Forum
Table maximums
|
XCRobin wrote
at 11:03 PM, Sunday December 2, 2007 EST
I noticed that there seems to be a lot of people complaining about the top players always slumming in the bottom tables. Table maximums would solve many of those problems.
Under the elo system of kdice there were no strict table minimums. I once sat at a 0 table with Wishbone who was 2100+ at the time. He won, and still lost points. The ability to lose points even while winning a game created effectively a table maximum. It forced people to play people similar to their scores. Under the new system people are allowed to sit with anyone (provided they are above 10 points or under 100). This has both pros and cons. While I believe that it is generally a good idea to let the “echelons†of kdice to mix, it has created problems. There seems to be a persistent thread on the forums of people complaining about the 17k player who is sitting at a 10 table hoping for an easy 100 points. Maybe they’ll reply that there aren’t enough high games to get a game going. However, table maximums would create more high-table traffic, eliminating many of the problems that the under 1k players experience. The best competition you can find all month is on the 0 tables, at least in the two months that I’ve been playing since not having an account in the top 25. The games are great, fast-paced, and pretty ruthless. By not allowing anyone with over 100 points to sit, it creates somewhat of a bubble where better players emerge from, and the lesser players learn the skills to eventually compete on the 200 or the 1k tables. I propose table maximums of: 0 table: 100 points 10 table: 500 points 200 table: 4k points 1k table: No maximum at this point. I’d like to see what other people think of this idea. Table maximums would promote more games on the higher tables, would reduce the number of top 25 players trolling the lower tables, and would promote greater competition towards the end of the month. Heh, I just hope that this doesn’t force me to start worrying about my points again. Think about it. |
« First
‹ Previous
Replies 11 - 19 of 19
|
kdicefreak wrote
at 9:13 PM, Tuesday March 11, 2008 EDT i want the game to be FAIR.....if you think elo is the answer, then may be it is......
|
|
Adam's Argos wrote
at 7:41 PM, Wednesday March 12, 2008 EDT I agree fully with SNews88! It would be nice if we all had to slum it for a bit (us non-members all have to) at the zero tables, it helps everyone, even though it is darn annoying haha.
I'm all for a maximum a tables, but I'm over 2500 and sometimes I don't want to wait for a 2500 table to fill up, and sometimes, though not often, even 500 tables take awhile...so I dunno. |
|
Awesomeness! wrote
at 10:14 AM, Thursday March 13, 2008 EDT i think table maximums are a great idea although i believe the table values themselves should be revised...
i think it is too easy for the 'bad' player to get to 500... the way i look at kdice is as follows: 0 - for newbies and the 'casual' kdicer 100 - beginning to understand the game rules but still needs work on strategy 500 - starting to put those strategies in2 practice and becoming more of a better player 2500 - an established player, understands the game 10000 - 'elite' (and i hate to use that word but u know what i mean) i think that the jump from 100 - 500 aint big enough... |
|
|
Adam's Argos wrote
at 11:26 AM, Thursday March 13, 2008 EDT Hey awesomeness,
Who is going to decide what a "good" and "bad" player is. If one can get up to the 500 tables, then obviously he knows a little bit about the game, and getting up to higher levels will only help them. Are YOU going to tell people what tables they can and can't go on? Cause I remember you badmouthing my game at one point, and where I am by no means an elite player, I consider myself at least "good." If a player that is "bad" by your standards makes it up to the 500 or 2500 level, they can't be that bad now can they? |
|
KAddict wrote
at 3:53 PM, Thursday March 13, 2008 EDT I like the idea of table minimums and maximums. Another idea to go along with it is to modify the scoring system. Instead of losing points, have 4th - 7th gain zero points. That way each player can progress through the graduated tables without fear (and the whining & slamming that goes with it) of sliding backward. It might change the social climate of the game to a kinder, friendlier KDice. :-) There would still be ruthless competition, but maybe fewer expletives and feeble attempts at character defamation. Just a thought.
0L: 0-100 100L: 100-500 500L: 500-1000 1000L: 1000-2500 |
|
|
Awesomeness! wrote
at 3:34 AM, Friday March 14, 2008 EDT @ adam
i am not saying i am 'elite' but i am a good player who has some respect from other players. i have proved i can cut i at 2500 and 10k...with the exception of last month...but even good players have bad times. kehoe is another decent ezample of a top player who, has been to the top, then had a bad month or 2 and is now back at the top... if u ask any1 i play with on a regular basis, i have the ability to make games fun withy lots of chat and i do, on accasion, have a go at people and sacrifice my game to get them back...however, i only do this if i believe i think it is the wrong move! my game is purely built upon in game alliances that evolve from gameplay...i watch each and every move by every player to see who is doin who favours...this happens alot at the top! which is why i believe, when i get off the low tables i can get myself established! simply put, players at 0/100/500 ARE NOT advanced enough in gameplay to understand these tactics...FACT what i suggested is, i believe, a good idea. btw, i would say a 'bad' player is someone who spends the majority of the month playing low tables if they hit 200+game per month! my opinion, im entilted to it |
|
|
kdicefreak wrote
at 7:37 AM, Friday March 14, 2008 EDT Awesomeness! is just awesome.......we should all listen to him.
|
|
|
Adam's Argos wrote
at 11:52 AM, Friday March 14, 2008 EDT awesome, I fail to see where you answered my post at all.
Did I ever say you were a bad player? No And was that a shot at me? I have never played 200 games in a month (although I may this month, took me awhile to get off those darn 0-100 tables!) And I play on the 2500 tables, and 10 000 tables when I get there, as often as there are people ready to play, if not, I'd rather play a 500 then just sit there. |
|
|
Adam's Argos wrote
at 12:32 PM, Friday March 14, 2008 EDT And I understand if someone plays 200+ games and doesn't make it over the 500 tables they aren't overly skilled, but is forcing them to constantly play on the 0 tables going to make them better?
|
