Jump to content


System Theory & Cognitive Bias in Warplanes

System Dynamics Cognitive

  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

Prenzlau #1 Posted 05 December 2018 - 06:43 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6726 battles
  • 685
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    12-14-2015

    I'm going to attempt focus this topic as it pertains to Warplanes and it's players and limit my own monologing as much as I can. I'm honestly trying to help, and any perceived attitude on my part is nothing more than a collateral side effect.

 

System Theory

 

    A very basic explanation is that system theory is used to explain the dynamics and workings of complex systems. System theory can be applied to just about anything that has a semblance of quantity as in a mathematical order, or it could also be applied to abstract theoretical frameworks as well. In the case of Warplanes the game, you have a game system with programming and code on one end and an interface in which the human element (the player) can interact and influence the behavior of the game. 

 

Cognitive Bias

 

    In a nutshell cognitive bias is the subjective expectation or anticipation of a person's thoughts pertaining to their perceived reality. Basically it is what you think based upon what you think you know. We all have cognitive bias, everyday, all the time. Our attitudes, emotional dispositions, and what we believe is part of our own cognitive bias. 

 

The Issue Concerning The Battles In The Game

 

    Anytime there is a complex system dynamic you have to have a starting point. In this case the start of a battle. There obviously is a program in operation which in essence is a cascade of mathematical interactions. As the battle progresses in time, away from it's starting point, the outcome or predictable probability becomes more unknown. So even if for example there is a lop sided match making order of battle, the highest point of confidence would be at the very beginning as far as predictability. We see this in sporting events, as well. One team is favored, and then they play, but no one really knows for sure as to the final outcome, and well upsets happen. There have been accusations that the developers have pre-programmed the game to slant battles against certain groups of players (veterans) or specific players (HHJ). The best they would be able to do, in a sense would be to generally attempt changes given certain circumstances that may occur in a battle, but I see great problems with this. 

 

    Having a starting line for all participants, and then saying "go" and whatever happens, is what happens is one thing. Trying to actively alter that system while that system is "motion" creates many more levels of unpredictability, and to be honest this game given it's shakiness already would destabilize and have tons of system failures. So I'm not in favor of any conspiring system by Warplanes that intentionally alters battles against any group or any one player. 

 

    That said, here is a potential problem. When ever you have a complex system be it mathematical or otherwise, you have what is known as "Attractors". An attractor is a set of numerical values the evolves and coalesces from the interaction of the conditions and process of the program itself. In other words, through random action some patterns emerge and certain values gravitate towards what I would call "string commonalities". Basically the game and it's battles take on a life and reality of their own. Because there is a human element interfaced with the program, this creates even more possibilities. The truth is, while general predictions can be made and theories proposed, no one working for Warplanes, not even the developers really know what is going to happen once their program actually starts. Now there are high probability assertions that can be made, so this is not some random mystery in which everyone is dumbfounded. My point is that the outcomes of battles are far more uncertain from a systems theory perspective than the average person with their own cognitive bias would understand or be aware of. 

 

    Enter Cognitive Bias

 

    When I play I truly believe I should win every battle. So that would be my cognitive bias. Last night I flew my RB-17 in a battle, took 7 sectors, 27 ground targets, shot down 3 enemy planes, and lost. Not only did I lose, but the other team had superiority on my team late in the battle. Every time I took a cap, it was soon lost, and even though I was putting forth a maximum effort, I could not alter the battle in my teams favor. So, what would be my cognitive bias about that battle? Was it the game? Was it my team? Was it my plane? Did the other team cheat? With that effort I should have won, so something is wrong? From my point of view, with my cognitive bias, there is something here that does not add up, right? The truth is after that battle started and as it progressed through time, the outcome became more unpredictable (as viewed from the starting point). Of course during the battle, we all have the ability to "sum up" or ascertain the situation and "get a feel" for how things are going. The human mind is amazingly good at that at times. So that battle was "undecided but trending towards the other team" for most of the duration. So as observers we can assess and re-assess our situations while the battle is in progress. Again though, as we do this we still very much have our cognitive bias and we have expectations for a favorable outcome. I lost because I could not as an individual player overcome the many results that were playing out. Do I feel like there was anything rigged or programmed against me? NO. 

