If I understand your ‘problem’ correctly—estimating potential ally capabilities and being right/wrong about that (say, when considering teammates/guildmates/raid members/whatever), then it’s not nearly a game-specific concept—it applies to any partner-selection without perfect information, like mating or in job interviews.
As long as there is a large enough pool of potential parners, and you don’t need all of the ‘good’ ones, then false negatives don’t really matter as much as the speed or ease of the selection process and the cost of false positives, where you trust someone and he turns out to be poor after all.
There’s no major penalty for being picky and denigrating a potential mate (or hundreds of them), especially for females, as long as you get a decent one in the end; In such situations the optimal evaluation criteria seem to be ‘better punish a hundred innocents than let one bad guy/loser past the filter’, the exact opposite of what most justice systems try to achieve.
There’s no major penalty for, say, throwing out a random half of CV’s you get for a job vacancy if you get too many responses—if you get a 98% ‘fit’ candidate up to final in-person interviews, then it doesn’t matter that much if you lose a 99% candidate that you didn’t consider at all—the cost of interviewing an extra dozen of losers would be greater than the benefit.
The same situation happens also in MMOG’s, and unsurprisingly people tend to find the same reasonable solutions as in real life.
If I understand your ‘problem’ correctly—estimating potential ally capabilities and being right/wrong about that (say, when considering teammates/guildmates/raid members/whatever), then it’s not nearly a game-specific concept—it applies to any partner-selection without perfect information, like mating or in job interviews. As long as there is a large enough pool of potential parners, and you don’t need all of the ‘good’ ones, then false negatives don’t really matter as much as the speed or ease of the selection process and the cost of false positives, where you trust someone and he turns out to be poor after all.
There’s no major penalty for being picky and denigrating a potential mate (or hundreds of them), especially for females, as long as you get a decent one in the end; In such situations the optimal evaluation criteria seem to be ‘better punish a hundred innocents than let one bad guy/loser past the filter’, the exact opposite of what most justice systems try to achieve.
There’s no major penalty for, say, throwing out a random half of CV’s you get for a job vacancy if you get too many responses—if you get a 98% ‘fit’ candidate up to final in-person interviews, then it doesn’t matter that much if you lose a 99% candidate that you didn’t consider at all—the cost of interviewing an extra dozen of losers would be greater than the benefit.
The same situation happens also in MMOG’s, and unsurprisingly people tend to find the same reasonable solutions as in real life.