves.
I (perhaps foolishly) hope that a more satisfying discussion can be had around the mechanics of the problem itself, separate from any solutions I might suggest for it.
.
What is Lobby Wiping?
It is worth establishing what we are talking about before getting into the details. I think there are a couple of different understandings of the term that are active in discussions around this. These are:
- players infiling with the intention of finding and killing all other players in the lobby and then being able to do so;
- the observed phenomonon in which only one team survives to exfil from the map.
I often see people assert that the former understanding is something which rarely is actually in effect, and while I disagree, it is ultimately not important as it is the second condition which actually matters, and which very much is typically in effect (though not exclusively). The second understanding is what I think many find problematic, though the first understanding is a factor in the second arising. Even when not infiling with the specific intention to find and kill all other players in the lobby, the game design results in most players making moment-to-moment choices that result in behavior that is essentially indistinguishable from their operating under the first understanding.
.
Is It a Problem?
Based on the feedback of many people on Reddit, Steam, YouTube, and even conversation in game, I think the answer is an obvious 'yes.' Though it is probably worthwhile to actually state why:
- There are real consequences in the form of lost resources and time when a player gets wiped.
- Players able to repeatedly wipe lobbies enjoy benefits in terms of resources and successful practice which enhances their ability to conduct lobby wipes in the future by being both better equiped and more skilled (from practice). The inverse effect applies to those repeatedly wiped.
- Repeated and frequent losses are frustrating and demoralizing, which can result in some players playing less or not at all, which has the effect of making the game's lobbies on average more difficult.
It is also worth mentioning that it is very often brought up that in games like Escape from Tarkov and Arc Raiders, lobby wiping is not an issue in large part because it does not frequently happen (leaving the 'why' it doesn't in those other games for another day, another post).
.
An Outline of the Why
While I'm going to break both of these out into more detail there are essentially two conditions which make lobby wiping prevalent:
- It is possible and practical to wipe the lobby.
- It is more desireable to attempt to wipe the lobby than engage in any alternative approach.
The only way 'lobby wiping' becomes less prevalent is if one of those two conditions changes.
.
'Possible and Practical'
Given that lobby wiping does happen, it should be obvious that it is possible to do so, but 'practical' deserves some additional explanation. While it will (functionally) never be impossible to prevent lobby wiping from occurring, it is the combination of the facts that: (a) players have access to sufficient information to reliably locate the other players, (b) are able to move to those locations quickly enough for the information to be of use, and (c) possess enough combat resources to engage and eliminate other players repeatedly until there are no other remaining players.
It is the combination of those three facts that make it 'practical', and if any of those three facts became untrue, 'lobby wiping' would no longer become a 'practical' strategy.
.
'More Desireable'
The rest of this post lays out a game theory model justifying the assertion that it is more desireable to attempt to wipe the lobby (or engage in behavior that gives essentially the same result regardless of intention), than to engage in any alternative approach.
At the very end is a brief description of how to change this, in terms of the game theory model.
---
Game Theory Model
From a game theory perspective we can expect players to behave however they think best improves their match outcome (utility) with respect to their objective.
We'll define objective loosely as either completion of a priority contract, or a full bag of high quality loot (secured either from other players, a map's central loot cache, or from a key room). Partial completion of their objective is possible in the form of standard contract completions and/or a bag partially filled with high quality loot or fully filled with low quality loot.
We'll assess utility for the possible failure/success outcomes as follows:
- Failure
- A loss (wipe) results in negative utility from lost gear/time as well as the negative emotions associated with it (-4).
- This negative utility may be offset by the completion of standard contracts which did not require exfil (-3).
- This negative utility may be offset by an absence of the negative associated emotions when players have been on a winning streak, have a well stocked vault, or otherwise are unbothered by the loss, though the loss of gear/time is still relevant (-2).
- A loss (wipe) results in negative utility from lost gear/time as well as the negative emotions associated with it (-4).
- Success
- An exfil without having completed their objective results in no positive or negative utility, as they did not lose their gear but have not benefited from the run either (+0).
- An exfil with a partially completed objective results in marginal positive utility, as they did not lose their gear but have only mildly benefitted from the run (+1).
- An exfil with a completed objective results in positive utility (+3).
Players have essentially six broad options for how to behave at any given moment during a run:
- Passivity
- Includes waiting, hiding, laying an ambush/preparing a defense, and passive information gathering (sitting and listening/watching)
- Maneuver
- Looting
- Engage in PvE
- Engage in PvP
- Includes actual combat (whether as aggressor or defender) as well as active information gathering (Thief Drone, TADs, Sentinel, Assassin Invis Scouting)
- Attempt to Exfil
Players' will decide between these options based on how they expect each option to impact their final expected Utility (outcome). While that consideration is complex we'll attempt to fit it into the following specific impacts:
- Detectability - seek to minimize
- the degree to which players are detectable to other players, included location as well as status/condition, and activity.
