Jedi Archive

Thread: An honest word from a Jedi (Important)

shwigetty
Sun Sep 18, 2005 1:53 am
#1

I have come to realize that it is no longer fun to play Jedi, I have come to this conclusion because of the facts that we face everyday, day in and day out, constant nerfs to our profession constant bickering and flaming between ourselves so the devs have no basis to work with, I would like to see Jedi restored to its original fame, I remember how it was to be a Pre-CU Jedi, how there werent nearly as many of us as there is today, thats the only reason Jedi have been made so weak, its because we've become a majority and having an alpha class would rule all, but if everyone were that alpha clas then everyone would be equal and no other professions would even be considered worth playing if you wanted to do good, so in turn I wish for a skill wipe, clean up this mess, let us start anew, from day 1, I grinded out my Jedi for 6 months pre-cu and only reached half of my template, but then after the CU came out, I finished it in 2 days.. shows that we should be weak then..

- Shwigetty Riddo, Shadowfirian, Dark Jedi Knight of Crimson Elite

Restore our order, clean up this mess, and let us find a new path to Jedi

/advancedFlameShield



Name: Shwigetty Riddo
Race: Rodian
Profession: Dark Jedi Knight
Guild: Crimson Elite (Elite)
Server: Shadowfire
Just over Half Templated Jedi by the turn of the first CU, fully templated for nothing before the second CU

"And this is how democracy dies, with thunderous applause" Padme, Episode 3 in response to the New Galactic Empire, and me in response to the new Corrospondent letters.
Daytona
Sun Sep 18, 2005 2:02 am
#2

But then my Master Weaponsmith/Master Merchantwouldn't be able to triple incap a full templated Padawan anymore.... that would be no fun.



Hooah
Vendors on Rori in Rohal Cross, 1226 -5579, and on Lok in CION's Mall.

- I support a rollback and keeping & balancing the old combat system.
...and making SWG a better place to be.
Your voice counts!
SoloBacca1
Sun Sep 18, 2005 2:22 am
#3


I still remember the days of being a noob, where it was only to discover the Secret of the Force work hard to get it, have fun with people seeking cheap selling place for Weapons... I have dropped my Jedi for now, I dont play him that much but more focus on my alt.


Now I have something to do, arent worrying about getting nerfed, or someone talking bad to me because I am a Jedi, no BH suprises for nothing, they show me how Powerfull they are and how weak I am...





Mossa TheGreat

FIGHT
Light up your Lighter


Quiet420
Sun Sep 18, 2005 2:40 am
#4

people want to play jedi.....if there is a way we will always do it....and we'll get our friends in it too...and if it's too difficult everyone will quit....and without the potential to realisticly enjoy playing a jedi character very few new players will come to the game.


seriously guys...if you never watched or read a beautiful mind you should....just to give a little motivation to read this and then check into some of the references:



The main purpose of game theory is to consider situations where instead of agents making decisions as reactions to exogenous prices ("dead variables"), their decisions are strategic reactions to other agents actions ("live variables"). An agent is faced with a set of moves he can play and will form a strategy, a best response to his environment, which he will play by. Strategies can be either "pure" (i.e. play a particular move) or "mixed" (random play). A " Nash Equilibrium" will be reached when each agent's actions begets a reaction by all the other agents which, in turn, begets the same initial action. In other words, the best responses of all players are in accordance with each other.


Game Theory can be roughly divided into two broad areas: non-cooperative (or strategic) games and co-operative (or coalitional) games. The meaning of these terms are self evident, although John Nash claimed that one should be able to reduce all co-operative games into some non-cooperative form. This position is what is known as the "Nash Programme". Within the non-cooperative literature, a distinction can also be made between "normal" form games (static) and "extensive" form games (dynamic).


John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern (1944) introduced the strategic normal game, strategic extensive game, the concept of pure/mixed strategies, coalitional games as well as the axiomatization of expected utility theory, which was so useful for economics under uncertainty. They employed the "maximin" solution concept derived earlier by John von Neumann (1928) to solve simple strategic, zero-sum normal games.


In 1950, John Nash introduced the concept of a "Nash Equilibrium" (NE), which became the organizing concept under Game Theory -- even though the concept actually stretched as far back as Cournot (1838). Nash followed this up in 1951 with the concept of a "Nash Bargaining Solution" (NBS) for coalitional games.


