Forum
Kdice++
|
ChristianSoldier wrote
at 11:17 PM, Wednesday October 29, 2008 EDT
1) All players pay a 1% ante (of their total points) to sit.
2) Any player can leave the game before the end of their 1st round turn and take back half of their ante. 3) Only the first place player wins points, and he gets the entire kitty. 4) The traditional flag is insta-death. 5) An additional 'bribeable' flag is introduced. The first player to click on someone else's bribe flag pays permanently an amount to make that player leave the game immediately. A bribe flag can be raised and dropped. I have various ideas on the precise value for the bribe. I suspect the most stable method is to let the flagging player type in the value. These rules are intended to: 1) Limit damage for bad starts that players KNOW are bad. 2) Continue to eliminate the problem of 1st place handing out all the other positions on whim and loyalty rather than merit. 3) Mitigate endless cycles of 2nd + 3rd vs. 1st place via the bribing mechanism. 4) Allow humans to generate the scoring system by essentially having a market system for bribe values. Players standing in the way of someone else winning, who themselves can't win, stand to be paid out in proportion to the strength of their position. |
|
ProxyCheater wrote
at 11:34 PM, Wednesday October 29, 2008 EDT That system would be so easy to exploit. People would pay each other off via whim/loyalty, splitting the pot. Truces would be encouraged based on the direct control of divvying up points. People could hide behind the leader based on a deal to get points later. People would make PGA deals to give each other points, the leaderboard would be full of the people who made those deals.
Besides all of that, the "bribe" bidding would distract from gameplay, and the people who scream about flagging and truces would scream even louder about the dirty rotten underhanded bribe deals that screwed them out of a fair game. |
|
|
ChristianSoldier wrote
at 11:53 PM, Wednesday October 29, 2008 EDT Your arguments generally lack a balancing reference to the issues in the current system. You can not highlight problems that would exist in both systems and present that as an argument, absent a comparison.
"People would pay each other off via whim/loyalty, splitting the pot" In comparison to what? In this rule set 'paying' someone off actually costs the payer something. Whereas, 'paying someone off' now can include 1st making 2nd place 4th at no expense to 1st. "Truces would be encouraged based on the direct control of divvying up points" so? "People would make PGA deals to give each other points" Unavoidable. This isn't a new problem. Does PGA'ing not help players essentially give each other points already? "Besides all of that, the "bribe" bidding would distract from gameplay" It would become an entertaining part of the gameplay. It is intuitive. Instadeath flagging is also intuitive. Dom and the current flagging 'metaethics' is not intuitive and distracts from gameplay. |
|
jurgen wrote
at 3:04 AM, Thursday October 30, 2008 EDT interesting variant
as far as the ante, I would change it a bit to make it more balanced 0 table -> 10 fixed + 1% of total points 100 table -> 20 fixed + 1% of total points 500 table -> 100 fixed + 1% of total points 2500 table -> 250 fixed + 1% of total points 10000 table -> 500 fixed + 2% of total points The best thing I like about your proposal is the % of total points to ante. There will be a higher inscentive for players at 3k-4k to play 2500 or 10k-12k players to play 10k since they have the lowest #points to ante but the biggest gain potential. So maybe more players will try the higher tables. The negative side of this system might be that players will all focus on the highest ranked player since there is more points to win from him. It's only a name but I would definitely change "bribe" into something more ethical like "reward for not screwing me". There is some potential in that bribeable flag but I think it will be so complicated to introduce. And what if the player in 1st doesn't end 1st? The bribe cannot come from the pot in that case. |
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 12:20 PM, Thursday October 30, 2008 EDT A useless and non-intuitive bastard child of PPG and total score.
|
|
moneymango wrote
at 2:48 PM, Thursday October 30, 2008 EDT I'm assuming the bride would come from the bribers points directly not from the pot. I'm not sure how the bribe flag would encourage PGA, as it would actually cost the 1st player points to bribe anyone.
|
|
montecarlo wrote
at 3:34 PM, Thursday October 30, 2008 EDT gotta admit i chuckled at skrums response.
|
|
|
ChristianSoldier wrote
at 4:43 PM, Thursday October 30, 2008 EDT Jurgen:
Not sure what you mean by 'making it more balanced'.. what are you aiming for? How about 'buyout price'? (The icon put up need not be, and probably shouldn't be a flag). Skrum: When I first used that line, it was accurate. Mango: You are right, the buyout [bribe] has to be paid permanently from a player's own points. All: The 1% ante is designed for two things: 1) In the limit, a player's points depend on average skill of opponents, percentage of wins, and skill with buyouts. His score will NOT depend nearly as much on the number of games they have played. This is basic math, if you average 10 points per game but have to pay 1% per game to play you will peak at 1000 rather than run on indefinitely. 2) Winning against stronger opponents is rewarded. (the total points in the kitty is higher). A simple alternative which may find more appeal is to make the ante 1% of the *average* of all player scores at the table. |
|
|
jurgen wrote
at 4:52 PM, Thursday October 30, 2008 EDT more balanced as in a minimum total ante
if you have a 500 table with 7 players between 500-1000 points, total ante would be 35 -70 points total... just saying that would be a bit too low to be interesting so I would add a fixed amount as well |
|
|
ChristianSoldier wrote
at 5:02 PM, Thursday October 30, 2008 EDT A win among players with equal scores increases your score by 6%. Given that some of that is likely to be used for buyouts, I agree this might be too low. The maximally simple route would be to merely increase the ante from 1% to 5%.
I do think also there needs to be a special provision for the 0 table. The kitty will need to be more than a fraction of their scores. Good point. |
|
|
montecarlo wrote
at 5:12 PM, Thursday October 30, 2008 EDT PGA team would all gain points throughout the month, then on the last day, they would all sit together through a few games and take turns buying one guy out for 100,000 points each. then that one guy would win the month easily. next month, rotate who gets 1st.
simple way around it would be to put a cap on the max buyout, but still this can be abused somewhat by team tactics. |
