Social Wargaming

Dec 23

Looking for Teams for Round 2

Hope you’re having an excellent holiday!

Dropping a line here to give an update. Since Game 1 wrapped up, folks at the Web Ecology Project have been busy analyzing all the data, figuring out where to go next, and conducting interviews with all of our teams to get a sense of what was going on in the trenches and calibrating our efforts for the next round. We’re planning to release all this data and the findings up online over later in January.

Speaking of the next round, we’re recruiting teams for the second round of social wargaming. This will probably be a slight tweak on Triangles, with some additional elements thrown in around spreading content in addition to molding the social connections/infrastructure.

So, if you’re interested in competing on this round, drop a line to tim.hwang AT webecologyproject DOT org. Let us know about you and who you’ll be teaming up with. Thanks!

Dec 13

Final Scores for Game 1

As of Friday at midnight, our very first round of social wargaming has officially wrapped up. Team 106, executing a dramatic series of cross-target triangle-creating links in the final 24 hours, was able to hold onto their game lead, becoming the first ever victors in Triangles. Congratulations!

However, honorable mention goes to Team 108, who, through clever manuvering and consistent triangle construction, was able to quickly and substantially slash down 106’s leading margin to 12 points.

Score for Team 104 = 0
Score for Team 105 = 5
Score for Team 106 = 51
Score for Team 107 = 10
Score for Team 108 = 39

There’s still more to come out from this game. We’ll be conducting interviews and other analysis over the next few weeks to start pulling out strategies/case studies based on this experiment. We’re also going to start rolling ahead and experimenting with our next game, probably beginning in mid-January. If you’d like to be in on it — drop us a line at social.wargaming AT (that google e-mail service).com

The ending graphs are as follows (warning as per usual that these are big images). For the mutual-connection scoring (the triangle connections are drawn in orange):

And for new connections created:

Dec 11

Triangles: Game 1, Day 6

At the end of Thursday. Here’s the stats on where all our teams are sitting:

Score for Team 104 = 0

Score for Team 105 = 4

Score for Team 106 = 40

Score for Team 107 = 9

Score for Team 108 = 25

Though 108 has managed a completely stunning expansion in a short period of time with their late start, it looks like 106’s lock on the lead (and the increasing number of triangle bonuses they’ve been able to score), are going to solidify a victory for them.

We’ll admit, there’s a bit of a “fog of war” going on right now, with both the score graph and the new connections graph difficult to keep track of (we’ve posted below - warning big images), so we’ll have to wait for the final numbers to come in to declare the victor.

In any case, we’ll also be posting additional data/information/interviews once this wraps up, trying to figure out the next direction for this, so more to come!

Scoregraph:

New Connections Graph:

Dec 11

Triangles: Game 1, Day 5

Wow, jesus, sorry about the delay in posting the details up today. Things are crazy over here at Social Wargaming headquarters, as we’re rounding out to the final endgame of this first Triangles round. The scores after Wednesday’s rumble in the jungle:

Score for Team 104 = 0

Score for Team 105 = 4 

Score for Team 106 = 35 

Score for Team 107 = 7 

Score for Team 108 = 18

Some notably different behavior this round, we’ve found that some teams have actually been shedding points (notably, team 105) losing a few connections and points. We’ve also seen the emergence of our first recorded triangle on the field! (looks like these things take a bit longer to foster than we originally calculated in our pre-game simulations). Meanwhile, it’s shaping up to be an underdog race as 108 builds towards triangles and stealing 106’s strong lead…

Our graphs have once again gotten complicated to read, so we’ve posted our extended, expanded versions below. Stay tuned as this thing heads to the finish line!

