??????
You are not logged in.
Wow, that's a great story.
I myself feel the itch to play that game again, maybe we should do a short reunion. I would recommend the 6th of June
I am quite sad about how it is turning out.
I have very good experiences with CM.
It is a lot of fun to play, I had really intense matches and it helped me to pass a rather tough time while keeping my brain active.
Due to CM I also meet some great people. It's interesting that in a game, where you are fighting over each others money, friendships can happen. I hope I can stay in touch with most of them.
I am not really active anymore as I have a job now. Also I will probably lose some money, as I am more of a tournament player.
Thank you, Jason, for this great game and thank you, community
This .. guy knows how to entertain, or what? Great stuff
The simplest way to handle this in the future, so we're not splitting hairs and running into edge cases, is to simply require a minimum amount of profit to place on the leaderboard. That would prevent someone from coming in and join/leaving several games in a row to make their game quota.
Thus, in the future, anyone with 0 or negative profit would not receive a prize. The threshold in this case of this tournament could have been something like 25 cents. So, if you don't take at least half of the chips from SOMEONE, you will receive no prize.
Interesting idea indeed.
Given the results of this tournament how would have been the prizes with a threshold of 25 cents?
I really feel for Professor Chin here.
It is a bit "I told you so", JA joined within the last two minutes of the contest. This would have been prevented by making him eligible after finishing their first game.
At the current tournament had many players a negative profit and I realized that by joining in the last couple of minutes and by not playing you could cheesily grab a few dollars.
I think this should be systematically prevented. Maybe by having to have played at least one game.
Which got me thinking that maybe you could change the system so, that by playing the first tournament game you cash in.
So instead of having processes like this: 1. Cash in 2. Look for a game 3. Have an opponent, pay match stake
You could try: 1. Look for a tournament game 2. Have an opponent, cash in & pay match stake
I won't be able to participate, internet at my new place is not working.
pretty cool! I hope that until the start of the tournament my internet is working as promised.
I might join a $20 tournament.
On my last stop at a German gas station I checked the prepaid card section and I found a so called "Joker Mastercard Geschenkskarte" (Gift card).
I haven't tried it, but I assume this one should work with CM.
Yeah, unfortunately if you have no credit card there is no option for you to play this game.
In Germany there are no pre-paid Visa gift cards.
If you really cannot find someone else with a credit card, try to contact me via forum mail and maybe we can work something out.
Thank you very much for this contest. It was nerve wrecking, but enjoyable at the same time. The twelve days contest was something I've never experienced before. I played "hard" and put much effort into winning an amulet, I took risks, messed up by sleep rhythm, had failures and success. I am glad to get a reminder of this event.
It's too bad that regarding the player count the launch did not work out... However let me tell you, that I really like this game.
A friend of mine is a professional Go (baduk) player in Korea who should have won an account by Frosty&Jere's give away. We will setup a match within the next time. Go pros are actually quite into various games and combine them with "gambling"like elements, so there is the possibilty to get a certain audience here.
Anyway, thanks again for the contest, this great experience and the game itself.
That's bad. I have told some friend about it, but none of them had a reddit account. Does this mean their comments are excluded?
Yeah, I know reddit is the big thing...
Maybe the player who win/won an amulet can get one of these too.
Which "before" picture are you refering to?
A screenshot button?! Oh, that is so helpful!
This might be a blunt suggestion, but why not let the regular winners have the money prizes, so if you play consistently good you earned this.
Only that you can get one physical prize.
Oh interesting.
If there are several players who won more than one medal, who gets to choose first?
(Maybe it does not matter, I am also not sure for 100%)
Just a question about the winning a medal and getting to choose system:
Let's just assume there are three medals in the contest:
Gold:
1. Adam
2. Biff
3. Cris
Silver:
1. Adam
2. Dave
3. Cris
Bronze:
1. Dave
2. Cris
3. Biff
Everyone wants the highest possible medal.
Adam can choose between Gold and Silver, he takes Gold.
This makes Dave eligable to get the Silver medal.
Can Dave go for Silver now or does he have to take the Bronze medal, as he was unfortunate enough to win this one?
I was wondering if you were doing intensive testing, as it was shutdown for so long
Wow, brilliant! They look really great! Good job!
I am looking forward to it!
Yeah, LiteS just mentioned what I was also sometimes thinking about. I like the idea.
Oh, yes, I remember the "hard-fought penny". Good times indeed.
jasonrohrer wrote:But how do we deal with one person from winning more than one? If you win a copper on day 1, are you blocked from winning gold on day 6?
Personally, I liked how prizes were resolved in the original amulet contest. Someone couldn't win two, and would get the better prize. That way you don't have folks disappointed they didn't win anything and someone has won two. Also, awarding them like you've outlined in reverse order still incentivises early winners to continue playing for better prizes. So in this scenario you'd award the prizes at the end of the contest, with the person getting the gold from day 6, and the copper would go to the person in second.
Then again, I may like this type of reward structure because it's the reason I won $30...
I really like this idea!
It would keep people engaged. If you won an amulet the other day, you will try to get a better one. If you are second place to one, you will try to get the next one and hope for the number one guy to get a better one.
It favors people who were the best in the time period but also players who continously have a good more than average score.
The only thing I can think of is maybe using the last ante of a game as some kind of point modifier to reward longer games if you win, or soften the blow if you lose, as you play longer.
I do understand what Cobblestone is saying. We played the first game of the contest against each other. It took us almost an hour to get a decisive win, which was 30% of the whole contest time.
I would like to see a some sort of modifier/compensation, but I cannot think of something good.
I'd be interested to know which cabal member scored the most coins off people in non-cabalVcabal battles.
During the final hour I had trouble to get into any game.
Only Caravan Disturber started playing in the last 15 minutes again and to have an impact on the player board, both played aggressively. I would not clap my back too hard for getting coins from me at the end of the tournament.