Then the floodgates opened for the refinement of Nash Equilibrium. In the field of non-cooperative games, R. Duncan Luce and Howard Raiffa (1957) provided the first popular textbook on game theory and, in it, they formalized the idea of the Iterated Elimination of Dominated Strategies (IEDS) method for Strategic Normal Games and introduced the concept of "Repeated Game" (static games which are played several times over). H.W. Kuhn (1953) introduced extensive games with "imperfect information" (i.e. where one does not know what moves have already been played by other players). William Vickrey (1961) provided the first formalization of "auctions". Reinhard Selten (1965) developed the concept of a "Subgame Perfect Equilibrium" (SPE) (i.e. elimination by backward induction) as a refined solution for extensive form games. John C. Harsanyi (1967-8) developed the concept of a "Bayesian Nash Equilibrium" (BNE) for Bayesian games (i.e. games with incomplete information - where there is some uncertainty surrounding moves, or where "nature" plays as well.)


In coalitional (co-operative) games further refinements also occurred. Lloyd Shapley (1953) introduced the concept of the "Shapley Value" and the "Core" (which had been originally conceived by F.Y. Edgeworth (1881)) as solutions to Coalitional Games. Throughout the early 1960s, Robert J. Aumann and Martin Shubik began to apply cooperative game theory extensively throughout economics (e.g. industrial organization, general equilibrium, monetary theory, etc.), and, in the process, went on to invent several solution concepts for coalitional games (e.g. Bargaining Set, Strong Equilibrium), "large games" with infinite players and early statements of the "Folk Theorems" (solution concepts for Repeated Games). David Schmeidler (1969) developed the "Nucleolus" solution for coalitional games.


Further developments emerged in the 1970s. John C. Harsanyi (1973) provided a remarkably insightful new interpretation of the concept of a "mixed strategy". Robert J. Aumann (1974) defined "Correlated Equilibrium" for Bayesian Games while Reinhard Selten (1975) introduced "Trembling Hand Equilibrium" for Bayesian Games. Further definitions came: Robert J. Aumann (1976) formally defined the concept of "Common Knowledge", opening a floodgate of literature, while B.D. Bernheim and D.G. Pearce (1984) formalized the concept of "rationalizability".


Advancements continued apace: David M. Kreps and Robert Wilson (1982) introduced the concept of "Sequential Equilibrium" (SEQE) for extensive games with imperfect information. Ariel Rubinstein (1982), following an early insight by Frederik Zeuthen (1930), transformed the co-operative Nash Bargaining Solution (NBS) into a non-cooperative strategic extensive game of sequential bargaining. Elon Kohlberg and Jean-François Mertens (1986) developed the concept of "Forward Induction" for extensive games. Drew Fudenberg and E.S. Maskin (1986) developed one of the more famous "Perfect Folk Theorems" for infinitely repeated games. Finally, J.C. Harsanyi and R.Selten (1988) developed the idea of "equilibrium selection" for any type of game while D. Fudenberg and Jean Tirole (1991) developed the "Bayesian Perfect Equilibrium" (BPE) for Extensive Bayesian Games .


Evolutionary game theory started its development slightly later. Its objective is to apply the concepts of non-cooperative game theory to explain such phenomena which are often thought to be the result of cooperation or human design - i.e. "institutions" and "conventions" such as market formation, price mechanisms, social rules of conduct, money and credit, etc. One of the earliest exponents of the theory of evolutionary games was Thomas C. Schelling (1960, 1981) who argued that apparently "cooperative" social institutions (in this case, settlements to conflicts) are maintained by essentially by "threats" of punishment and retaliation This has been followed up particularly in the 1990s..



  • HET Pages: Game Theory, Choice under Uncertainty, Economics of Information
  • Paul Walker's History of Game Theory
  • David Levine's Economic and Game Theory page
  • David Levine's What is Game Theory?
  • Roger A. McCain's Strategy and Conflict: An introductory sketch of game theory
  • Interuniversity Centre for Game Theory and Applications
  • Alvin Roth's essay on Early History of Experimental Economics
Page 1 of 1
Previous Next