  We consider the problem of selfish agents in discrete-time queuing systems,
where competitive queues try to get their packets served. In this model, a
queue gets to send a packet each step to one of the servers, which will attempt
to serve the oldest arriving packet, and unprocessed packets are returned to
each queue. We model this as a repeated game where queues compete for the
capacity of the servers, but where the state of the game evolves as the length
of each queue varies, resulting in a highly dependent random process. Earlier
work by the authors [EC'20] shows that with no-regret learners, the system
needs twice the capacity as would be required in the coordinated setting to
ensure queue lengths remain stable despite the selfish behavior of the queues.
In this paper, we demonstrate that this way of evaluating outcomes is myopic:
if more patient queues choose strategies that selfishly maximize their long-run
success rate, stability can be ensured with just $\frac{e}{e-1}\approx 1.58$
times extra capacity, better than what is possible assuming the no-regret
property.
  As these systems induce highly dependent processes, our analysis draws
heavily on techniques from probability theory. Though these systems are random
under any fixed policies by the queues, we show that, surprisingly, these
systems have deterministic and explicit asymptotic behavior. We show that the
asymptotic growth rates of queues can be written as a ratio of a submodular and
modular function, which provides significant game-theoretic properties. Our
equilibrium analysis then relies on a novel deformation argument towards a more
analyzable solution that differs significantly from previous price of anarchy
results. While the intermediate points will not be equilibria, this analytic
structure will ensure that this deformation is monotonic along this continuous
path.