 

    Another battle I was in last night. I was in a lower tier bomber, I think the HE-111. The map had five caps and I think it was a tier 3/4 mixed battle. I went around at a nice altitude and systematically took all the caps and the other team really had nothing to climb up and challenge me. The thing is, the team I was on score-wise was horrible. I had 12,000 personal points and the next highest was a bot in the 2,000 range. So when the in game scoreboard was observed it really looked like I was carrying a bad team by myself. Now from the other team's perspective, that battle might have seemed totally unfair or rigged. How can one player in a bomber basically take over the map with little statistical help from their team? From my point of view the reality of the battle seemed very clear cut, but I can also see the expectations and cognitive bias of that other team "screaming bloody murder". So when we assess and try and rationalize the game and it's battle results, we need to remind ourselves that there are a great many factors in motion and that we might not be thinking about all the information. 

 

Conclusion

 

    Do strange anomalies happen? Yes. Is there an aspect to the program that is unpredictable, even by it's creators. Yes. Do the battle results often match up with our cognitive bias? I cannot answer that one, but I would suspect that when a battle does not match our expectations or things happen that seem odd or out of our range of expectations then we form our own conclusions. So for the record, I do not think this game is intentionally rigged, but I do leave the possibility open for unpredictable and strange results. 

 

Prenzlau

 

 


Edited by Prenzlau, 05 December 2018 - 08:07 PM.

The Zigfreid & Prenzlau Bombing Company

"We're not just delivering the mail..."

 

 

 


nwlxn12 #2 Posted 05 December 2018 - 06:57 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1408 battles
  • 241
  • Member since:
    01-01-2012

View PostPrenzlau, on 05 December 2018 - 12:43 PM, said:

    Conclusion

 

    Do strange anomalies happen? Yes. Is there an aspect to the program that is unpredictable, even by it's creators. Yes. Do the battle results often match up with out cognitive bias? I cannot answer that one, but I would suspect that when a battle does not match our expectations or things happen that seem odd or out of our range of expectations then we form our own conclusions. So for the record, I do not think this game is intentionally rigged, but I do leave the possibility open for unpredictable and strange results. 

 

Prenzlau

 

 

 

Anomalies would lead me to believe the circumstances you pointed out would not happen as often as they do in WoWP.  They are more often the norm than random occurrences. 



Booze_Morgan #3 Posted 05 December 2018 - 07:13 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 188 battles
  • 62
  • Member since:
    10-01-2018

View Postnwlxn12, on 05 December 2018 - 12:57 PM, said:

 

Anomalies would lead me to believe the circumstances you pointed out would not happen as often as they do in WoWP.  They are more often the norm than random occurrences. 

 

That is part of what he is saying, if I understand well enough. After the battle starts, potentials for unexpected events and therefore unexpected results, may very well increase exponentially.  If not exponentially, then at least significantly so.

 

This is one reason RoseBud gave for not flying WoWP anymore when he presented his dissertation. He explained that the heroic actions of one individual no longer control the battle as they once did.  As the game stands now, there are increased numbers of variables involved and requirements from several different directions a team must meet in order to win, making the decisions of one pilot perhaps not enough generally to dictate an outcome.  With the weirdness and sometimes idiocy of bots, with the humans deciding on one action at any given time among a choice of many, I can see possibilities for results both against us and in our favor.

 

Looking at this any more shallow than the excellent offering given by the OP will lead one to thinking there is a conspiracy against a group of people. (I will not even write on the same against any one person, as that is mono-focal ludicracy in my most humble of opinions.)  I stand with the OP in this logic.

 

 

 



Master_Cylinder #4 Posted 05 December 2018 - 07:58 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 198 battles
  • 62
  • [FK] FK
  • Member since:
    06-09-2015

Prenzlau, you are so point on!!!!



Master_Cylinder #5 Posted 05 December 2018 - 07:59 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 198 battles
  • 62
  • [FK] FK
  • Member since:
    06-09-2015

Prenzlau, you are so point on!!!!

 



sandtiger #6 Posted 05 December 2018 - 08:00 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 13532 battles
  • 296
  • Member since:
    04-25-2011

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa  your back

Awesome

nice post


Edited by sandtiger, 05 December 2018 - 08:01 PM.


mnbv_fockewulfe #7 Posted 05 December 2018 - 11:32 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 256 battles
  • 3,123
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013
May I suggest putting your abstract at the beginning, and that you use Courier New as your font?

Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


BuffaloTime #8 Posted 05 December 2018 - 11:41 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6952 battles
  • 803
  • [3MNKY] 3MNKY
  • Member since:
    03-10-2012

 

That's awesome. My brain hurts. Want fly plane. Go boom boom. Bots Rule!