- Intel - seek to maximize
- information players acquire about other players' location, status/condition, and activity.
- Vulnerability- seek to minimize.
- the degree to which players are prepared/unprepared for combat. Low health/shields and looting corresponds to high vulnerability, full health/shields and presighted on attack vectors corresponds to low vilnerability.
- Threat - seek to minimize.
- the total amount of threat posed to players both in aggregate and at present. Enemy players present in the lobby contribute to aggregate threat. Enemy players in the vicinity of a player contribute to present threat. At this time PvE enemies are only regarded as a threat indirectly as engaging with them results in increased Detectability and Vulnerability.
- Expected Utility - seek to maximize.
- The utility arising from Failure/Success outcomes.
There are some other factors which influence decision making that are worth mentioning: time remaining, players' remaining combat resources (ammo, heals, equipment, consumables), and players' confidence about their ability to win in a PvP encounter. These primarily exert influence by changing players' predictions about the impacts of a given behavior.
We can distill all of this down to the behavior/impact matrix shown below.
| Behavior | Detectability | Intel | Vulnerability | Threat | Expected Utility |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Passivity | ↓↓ | ↑ | ↓↓ | - | - |
| Maneuver | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | - | - |
| Looting | ↑ | - | ↑↑ | - | ↑ |
| Engage in PvE | ↑↑↑ | - | ↑↑↑ | - | - |
| Engage in PvP (Lose) | - | - | - | - | ↓↓↓ |
| Engage in PvP (Win) | ↑↑↑ | ↑ | ↑↑↑ | ↓ | - |
| Attempt Exfil | ↑↑ | - | ↑ | - | ↑ |
While not captured in the above matrix, successful Exfils reduce the amount of Threat on the remaining players in the lobby. Additionally, players not involved in PvP encounters also benefit from reduced Threat at the conclusion of the PvP encounter (assuming one of the teams was eliminated).
.
Player Behavior Decision-making Modeled
Engaging in PvP is the primary source of risk of a Failure outcome, however the degree of risk is different between four distinct modes of Engaging in PvP. In ascending order by risk: (1) as the aggressor, against an unaware and unprepared defender, (2) as the aggressor, against an aware and prepared defender, (3) as an aware and prepared defender, and (4) as an unaware and unprepared defender.
High Intel, and low Detectability and Vulnerability are directly correlated with lower risk values for the modes of Engaging in PvP.
While Threat exists, decreases to Intel and increases to Detectability and Vulnerability are associated with an increased likelihood of PvP that caries a higher risk of a loss, and therefore are associated with lower Expected Utility.
While Threat exists, increases to Intel and decreases to Detectability and Vulnerability are associated with an increased likelihood of PvP that caries a lower risk of a loss, and therefore associated with higher Expected Utility.
Players' only options to increase Expected Utility also directly increase Detectability and Vulnerability, which are impacts directly associated with reduced Expected Utility while Threat is present. This means that until Threat is reduced or eliminated there are NO behaviors available to the player which increase (or meaningfully increase) Expected Utility. Players' must reduce Threat as a prerequisite to increasing Expected Utility.
.
Specific Player Behavior Predictions
Players will prefer to to engage in Passivity and Maneuvering to all other behaviors until Threat is reduced, as these behaviors provide Intel.
Looting which does not require engaging in PvE will be less prefered while Threat remains, but may still be pursued by players who do not feel confident in their ability to successfully engage in PvP. The same is true for Attempting to Exfil.
Engaging in PvE will be strongly disprefered so long as Threat remains as its impacts are only associated with reduced Expected Utility while Threat is present. While Threat remains a factor, the only instances in which players will actively decide to engage in PvE is when doing so is a necessary prerequisite to Manuevering, Looting, and/or Attempting to Exfil and when Passivity is no longer viable.
Due to risk of a Failure outcome inherent to Engaging in PvP, players will be cautious about these engagements and may actively avoid them until such time as they can maximize the likelihood they will be able to Engage in PvP using the least risky mode (as an aggressor, against an unaware and unprepared defender).
.
How to Change This
Given that Engaging in PvP is also the primary source of risk of a Failure outcome, the decision to repeatedly engage in this behavior only makes sense in the context of this behavior's ability to reduce Threat permanently and ultimately entirely.
If the capacity of this behavior to permanently and/or completely reduce Threat were curtailed or eliminated, players would choose to engage in PvP less frequently in accordance with its perceived risk, and no longer defer those behaviors which do directly increase Expected Utility in favor of Engaging in PvP first. Players would be expected to make decisions around Engaging in PvP similarly to how they make decisions about Engaging in PvE while Threat is present, as a instrumental task necessary to their terminal goal of maximizing Expected Utility but which carries with it significant risk downsides that cannot be avoided.