CORDIAL MINUET ENSEMBLE
??????
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Pages: 1
#1 Re: Main Forum » Just Played a Few Games » 2014-11-27 02:23:02
And yeah, "Life and Death and Middle Pair" is one of the greatest talks in the history of the video game industry.
Frank is the one who got me thinking about Poker. He gave another talk the next year about how game theory saved the world from a nuclear holocaust.
Hear, hear! I loved that talk (obviously, considering my username).
I'm not sure I've seen the other one you're referencing. Link?
#2 Re: Main Forum » Just Played a Few Games » 2014-11-26 16:15:48
Are any of you familiar with the concept of "Donkeyspace"?
How apropos, since that video is supposedly part of the inspiration for Cordial Minuet. I think I'll watch it now.
I wasn't aware of that! Now I understand why I was so attracted to the concept of this game when I first heard about it.
#3 Re: Main Forum » Just Played a Few Games » 2014-11-26 16:13:47
That's fair. I do think it would be interesting (and valuable for Jason) to know if the game can be "broken" mechanically, I just don't think anyone would want to use such a strategy if it did exist.
Let us know how that bot works out. 
#4 Re: Main Forum » Just Played a Few Games » 2014-11-26 15:35:01
This will reset the stakes, and make it less likely the other player can gain back what they lost... It's a solution in that it allows you to continue playing against someone uninterrupted. It's extremely annoying to spend time playing against someone, trying to learn their tactics, only to have them leave the second they have a lead.
I briefly had this concern, but realized it makes no sense. Once you've lost 10 chips, you've lost 10 chips. Your opponent is also giving up the knowledge of your tactics and since they're the ones beating you, I'd say the loss is theirs. The whole concept of "winning back" what you lost smells like sunk costs and gambler's fallacy to me.
If the games are consistently short, that indeed seems annoying, but I haven't had that happen very often.
I haven't played a ton in the last few days so I don't know if more of this is happening now, but as I was playing a lot this past weekend I very rarely (if ever) had anyone leave the match before somebody had been completely cleaned out. I had a lot more fun (and ultimately, profited a lot more) playing until I had an opportunity to get them to call my bluff and go all in. Even when I was the one getting cleaned out, I felt like I would have been able to make a comeback with a more cautious betting (I rarely fold, which is something I need to work on).
I actually feel pretty neutral on the idea of punishing a player for leaving in some way because I'm not convinced it happens very often (although it could be that people just like to play and are afraid they won't be able to get into another match immediately if they leave...this could be different when the game is public), but I'm inclined to say it's fine the way it is.
I have gained some serious insight into what an optimal strategy for Cordial Minuet should look like. It seems like in the first round, strategy should be dictated by the rows/columns with the lowest high number. In a typical first round, you should always give your opponent the column with the lowest high number, because it ensures a level or predictability (you know they cannot have a number above that number).
I'm not convinced. I don't think the word "always" should ever be mentioned while discussing column picking. If you're adopting the same column picking strategy every time, you're easily beaten. If your opponent was always giving you the row with the lowest high number, then they are easily beaten because you get like a 29 and you've probably got a 50% chance to give them sub 10.
My strategy yesterday was actually to pick one of the highest numbers to min/max my hand. I'd rather know out of the gate if I have the advantage or not.
If there ever is an "optimal strategy" I expect it to have more to do with betting than anything else.
I do think writing a bot would be interesting though.
Are any of you familiar with the concept of "Donkeyspace"? As an overall goal, I often try to give my opponent "playable" values (20-30 range) while I aim for higher values on the first turn. If I give them something too low, they'll fold, but as long as I have a slight edge, I feel comfortable betting like I'm just trying to see how it plays out. When it gets down to the reveals, I try to trick them into thinking I have something low so they bet more (or I bet high when I actually have nothing and try to buy the pot).
After working the above strategies for a round, I assume the opponent knows them. So I adjust. I pick a column with a "playable" value for myself and select the column with the 36 in it for them, assuming they'll think I picked it.
The point is, I don't know if there's an "optimal" strategy for picking columns, because it doesn't always matter if you have the "optimal" score. I've played games with very low scores and still won big by bluffing the opponent into a fold. Playing "optimally" will win you a tiny payout, but navigating the donkeyspace is what gets you the big payouts.
#5 Re: Main Forum » My first thoughts after playing today. » 2014-11-24 18:55:59
There used to be a "transfer money" option for withdrawing (where, for free, you could just pass money to another account). But I need to make sure that I'm not operating a "Money Service Business" (like PayPal) by accident. There are all sorts of regs that would suddenly apply.
I agree that it would be nice to be able to gift 50 cent accounts to friends. Hmm... Still, I can't get near the territory of sending "You've Got Money" emails. Granted, 50 cents can't be withdrawn on it's own. Maybe if it was limited to a certain amount or something.
The anonymity is partially to thwart money laundering (though it doesn't totally thwart intentional money passing, obviously), and also just to ensure that each new game is a fresh slate (you can't carry knowledge about a given opponent from past games, you can't intentionally pick on a weak player repeatedly, etc.) When you join a CM game, you could be playing against a first timer or against the best player in the world. There's no way to tell. Also, you all know how much I don't like xxxTheBosSxxx appearing in the aesthetic fabric of my games.
I'll look at fixing that Old Balance thing in v9.
Perhaps you could limit transfers to a low amount (50 cents to a dollar is more than enough for someone to play, could probably even go lower), but also instate some sort of time limit (few hours?) before another transfer can be made? I'm not sure if that's enough to avoid dealing with the added headache of legal regulations, but it would make it easy for new players to get in without too much commitment.
I'd like to mention that I love the anonymity, btw. I completely agree that player-determined user names would ruin the aesthetic. I think the current name generation that we use to check leaderboards is very cool, but having any sort of indicator in-game would degrade it.
#6 Re: Main Forum » How to report bugs » 2014-11-22 20:39:36
Wow, this is a neat feature. I know it's primarily for debugging purposes, but I was very happy to be able to use it myself to demonstrate one of my games to my roommate.
Just a note, though: Since it records EVERYTHING, it also records the account creation screen where you input your credit card number. Not a big deal since you'd have to play back the recording to see it, but it may be the type of thing that someone more paranoid than me could be concerned about.
Pages: 1