A group of people who each seem reasonable, when they lack authority, have incomplete information, and pursue inconsistent goals, could end up making a very silly decision together.
- Following the crowd: The car in front makes decisions for the car behind
- Personal rationality, group loss of control
From a single player’s perspective, following a big group isn’t foolish: Higher chance of survival; Easy to get assists and kills; Less likely to be flanked; It’s quite easy on the brain. But if everyone thinks like this, the result is: Ten people crammed into one spot; The flank completely empty; The enemy easily takes two other points; The main force still blocking each other along the narrow path. This is a classic synthesis fallacy: a choice that helps an individual but if everyone does it, ends up harming the whole team. - Public responsibility diluted: ‘Someone will always go’
- Players chase different goals
5.Humans prefer definite mediocrity and fear being solely correct - Groups without a leader are ‘shaped’ by the terrain and momentum
Humans aren’t naturally rational creatures good at working together; we’re more like social animals who are great at copying, dodging, and chasing quick personal gains. Real teamwork that actually works needs leadership, communication, shared goals, and systems for rewards and punishments.
Everyone has their own reasons, but the whole team seems daft.
Zhan Lei’s current reward system has a clear flaw: it mainly rewards ‘what result was produced,’ but hardly ever ‘why this result happened.’
Replacement players often do the most valuable but least rewarding things: Hold the flank alone, holding down three or four enemy tanks; abandon popular combat zones and rush to reclaim uncontrolled points; block the enemy’s flanking route in advance; wait to defend the position without firing for several minutes; use smoke screens, repairs, and reconnaissance to protect teammates.
These actions might decide the outcome but might not result in enough kills and damage. The system actually tends to give players who follow the main group to farm damage more consistent returns.
But rewards shouldn’t just be designed as ‘stand in one spot and get extra cash,’ or else people will immediately start AFK farming points. A better approach is to set up a dynamic set of ‘tactical contribution’ criteria: Weak Side Defence Bonus: When there are few allies or lots of enemies in an area, surviving, dealing damage, and slowing enemies gives extra rewards. Emergency Replacement Reward: When a stronghold is occupied or contested, rushing in from another war zone and joining the defence gives a bonus. Capture Prevention Reward: As long as your actions interrupt enemy control, even if you don’t kill them, you should still get significant benefits. Effective Distress Reward: Survive multiple enemy attacks at the same time and stop the enemy from advancing, earning ‘Distraction Points.’ Strategic Reconnaissance Reward: Spot enemies flanking or approaching empty strongholds and help your teammates make use of it. Victory Contribution Coefficient: Points from capture, defence, rescues, and other benefits boost the final victory, so just focusing on kills without caring about winning or losing is less appealing.
Make the most profitable choices for individuals line up as much as possible with what the team needs most.
If covering positions, defending weak spots, and saving points is more worthwhile than crowding for kills, the long snake formation will naturally fade. Human nature doesn’t need to change; it just needs a change in the incentives it deals with.
What do you lot think? Let’s have a chat about it together.