??????
You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Maybe if both players had 2 shared cards before the first pick it would change how we value even the first pick.
Impressions from just 2 1cent games. One ended with the opponent leaving at roughly even. Another ended with me out of chips:
- It feels like the odds of getting a good hand are lower than your estimation because so few possible numbers/suits are available in the last round (given that there are some suit/number duplicates and some that can't help your hand). Sometimes the ONLY possible improvement remaining is a higher single number.
- My best guess was to pick a row with lots of suit diversity and hope I can steer toward rows that will give better odds at a flush or straight.
- I don't have any sense of how to guess what my opponent is picking for me or what I should pick for them. Honestly it didn't feel any different from playing against a random house (except for the betting of course).
- It's visually hard to understand what possible hands my opponent might have, even after the 3rd pick.
- In my head I was calling the suits: splotch, lemon, plus, and cactus
I don't know if I'd give it a second chance, I just didn't have any of the same fun that I normally have with the game.
I like that in almost every showdown one of us has their expectations reversed (believed it was a win, but was duped into a loss).
Wow, nice! Small suggestion, maybe you could make an additional bot for wins over a certain threshold for a less spammy alternative?
This is fixed now, it was a Steam bug.
Yep, that's exactly the bug. I will attack it from the other side, thanks!
Previously people could watch me play, but now when someone joins my broadcast the visuals shrink into the bottom left quadrant of the game window. It seems like I still have input at the larger scale, but it's so hard to figure out where anything is that the game is unplayable. Lost 0.10 because I had to leave.
I can't find a way to disable broadcasting per game so now I have the fear that I'll be interrupted in the middle of a big bet. My temp fix is to launch it from outside of Steam, but I'll miss talking to random friends about the game when they asked what it is.
Your new proposal sounds great. One question, would the fixed stake tables be funded out of your normal balance separate from the entry fee?
What if it was:
- Fixed buy in (say $2) where all buy ins are done before a specific date/time and on accounts with more than X games
- All tourney winnings are kept in a separate pool from your standard balance (until the end)
- Winner take all (that's my favorite part of your proposal)
- BUT each game can start with uneven chip distribution
So, if player A built their tourney pool up to $12 plays against player B with $8, player A would start that game with 120 chips and player B would start with 80 chips. So you still get eliminations and players who win more games will generally have an advantage against player's who've won less. With fixed buy in period all players are known from the start and you always know how many remain.
FYI for those wondering, we figured it out by watching the replay. After placing my final bet I accidentally moused over a row and it reduced their possibilities to 1 (the max). I mistook this for the final winning result and left in frustration. I thought I had lost, but actually won a fraction of a second before I left. I was so dumbfounded that I'd been "bluffed" that I even misread the final balance screen.
Very weird, dumb, and lucky. I will have more patience in the future.
I worked my way up from $5 to $7, but 2 nights ago I made some really bad calls in $1 games and was down to $3. Today I hopped on and I'm magically up to $7 again. Was something reversed? Were people given a New Year's bonus? Did I win big while drunk and forget?
Well, what I'm "fine" with is different than what I want to actually build into the game.
There's a certain aesthetic experience that I'm shooting for, and playing randomly isn't it. It's very important that the game, as an object, embodies the target aesthetic experience exactly.
So, for example, I'm not going to put a chatroom in it. But third-party chatrooms are fine---and even exciting---to me.
I love the idea of people developing bots for this game, but I'm not going to build a bot into the game, because this is a game for humans at it's core, and I wouldn't want the average player using a bot (or random picker) as their core experience.
I didn't want players NEEDING a calculator or doing combinatorics in their heads as their core experience, so that's why I built the score graph in. But I did want them considering strategy beyond the combinatorics, so I didn't build-in any strategic aids beyond the graph.
Perfect explanation. Thanks!
That would explain it. Thanks!
I've heard random selection discussed as a strategy. Since you put so much state knowledge on screen and are very liberal about outside assistance, why not build a shuffle button into the interface?
Yeah, I'm talking about cases where I set up the lobby, it's the first game, and it hasn't even shown the crosspicks, so it's like they timed out before taking a single action.
Pretty often my opponent will quit the game, leaving 1 chip, before the first round completes. Are they just testing something? Is it a connection problem?
Wow, the turnout was less than for the test tournament. That makes me think that maybe the date and time slot didn't suit a lot people.
It was definitely bad timing for me.
Played a 1 penny game and won!
Is it okay to broadcast beta games through Steam? (I know this could give opponents a huge advantage if they found your stream.)
I've been excited to play this and just got the invite. I can't connect at work, but will try it once I get home. Thanks, Jason!
Pages: 1