老网球运动员教给我们的东西 (2017)
What old tennis players teach us (2017)

原始链接: https://www.raphkoster.com/2017/09/22/31098/

职业网球中老将日益占据主导地位,很可能源于更高的奖金,这体现了各种系统中的一种常见模式——从游戏到商业。作者认为,奖励“赢家”的系统不可避免地会产生幂律分布,即成功带来更大的成功,最终使少数人受益。 这导致了进入成本的不断上升,排斥了缺乏资源的人,并助长了中心化。虽然最初看起来有利,但这种权力的集中——无论是财务、用户基础还是人脉关系——最终会扼杀增长和创新。系统变得停滞不前,损害参与者和整体健康。 关键在于需要定期颠覆已建立的“王者”,以维持健康的生态系统。竞争与不平等之间需要取得平衡;过度集中会导致停滞和机会丧失。成功的系统设计,无论是在游戏开发还是更广泛的商业战略中,都应优先考虑*发酵*(积极变化)并防止必然结果。

这个Hacker News讨论重温了一篇2017年的文章,关于老龄网球运动员的经验教训,特别是体育界霸权转移如何反映更广泛的社会趋势。一位评论员指出,到2026年,男子网球现在由辛纳和阿尔卡拉斯等年轻球员领导,这表明了25岁以下球员近期统治的“卡特尔效应”。然而,女子网球似乎有更多球员的更迭。 另一位用户指出,女性运动员可能更早达到巅峰状态是一个促成因素。但核心观点超越了网球:讨论强调了具有反馈回路和网络效应的系统自然会导致幂律分布——少数精英占据主导地位。这在数字世界中尤为明显,以科技亿万富翁为例,并表明需要系统来对抗超连接和自动化普及带来的日益加剧的不平等。
相关文章

原文

First, read this article on how older players have come to dominate the top ranks of tennis, and how the reason why is probably money.

I found this utterly unsurprising, and here is why.

These things are axiomatic:

  1. In any system where rewards accrue to “winners,” it results in those winners doing even better next time.
  2. The result of this is always a power law curve. My favorite shorthand for this is “the typical person in the system ends up below average.”
  3. Meanwhile, the winners at the top compete and drive up costs of entry.
  4. As this happens, the basic cost of entry to participate in the system rises, and the result is those without resources get closed out.
  5. The curve eventually grows towards a cartel at the top, and eventually a monopoly.
  6. The system as a whole stops growing — customers, players, etc.
  7. Attrition for a variety of reasons means the system dies.

This is true in tennis. It is true in a game’s PVP system. It is true in the indie gaming business. It is true in MMO subscriber acquisition. It is true with Amazon and WalMart versus small shops, and it is true with Facebook. Sometimes this means piling up money, sometimes users, sometimes connections. But the nature of the asset doesn’t matter. It’s about the size of the hub.

Systems that don’t destroy their kings on a regular basis end up destroying the kings and the citizenry. And life under a king is never advantageous to the citizens, either.

There is a sweet spot for ecosystems, you see. A certain level of connectedness, a certain level of inequality, gives us teams and cities and competition and cooperation. But a level above that gives us stagnation and centralization and loss of freedoms. There are thresholds in systemic complexity that serve the system but do not serve the components of the system well. Having hugely paid celebrity tennis players serves them and the system of tennis that monetizes that celebrity well, but does not serve anything else in tennis well, just like having a music scene of only the major rock stars does not serve garage musicians well.

This is game design: set up your system to cause ferment, not stability and inevitability. But it is also long-term thinking in business, and for that matter in social structures. Runaway hubs cause problems whether they are guilds controlling servers, tennis champions benefitting from big prizes, or companies that dominate online commerce.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com