The scoring graph (only mutual connections):

The connections/new connections graph (showing new moves this round in green):

Dec 09

Triangles: Game 1, Day 4

Pivotal day of activity for the teams on the social battlefield. While 105 and 107 has grown steadily and slowly, Team 108 has shot ahead, wrangling a bevy mutual connections from 106’s herd. More worryingly for 106, our new connections graph (at the very bottom), indicates that their rate of growth is slowing slightly, opening up a possibility for 108 to close the gap. All it takes is a few +5 bonuses from getting the targets to form triangles with the teams to throw the game one way or the other. We’re watching it all very closely

Score for Team 104 = 0

Score for Team 105 = 5

Score for Team 106 = 27

Score for Team 107 = 5

Score for Team 108 = 12

Also, we’ve unearthed some interesting stats on how fast our teams collectively have been growing and spreading through the battlefield. It’s pretty amazing, here’s the numbers of the total number of connections between the teams and the battlefield after each day we’ve been playing —

after day 0: 100

after day 1: 126

after day 2: 159

after day 3: 324 

As per usual, the score graph for yesterday is below:

We’ve also included an extended new connections graph, which is less cluttered than the compact version, and more informational, to boot:

Dec 08

Triangles: Game 1, Day 3

Big things going down! Glad to introduce the entrance of not only one, but two teams to the battlefield. One of them, 108, is retracing current leader 106’s mutual connection steps, making a big 8-point jump and closing the lead. We’re also tracking team 105 making a huge play of follows out to our battlefield, but as yet with limited success. Current scores as of Monday — and some stats about those users — are:

Score for Team 104 = 0 (1 following, 1 follower, 0 tweets)

Score for Team 105 = 2 (853 following, 608 followers, 8 tweets)

Score for Team 106 = 24 (88 following, 95 followers, 88 tweets)

Score for Team 107 = 0 (11 following, 3 followers, 6 tweets)

Score for Team 108 = 8 (63 following, 8 followers, 14 tweets)

Also, to eliminate the clutter, we’ve reformatted our map of the battlefield, only showing the mutual connections our teams have created:

Although, we’ve also included the pretty (but much less informational) “all connections” graph, for all you completionists out there:

Dec 07

Triangles: Game 1, Day 2

Complete weekend lulls on the part of teams 104 and 105 have allowed the current board leaders 106 to extend their strong headstart further across the battlefield. The score at the end of Sunday was:

Score for Team 104 = 0

Score for Team 105 = 0

Score for Team 106= 13

However, happy to report that we’ve had the late entrance of a new challenger which we’ll be reporting on from here on in, team 107, and our tracking suggests that as of this afternoon team 105 is launching a massive offensive on the map to counteract 106’s lead. We expect that the competition will start heating up very, very soon.

Current map (compact):

Current map (extended):

Key:

Dec 06

Triangles: Game 1, Day 1

Glad to report here from HQ that social wargaming has started in earnest. Team 106 has rolled ahead into a slight lead with the first day of activity, forging ahead with an enormous battery of outwards links to the targets, mostly to a series of disconnected two-person dyads (i.e. 5-56, 24-74, etc). Due to mutual followbacks on these conections and current inactivity for teams 104 and 105, the current score is:

Team 104: 0

Team 105: 0

Team 106: 5

Current battlefield (compact):

Current battlefield (extended):

Key:

Dec 05

Triangles: Game 1, Day 0

Last night, at midnight, three teams — 104, 105, and 106 — inserted themselves into the memetic battlefield, and the first round of social wargaming was officially begun. This game will run from today until next Saturday at midnight. We will be giving daily updates on scores, connections, and other various bits of commentary as the situation develops. Stay tuned, dear readers.

[And, for you dataheads that might be playing at home — our tech department has pumped out a relatively recent PDF of the friend/follower counts of the target users here]

The Key:

Network graph (compact):

Network graph (expanded):

Nov 24

Battlefield Now Operational

I’m glad to announce today that the first round of social wargaming has officially begun!

Eight teams from around the country will be competing in this event, and we’ll be using this blog as the game is in progress to report scores from day-to-day, offer commentary, and so on. Things officially get underway on December 4th.

In the meanwhile, we’ve shared the list of names and a network graph of our target battlefield — and for the next two weeks the game is in “setup” mode — where our teams are scrambling to analyze the network, plot out a strategy, build alliances with other teams and so on. And we figured we’d share it with you, too. It’s important to note that all of these are real accounts on Twitter — but we’ve replaced the names with numbers in this public version to protect the innocent.

More to analysis to come, stay tuned.

(for full size versions, click on the image. Both network graphs show the same nodes and edges, but with the top one in more compact form)

Compact:

Extended: