CORDIAL MINUET ENSEMBLE

So... has Professor Chin been awarded the amulet? Considering that he is the only one so far to have taken up cullman's challenge, and he did place right behind Performer Frog that day, it probably makes the most sense to send him the amulet. Who knows, maybe the back photos of that amulet will be the ones needed to help move the investigation of the mystery forward...

Ditto... Even though it's bittersweet excitement. Cordial Minuet is a brilliant game that should have been a commercial success. Perhaps in a parallel universe, it is. But I just kept hoping that somehow, it would get into the right hands, go viral, catch a second wind...

One of the reasons I respect Jason Rohrer as a game designer (from what I've seen as a member of this forum, and while lurking in TCD forum) is because of his ability to look at a problem as it is, come up with a solution, and if there's no satisfactory solution, then move on. So while I'm excited to see that there's another intriguing game starting to form, I am still sad about Cordial Minuet's fate.

I was thinking about that a bit, too. After reading Tale of Tales' sad farewell blog post, I felt guilt-tripped enough to buy Sunset. I did not enjoy it. I don't think it did either "mainstream game" or "artsy indie" well. The fact that it was technically buggy and didn't run well didn't help matters.

Re: the $1/life thing... At first I thought "What?!?! This could get expensive! I play for 10 hours, that's $10, and then I can't play anymore! RAAWWWR!" ... And then I realized I'm falling into that "money per hour of gameplay" trap. So while I appreciate the idea behind this now-abandoned experimental pricing model (and what it means from an artistic standpoint, as it invites reflection on the whole "bang for your buck" critical model of games), like jere, I think it might be best to go the conventional route, at least where money is concerned...

So I am looking forward to wherever this game idea goes, and not just because I like pie. I hope that much further down the line, if and when there's a new forum and/or testing period, we get invited! I'd like to know more about these 32 flavours of pie...

Midnight in my timezone, but I'm off on Monday, so what they hey. Hopefully my internet connection is co-operative... and hopefully you don't end up all-in on the first hand!

I would be searching Professor Chin's basement for a tied-up Performer Frog right about now...

BTW, am I the only one picturing this?

Oh hey, welcome back (sort of) Critical Mammal. I remember your long "first impressions" post from the early days of the launch contest. You seemed very enthusiastic about the game, but you hadn't appeared on the forums since then. In fact,  I think we've had quite a few people like you: people who joined the game, fell in love with it, played a lot for a little while... and then drifted away. Thanks for coming back and sharing your thoughts. I've been curious about the reasons people arrive, play a lot for a short period of time, but then never really join the community and play regularly (even over time).

I experienced some of the same symptoms as you during the days post-launch. While it was awesome having so many people playing, and therefore never waiting more than a few seconds for a game to start, the games did seem to blur into each other. Personally, I think I also experienced the Overjustification Effect, as I was playing so many games in order to win a prize outside of the usual reward for winning a game.

In any case, rather than rehash your and Jason's points, I think it would be more productive to say why I have stuck with the game. Aside from contest winnings, I have not won any money, nor have I lost much, either. I don't enjoy gambling, but when I have (CM, or Holdem at an expat pub), it's for the intrinsic joy of the game (and in the case of Holdem, the social aspect).

Jason is correct when he says that CM lacks the "gambling juice" that other games have, but I still find I get a shot of adrenaline playing CM that I don't get with anything else I play. And while I'll never be dealt AA in CM, watching that 36 light up is a very sweet feeling-- perhaps even sweeter than AA, since getting the 36 meant I had to position myself to receive it from another human being, not from a RNG (though my opponent is aware I might have the 36... can't get the jump on him like you can in poker).

The elegance and beauty of the game have also retained me, both the numerical elegance and the score graph, as well as the ink strokes on the board. Yes, the board is "ominous" and strange, and I'm sure the combination of demonic sketches, Italian words, and Hebrew letters has led to many "WTF" utterances, but it's also lovely the way it all works. To me, there's something addictive about that.

So to sum up: I'm likely a statistical anomaly who should also have tried the game, smiled and said "huh, clever," and then not come back. Unlike many dedicated members of the CM community, I'm also not a computer programmer, which puts me even further from the centre of the graph. And finally, as I'm neither a gambler willing to constantly lose and deposit cash, nor someone with friends and colleagues I can invite who are willing to constantly lose and deposit cash, I'm really not so good for business!

Yes, I'm glad we had something resembling a tournament this time around.

Now, in poor ol' Expression Bosom's defense... I've been the first person to join a tournament quite a few times in the past. A couple times nobody joined me. More often the case, however, was that one other person would join, beat me (sometimes for the minimum amount to qualify for profit), and then stop playing-- which is, of course, a completely legitimate thing to do. Sadly, nobody else would then join, and being an honest person (and realizing that $1 is not worth it... though $200 would be), I did not create an alt to lose a couple games to me (since doing so would mitigate my loss and turn my opponent's decisive win into a slight loss...).

This time around, I played three games: one against Substitute Avenue which went for about 15 rounds, with him/her leaving with almost two thirds of my coins; one against Gentleman Errand, who timed out on the first pick (and then never joined another game); and one against Sky Performer, which resulted in me winning all coins minus slight tribute.

As the tournament time is three hours and people might have other things to do, it's possible that I might have said "Yay, that'll do," and left to do something else (which is legitimate). This time, however, I decided to watch and see how the tournament played out while doing other things. Generally, things stayed quiet, with very few other games being played. In the last 15 minutes, however, Substitute Avenue and Sky Performer played a few quickie games, which eventually resulted in Substitute Avenue reaching the top spot.

Again, this is completely legitimate play, but not something I could really guard against. Yes, I could have played another game earlier and increased my lead, but how much of a lead does one need to have before "fairly" calling it quits? Twice the tournament amount? Three times? Two (or more) desperate players could still topple that amount at the last minute through rapid all-in play.

In any case, .. is completely right: this is simply a symptom of lack of players. Five players is the most we've had in weeks, but it's still nowhere near critical mass for tournaments. Ten would be better, but even then that's a bit low. All of these issues are currently tied up in what's on all of our minds (at least those people still reading the forums): what exactly will be the future of Cordial Minuet.

I feel that this new rising leaving penalty has made it tougher to decide when to leave. I had been doing what Jeopardy Alcohol was reported as doing (leaving around the 10-coin ante mark), because hey, JA's been doing something right, and there must be a mathematically sound reason for avoiding 10+ coin antes (even when nobody has clearly won).

I've stopped doing that, because the higher leave penalty would often transform a decent win into a marginal win. I feel that it's worth my while to play one more round and attempt to get a bigger lead, or even reduce my opponent to zero. This also leads to more exciting games where that "one more round" leads to a comeback!

In any case, I think the new leave penalty is about right. Perhaps still a tad low, but better than before. As I recall, the initial leave penalty had two purposes:

1) Prevent first-pick all-in bullying, where the bully could steal a few antes and leave (potentially a very big problem at higher stakes).

2) Encourage people to have full games together, going at least up to ten rounds (rather than quickly playing a few aggressive rounds and leaving).

Thanks jere. I'm sure it was just a one off, caused by the change in coding.

So here's something strange. I was the sole participant in a daily tournament, until JA joined right at the last minute. Jason changed the coding the next day to give everybody refunds when nobody has enough profit to claim a prize.

But, it looks like we were each given $200, which was subsequently taken away. It's made our score graphs look really wonky:

http://humbit.com/cmbot/index.php?alias … %20alcohol

http://humbit.com/cmbot/index.php?alias … sion+bosom

Is there any way to fix our score graphs, to remove the phantom $200 entry?

And also: it probably won't happen again (and it didn't affect the other tournament contestants who were given refunds for later tournaments), but clearly there was some weird bug involved here. But since it only affected the two of us, I guess it's nothing serious.

Some days it seems like you're always getting the top score, other days you just keep pulling 3's and 4's.

Personally, I find CM has a thrill built into it that chess simply does not have-- indeed, something no perfect information can have. True, in chess you might get some satisfaction from watching your opponent fall into your well-laid trap, which I think is akin to trapping your opponent in CM when you have the top score (and therefore have all the information that matters). The more exciting, tense moments in CM happen, I find, when you're bluffing, or when you have the second-highest score. Again, it's the uncertainy, the hidden information that creates that excitement.

I listened to the second interview in that programme, about the "Success Equation." The author of the book talks about how when there is too much skill being drawn upon in a skill-based game, that is, paradoxically, when luck starts to take over. CM is without question a game of skill, but when two pros (or even two new players) play a game together, the outcome might be more determined by luck then anything else...

Question: what happens if more than one player joins, but no games are played?

http://cordialminuet.com/gameServer/ser … ent_report

According to Canto, JA joined this tournament in the final minute.

https://twitter.com/canto_delirium/stat … 1476347905

For me, part of it depends on the format of the tournament. I didn't join the CM community until after all of the tournaments had run, but if I understood it correctly, the last $5 tournament ran for a few hours, during which you could play as many or as few games as you wanted, while trying to generate profit from other tournament contestants (the final profit determining where you place in the standings). Losing some early games would make it harder to make a comeback, but at least there's no way you can get knocked out.

I would view joining a tournament as entertainment for those few hours, so even if I lost, I'd still feel like I got my money's worth. I'd happily pay $5 or $10 for a few hours of intense CM matches! $20... maybe, though I think I'd be the fish feeding the sharks!

What I wouldn't want is to be knocked out early: the equivalent of buying in and losing my whole stack on the first hand.

I would suggest at least two regular tournaments per week, maybe adjusted to catch people in different time zones.