  Fight like you are the third monkey on the ramp to Noah's Ark and brother, it's starting to rain.

Demons run when a good man goes to war.


Bobby_Tables #9 Posted 06 December 2018 - 12:08 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 4396 battles
  • 1,316
  • [-DOW-] -DOW-
  • Member since:
    06-16-2014

Almost all of this filters down to the introduction of bots to correct for the massive loss in humans due to Persha's constant screwing with the game.  

 

In human only battles, pre-bots, the ability of a human with super-human skills in this game could determine the battle outcome.  Someone might get lucky and kill them, but overall, their ability to control the battle and ability to outthink their opponents was a deciding factor.  

 

In the current meta, the RNG of bots makes the individual ability and skill diminished.  

 

In the days of human-on-human, I would get sweaty palms, increased heart rate and a punch of adrenaline when it was down to say 3-on-3 after 8 to 10 humans per side were eliminated.  Ah heck, to be honest, I got a rush from seeing someone like HOH_Wolfblitz on the other side from the get go.  

 

In the current meta, you just plod along, doing what your plane was designed to do and hoping that your efforts somehow determine the outcome.  

 

Not to say that human-on-human battles were not frustrating, but at least there wasn't such an RNG impact to the game.  Sure, there were players who abused the meta in the old days, but they could be countered because you knew what they were doing.  People always complained about GAs hiding by killing targets and then running to friendly zones once the counter was in their favor, forcing the other team to find them.  Frustrating, yes, but at least you were hunting a human.  

 

They (Persha) eliminated much of the frustration caused by humans exploiting the meta, but in the end introduced a much more frustrating situation which drove many humans from the game and continues to do so to this day.  

 

I guess the law of unintended consequences applies to this game.  Solve one problem, and introduce many more.  



CorvusCorvax #10 Posted 06 December 2018 - 12:33 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1983 battles
  • 1,846
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Prenzlau, the folks who need to hear this aren't really listening.  A shame, really.

Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo #11 Posted 06 December 2018 - 05:18 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 784 battles
  • 3,532
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View PostPrenzlau, on 05 December 2018 - 01:43 PM, said:

    I'm going to attempt focus this topic as it pertains to Warplanes and it's players and limit my own monologing as much as I can. I'm honestly trying to help, and any perceived attitude on my part is nothing more than a collateral side effect.

 

System Theory

 

    A very basic explanation is that system theory is used to explain the dynamics and workings of complex systems. System theory can be applied to just about anything that has a semblance of quantity as in a mathematical order, or it could also be applied to abstract theoretical frameworks as well. In the case of Warplanes the game, you have a game system with programming and code on one end and an interface in which the human element (the player) can interact and influence the behavior of the game. 

 

Cognitive Bias

 

    In a nutshell cognitive bias is the subjective expectation or anticipation of a person's thoughts pertaining to their perceived reality. Basically it is what you think based upon what you think you know. We all have cognitive bias, everyday, all the time. Our attitudes, emotional dispositions, and what we believe is part of our own cognitive bias. 

 

The Issue Concerning The Battles In The Game

 

    Anytime there is a complex system dynamic you have to have a starting point. In this case the start of a battle. There obviously is a program in operation which in essence is a cascade of mathematical interactions. As the battle progresses in time, away from it's starting point, the outcome or predictable probability becomes more unknown. So even if for example there is a lop sided match making order of battle, the highest point of confidence would be at the very beginning as far as predictability. We see this in sporting events, as well. One team is favored, and then they play, but no one really knows for sure as to the final outcome, and well upsets happen. There have been accusations that the developers have pre-programmed the game to slant battles against certain groups of players (veterans) or specific players (HHJ). The best they would be able to do, in a sense would be to generally attempt changes given certain circumstances that may occur in a battle, but I see great problems with this. 

 

    Having a starting line for all participants, and then saying "go" and whatever happens, is what happens is one thing. Trying to actively alter that system while that system is "motion" creates many more levels of unpredictability, and to be honest this game given it's shakiness already would destabilize and have tons of system failures. So I'm not in favor of any conspiring system by Warplanes that intentionally alters battles against any group or any one player. 

