Forum
upping the ante
|
Ryan wrote
at 3:49 PM, Thursday September 6, 2007 EDT
Currely we have this:
min: 0/10, 100, 500, 2500 ante: 2, 4, 20, 100 Where min is the table minimum and ante is the ante per round. Things are a little bit too stable. I'd like the scoring to be more dramatic. So I'd like to up the ante and lower the table minimums to this: min: 0/10, 200, 1000, 5000 ante: 4, 20, 100, 500 With this points will be introduced into the system faster, (current points will be devalued somewhat). You can also play higher risk games quicker. This will let you get a high score quicker if you're winning games. Thoughts? |
|
Alpha1 wrote
at 8:56 PM, Thursday September 6, 2007 EDT can we keep the 100 table in the new system?
|
|
Death_to_trucers wrote
at 11:06 PM, Thursday September 6, 2007 EDT Well, I find that under the new system, I have a lot less fun if I try to play to maximize my points than if I play as if the only objective is to win. So that's what I do, and I think that the proposed change would just make that choice clearer.
So the end result for me is that I'll end up playing all my games on the 10 and 0 tables, which I don't care about, but also, I'll be even more annoying to other players who think I should resign to improve their position. |
|
jss wrote
at 11:03 PM, Monday September 10, 2007 EDT BUMP!!!
|
|
Agent Zer0 wrote
at 11:15 PM, Monday September 10, 2007 EDT Thinking about this more, I think lowering the ante would be less painful for players who play for the first time.
min: 0/10, 200, 1000, 5000 ante: 4, 15, 80, 300 While it's less dramatic, you would have more players at the higher tables (like when people complained about the 1500->1800 tables) and less stratification that plagued the old ELO system. |
|
DoobiusMalcor wrote
at 11:32 PM, Monday September 10, 2007 EDT My sense of this might be off but up until right now the entire leaderboard is averaging about 3-6 points per game. Yet, we just had a 400 game and the winner got 283 points and the losers lost 100. Therefore if you are knocked out of the 400s it could take 20-30 games on average to return.
My sense is that the ante should scale slower than the table minimums, but you can have more table levels than currently exist. |
|
_\o/_ wrote
at 11:35 PM, Monday September 10, 2007 EDT Fine by me. I was finding it rather easy to get small point increases ... even with terrible gameplay. This will make it more competitive I believe.
p.s. - I'm not wearing underpants |
|
rolla7 wrote
at 7:21 AM, Tuesday September 11, 2007 EDT I think the concept of Utility coudl be useful.
A person with 1000 points does not value 100 points as much as some mone with 100 points. Maybe you could make the ante higher based on your score. |
|
|
herbomatic3001 wrote
at 9:18 AM, Tuesday September 11, 2007 EDT you can't play at the higher tables without a higher score. duh.
|
|
ma1achai wrote
at 11:39 AM, Tuesday September 11, 2007 EDT Sounds like a good change to me... looking forward to October!
Just make sure that the loss limits are adjusted appropriately as well,as was mentioned above. You would hit those pretty quick! |
|
Adiemus wrote
at 1:45 PM, Tuesday September 11, 2007 EDT There is no need to play in this system, cos the game just depends on luck now. It is better to roll once at the beginning and decide rankings...
|
