Game Theory

For example, if two players, who have never meet, even virtually, are made aware of each other once they find themselves in Prisoners Dilemma (and each knows of the Prisoners Dilemma) in the game, each at least have full knowledge of the theoretical consequences to every possible action on their own part. To the advantage of both. If only one knows, it is of advantage to themselves. If each knows the other beforehand, and each knows the other is aware of the Prisoners Dilemma, then the most advantageous choice for both will be made, even if they have never discussed the Prisoners Dilemma in detail.

For another example just look here to see what experienced players who are aware of Game Theory have to say about helping new players in various multi-player games.

Game Theory awareness is not only valuable to players but also to designers. To gain the optimal level of fun (and therefore maximum possible customers) in game that has losers, it is vital that designer employ the precise mathematics know to Game Theory, even if they accidentally stumble on to them. It is actually likely that unaligned games will align with Game Theory when tweaks result in greater popularity. Losers can't be to discouraged or they will quit. Winners must feel they are fairly rewarded for success. Game Theory can provide optimal equations to achieve these ends.

A less than obvious use of Game Theory is getting players to fill all the roles in games where not all roles are "The Hero". An example is use of the Nash Equilibrium to encourage a player wanting to play a "supporting character" on a team that will likely "lose". Losing as a leader or main character hurts, plus the factor of 'letting down the team'. But a supporting character can have fun no matter what; losing is due to someone else's choices and simply playing a supporting character is fun. Team Fortress 2 designers are aware of Game Theory. So rather than simply ranking and rewarding winners and awarding additional bonuses to main characters and leaders, they also rank and reward players who play for fun, as theorized in Game Theory, in supporting roles. Of course some players will just want to lead and win and may not perceive the full risk and reward payoffs. They continue to play because they have fun just as most gamers push buttons on their USB gamepads without understanding the USB driver on their computer. Consistently winning as a main character is the most expedient means of gaining rank and rewards. But wining and losing as a supporting character is almost as expedient (better than losing as a leader, which is not completely unrewarded either). Players that seek to always win (yet not succeeding) and understand Game Theory, and even many who don't, can learn to recognize the rewards for playing and even losing as a supporting character, will sometimes choose the fun and rewards of the losing supporting role even when winning and leading holds more appeal to them. Thus Team Fortress 2 designers have prevented a lack of supporting characters, not by imposing a construct of forced choice, but by offering rewards for the choice. No one is forced to play support nor forced to lose, they are encouraged to. Their encouragement is not heavy-handed governance, nor underweighted efforts. It is optimal because it is based on precise mathematical equations known through the science of Game Theory which include rewarding a supporting loser but not so much reward as to make winning seem less desirable.