 

    That said, here is a potential problem. When ever you have a complex system be it mathematical or otherwise, you have what is known as "Attractors". An attractor is a set of numerical values the evolves and coalesces from the interaction of the conditions and process of the program itself. In other words, through random action some patterns emerge and certain values gravitate towards what I would call "string commonalities". Basically the game and it's battles take on a life and reality of their own. Because there is a human element interfaced with the program, this creates even more possibilities. The truth is, while general predictions can be made and theories proposed, no one working for Warplanes, not even the developers really know what is going to happen once their program actually starts. Now there are high probability assertions that can be made, so this is not some random mystery in which everyone is dumbfounded. My point is that the outcomes of battles are far more uncertain from a systems theory perspective than the average person with their own cognitive bias would understand or be aware of. 

 

    Enter Cognitive Bias

 

    When I play I truly believe I should win every battle. So that would be my cognitive bias. Last night I flew my RB-17 in a battle, took 7 sectors, 27 ground targets, shot down 3 enemy planes, and lost. Not only did I lose, but the other team had superiority on my team late in the battle. Every time I took a cap, it was soon lost, and even though I was putting forth a maximum effort, I could not alter the battle in my teams favor. So, what would be my cognitive bias about that battle? Was it the game? Was it my team? Was it my plane? Did the other team cheat? With that effort I should have won, so something is wrong? From my point of view, with my cognitive bias, there is something here that does not add up, right? The truth is after that battle started and as it progressed through time, the outcome became more unpredictable (as viewed from the starting point). Of course during the battle, we all have the ability to "sum up" or ascertain the situation and "get a feel" for how things are going. The human mind is amazingly good at that at times. So that battle was "undecided but trending towards the other team" for most of the duration. So as observers we can assess and re-assess our situations while the battle is in progress. Again though, as we do this we still very much have our cognitive bias and we have expectations for a favorable outcome. I lost because I could not as an individual player overcome the many results that were playing out. Do I feel like there was anything rigged or programmed against me? NO. 

 

    Another battle I was in last night. I was in a lower tier bomber, I think the HE-111. The map had five caps and I think it was a tier 3/4 mixed battle. I went around at a nice altitude and systematically took all the caps and the other team really had nothing to climb up and challenge me. The thing is, the team I was on score-wise was horrible. I had 12,000 personal points and the next highest was a bot in the 2,000 range. So when the in game scoreboard was observed it really looked like I was carrying a bad team by myself. Now from the other team's perspective, that battle might have seemed totally unfair or rigged. How can one player in a bomber basically take over the map with little statistical help from their team? From my point of view the reality of the battle seemed very clear cut, but I can also see the expectations and cognitive bias of that other team "screaming bloody murder". So when we assess and try and rationalize the game and it's battle results, we need to remind ourselves that there are a great many factors in motion and that we might not be thinking about all the information. 

 

Conclusion

 

    Do strange anomalies happen? Yes. Is there an aspect to the program that is unpredictable, even by it's creators. Yes. Do the battle results often match up with our cognitive bias? I cannot answer that one, but I would suspect that when a battle does not match our expectations or things happen that seem odd or out of our range of expectations then we form our own conclusions. So for the record, I do not think this game is intentionally rigged, but I do leave the possibility open for unpredictable and strange results. 

 

Prenzlau

 

 

makes sense, I'd question a few of the thoughts but...

good observations

:medal:


if the pilot's good, see, I mean, if he's really..sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low [he spreads his arms like wings and laughs],

you oughtta see it sometime, it's a sight. A big plane like a '52. VRROOM! There's jet exhaust, fryin' chickens in the barnyard.


GonerNL #12 Posted 06 December 2018 - 11:14 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 800 battles
  • 575
  • Member since:
    01-17-2018

View PostPrenzlau, on 05 December 2018 - 07:43 PM, said:

How can one player in a bomber basically take over the map with little statistical help from their team? 

 

Because matchmaking 'forgot' to give the other team planes that could have killed you ??

MM makes sure you get unpredictable and strange results. 

 


Flying on EU and NA server

Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo #13 Posted 06 December 2018 - 02:43 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 784 battles
  • 3,532
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View PostGonerNL, on 06 December 2018 - 06:14 AM, said:

 

Because matchmaking 'forgot' to give the other team planes that could have killed you ??

MM makes sure you get unpredictable and strange results. 

 

true sir,

that is one flaw in MM's build that can be exploited


if the pilot's good, see, I mean, if he's really..sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low [he spreads his arms like wings and laughs],

you oughtta see it sometime, it's a sight. A big plane like a '52. VRROOM! There's jet exhaust, fryin' chickens in the barnyard.


