IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/simgam/v53y2022i3p265-284.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ghosts of the Titanomachy: Structure, Commitment, Economics, and Risk as Causal Mechanisms in an Online Battle

Author

Listed:
  • James D. Fielder

Abstract

Background In January 2014 over seven thousand EVE Online players engaged in a 21-h battle that came to be known as the Battle of B-R5RB, in which an estimated $330,000 of virtual property was destroyed, calculated in real U.S. dollars as measured by time. Aim To discern why players were willing to commit time and resources to fight in a large-scale virtual battle, which in turn informs how players perceive risk and develop large-scale emergent political structures. Method Drawing from multiple case history and journalism reports on the Battle of B-R5RB, the author combines the inductive ideographic case study approach and process tracing method to uncover key causal mechanisms. Results The author inductively theorizes that the Battle of B-R5RB resulted from the Null-Sec’s anarchic structure, player commitment to their respective Corporations, measurable economic value, and risk associated with permanent loss. These mechanisms closely align with the offensive realism and anarchy. Discussion and conclusion The Battle of B-R5B is a relevant example of real-world emergent political behavior developing in a virtual world setting. Analysis of this single battle suggests that players are willing to project actual value onto virtual assets. Perception of value is magnified in virtual worlds lacking overt governance or security structures. Players must form groups to mitigate risk, and the greater the risk, the greater the commitment to the group.

Suggested Citation

  • James D. Fielder, 2022. "Ghosts of the Titanomachy: Structure, Commitment, Economics, and Risk as Causal Mechanisms in an Online Battle," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 53(3), pages 265-284, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:53:y:2022:i:3:p:265-284
    DOI: 10.1177/10468781221075659
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10468781221075659
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/10468781221075659?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jack S. Levy, 2008. "Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 25(1), pages 1-18, February.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Lijphart, Arend, 1971. "Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 65(3), pages 682-693, September.
    4. Peter J. Carnevale, 2008. "Positive affect and decision frame in negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 51-63, January.
    5. Renshon, Jonathan, 2015. "Losing Face and Sinking Costs: Experimental Evidence on the Judgment of Political and Military Leaders," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 69(3), pages 659-695, July.
    6. Wendt, Alexander, 1992. "Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(2), pages 391-425, April.
    7. Ruggie, John Gerard, 1998. "What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(4), pages 855-885, October.
    8. Kai Ruggeri & Sonia Alí & Mari Louise Berge & Giulia Bertoldo & Ludvig D. Bjørndal & Anna Cortijos-Bernabeu & Clair Davison & Emir Demić & Celia Esteban-Serna & Maja Friedemann & Shannon P. Gibson & H, 2020. "Replicating patterns of prospect theory for decision under risk," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(6), pages 622-633, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Evgeny Kagan & Alexander Rybalov, 2022. "Subjective Trusts and Prospects: Some Practical Remarks on Decision Making with Imperfect Information," SN Operations Research Forum, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 1-24, March.
    2. Elbæk, Christian T. & Lystbæk, Martin Nørhede & Mitkidis, Panagiotis, 2022. "On the psychology of bonuses: The effects of loss aversion and Yerkes-Dodson law on performance in cognitively and mechanically demanding tasks," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    3. Dorison, Charles A & Lerner, Jennifer S & Heller, Blake H & Rothman, Alexander J & Kawachi, Ichiro I & Wang, Ke & Rees, Vaughan W & Gill, Brian P & Gibbs, Nancy & Ebersole, Charles R & Vally, Zahir & , 2022. "In COVID-19 health messaging, loss framing increases anxiety with little-to-no concomitant benefits : Experimental evidence from 84 countries," Other publications TiSEM 235f67b6-6be5-4061-8693-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Yang, Luhe & Zhang, Lianzhong & Yang, Duoxing, 2022. "Asymmetric micro-dynamics in spatial anonymous public goods game," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 415(C).
    5. Shenkar Oded & Arikan Ilgaz, 2010. "Business as International Politics: Drawing Insights from Nation-State to Inter-Firm Alliances," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(4), pages 1-33, January.
    6. Dong-Joon Jo & Erik Gartzke, 2007. "Determinants of Nuclear Weapons Proliferation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 51(1), pages 167-194, February.
    7. Daniel Reck & Arthur Seibold, 2022. "The Welfare Economics of Reference Dependence," CESifo Working Paper Series 9999, CESifo.
    8. Jason Blazevic, 2010. "The Taiwan Dilemma: China, Japan, and the Strait Dynamic," Journal of Current Chinese Affairs - China aktuell, Institute of Asian Studies, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Hamburg, vol. 39(4), pages 143-173.
    9. Bao, Helen X.H. & Robinson, Guy M., 2022. "Behavioural land use policy studies: Past, present, and future," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    10. Hoyoon Jung, 2019. "The Evolution of Social Constructivism in Political Science: Past to Present," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    11. Eszter Czibor & Danny Hsu & David Jimenez-Gomez & Susanne Neckermann & Burcu Subasi, 2022. "Loss-Framed Incentives and Employee (Mis-)Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(10), pages 7518-7537, October.
    12. Daniels, David P. & Zlatev, Julian J., 2019. "Choice architects reveal a bias toward positivity and certainty," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 132-149.
    13. Robert J. Hanlon, 2017. "Thinking about the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: Can a China-Led Development Bank Improve Sustainability in Asia?," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(3), pages 541-554, September.
    14. Brian Gill & others, "undated". "In COVID-19 Health Messaging, Loss Framing Increases Anxiety with Little-to-No Concomitant Benefits: Experimental Evidence from 84 Countries," Mathematica Policy Research Reports ac30d0619fd64793b2e1b108d, Mathematica Policy Research.
    15. Simone Ferrari-Toniolo & Leo Chi U. Seak & Wolfram Schultz, 2022. "Risky choice: Probability weighting explains independence axiom violations in monkeys," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(3), pages 319-351, December.
    16. Shibashis Chatterjee, 2005. "Ethnic Conflicts in South Asia," South Asian Survey, , vol. 12(1), pages 75-89, March.
    17. Frederick Kliem, 2020. "Why Quasi-Alliances Will Persist in the Indo-Pacific? The Fall and Rise of the Quad," Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, , vol. 7(3), pages 271-304, December.
    18. Kuperman, Ranan, 2011. "Coping with Conflict:A Dynamic Decision Making Perspective," NEPS Working Papers 3/2011, Network of European Peace Scientists.
    19. Jayati Srivastava & Ananya Sharma, 2014. "International Relations Theory and World Order," South Asian Survey, , vol. 21(1-2), pages 20-34, March.
    20. Kene Boun My & Nicolas Lampach & Mathieu Lefebvre & Jacopo Magnani, 2018. "Effects of gain-loss frames on advantageous inequality aversion," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 4(2), pages 99-109, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:53:y:2022:i:3:p:265-284. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.