Bubba_Zanetti #14 Posted 06 December 2018 - 02:47 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1795 battles
  • 2,129
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostAce_BOTlistic_Cosmo, on 06 December 2018 - 09:31 AM, said:

edited

 

 

con·sist·ent

/kənˈsistənt/

adjective
adjective: consistent
  1. acting or done in the same way over time, especially so as to be fair or accurate.
    "the parents are being consistent and firm in their reactions"
    • unchanging in nature, standard, or effect over time.
      "he is their most consistent player this season"
      synonyms: constantregularuniformsteadystableevenunchangingundeviating, unfluctuating; More
       
       
      antonyms: irregular
    • compatible or in agreement with something.
      "the injuries are consistent with falling from a great height"
      synonyms: compatible with, congruous with, consonant with, in tune with, in line with, reconcilable with; More
       
       
      antonyms: incompatible
    • (of an argument or set of ideas) not containing any logical contradictions.
      "a consistent explanation"

 

“The sad truth is that the one thing around here is that we can always rely on is broken promises”& WarMagic the Scattering- Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo █ If a company can't handle the truth based on pixelated facts then they shouldn't be in this industry to begin with. Or stop overreaching at areas where they obviously lack the resources to make a sucess (WOWP)” - ArrowZ_  As it is, this “upgrade” is totally misdirected and completely ignores all player feedback over the past few years.  How this studio continues on with the parent company is a total mystery to me.” - Bobby_Tables  The only thing that will fix this game is for the developers to right click and hit send to trash. - xPALEHORSEx  They've been around a good while and seen a lot of flak so they surely must know what they're doing by now. - Catch21  All wargaming has done in all their games across the board have been stupid and greedy ideas. They are failing as a company so hard. - Veraxu  Maybe Persha should avoid patches with the number 5 in them... - mnbv-fockewulfe  You put the bombsite behind a lock until you get specialist for your bombers? That's just stupid. - comtedumas  claiming victory by fixing your own problems isn't victory, it's low brow chicanery.- TheMadPizzler  Flying games generally don't have broad appeal, and this one has issues and the company tends to pour gasoline those issues, not fix them - _Laserguided_   “I go to RU and (rhymes with git) all over dumb Slavs to express my rage.” - Rando CA  If you want to sell someone a car, you let them take it for a test drive, you don't run them over with it. - Blast_Radius1  My quote + Your signature + Please = Thank You- Prenzlau  Feelings aren't stats, now shut up and go eat tide pods” - Noreaga  “The player online count was removed October 2017 and we don't have plans to return this number to be displayed. That is the decision of the developers team.”- blindfold  After a While it Becomes Tiresome (07.06.15)” - MALICE_AT_BIRTH  “Yes, we can have a place to report all the bugs and then watch as they all get ignored for 6 months” - Gang_Starr █ SonicPariah and blindfold might be listening to us, and sending our ideas along, but Persha sure isn't getting the message.” - CorvusCorvax  They just go on inventing new not-asked-for stuff before fixing what people clearly don't like ...”- GonerNL █ There is a difference between arcade and this roll your face on the keyboard simulator” - Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Chokai  “The real question of the day: Is there room for one more quote in Bubba‘s signature? I certainly hope so.”- MelBrooks  They had to make some space for your signature” - Marsco


Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo #15 Posted 06 December 2018 - 03:06 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 784 battles
  • 3,532
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View PostBubba_Zanetti, on 06 December 2018 - 09:47 AM, said:

 

 

con·sist·ent

/kənˈsistənt/

adjective
adjective: consistent
  1. acting or done in the same way over time, especially so as to be fair or accurate.
    "the parents are being consistent and firm in their reactions"
    • unchanging in nature, standard, or effect over time.
      "he is their most consistent player this season"
      synonyms: constantregularuniformsteadystableevenunchangingundeviating, unfluctuating; More
       
       
      antonyms: irregular
    • compatible or in agreement with something.
      "the injuries are consistent with falling from a great height"
      synonyms: compatible with, congruous with, consonant with, in tune with, in line with, reconcilable with; More
       
       
      antonyms: incompatible
    • (of an argument or set of ideas) not containing any logical contradictions.
      "a consistent explanation"

well, as of 10am est (-5 for GMT)

that's balance and it's now been remedied

I still liked the stain tho


if the pilot's good, see, I mean, if he's really..sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low [he spreads his arms like wings and laughs],

you oughtta see it sometime, it's a sight. A big plane like a '52. VRROOM! There's jet exhaust, fryin' chickens in the barnyard.






Also tagged with System, Dynamics, Cognitive

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users