??????
You are not logged in.
Frank Lantz has published a new clicker game called Universal Paperclips and it's quite fascinating: http://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/
I figure CM players might find it interesting because not only was Lantz one of the inspirations for Cordial Minuet, but he also included several game theory references here including things like yomi and donkeyspace.
This is looking awesome. I especially am digging the website.
Are there any Let's Plays of it?
I took some pictures to post, but am not sure where to post them to.
If you've not used it before, imgur is super easy to use (you can even paste in images).
This late reunion of you and your amulet is a nice capstone to the story of the contest. How serendipitous! Thanks for sharing.
Not really. I made a twitter bot to track matches. From that you can tell there are usually a couple matches each day against STRING CORN, which is a bot. It's good that a bot is still hanging around because that should guarantee you a match.
No discord that I know of. There was a chatroom but apparently it's dead. These forums are probably your best bet. It might help to post the stakes you want to play at and when you're around. I know a couple people that still have some money in their account.
Guessing my Alias on your twitter site is "cost cell"
You should know for sure because your alias is included in one of the early emails. Assuming you're cost cell I checked and I saw you on, for instance, the second page of the profit ratio leaderboards. Also, make sure to check out the profit graph that my bot generates: http://humbit.com/cmbot/index.php?alias=cost+cell
I cant figure out why this game never caught on more?
This is the million dollar question. We've discussed it a lot actually. It seems like people tend to find the concept interesting, but are very hesitant to pull the trigger and put real money in the game, either because they assume they'll lose or they don't trust the (somewhat intentionally) sketchy website. For people already into gambling games like poker, I'm guessing they just want to stick with their game. Jason actually went to Vegas several times and talked to some poker people trying make traction and apparently no one even wanted to write about it.
The idea behind the game is anonymous opponents. However, I created a bot that can fairly reliable tell you who you played against after the fact: https://twitter.com/canto_delirium
To answer your question in the other thread, you should already be on the leaderboards. What's your alias?
Cool, Nate. That should be a very interesting game and I think we would all love to see the commentary between the two highest rollers. Did you ever see the split screen video Cobblestone and I did?
Well, we've played one game so far, so now I've got $40. Hopefully we'll get some more game(s) in here soon.
Bold! Do you have a predetermined stopping point or are you just going to keep going?
Just to clarify the difference between our perspectives: AnoHito, you seem to have come up with quite a few numbers of fixes to CM (of which I'm sure some might be useful), but all of them seemed focused on keeping existing players or in this case getting getting existing players to spend more money.
I fundamentally disagree. CM wasn't going to be a financial success (comparable to TCD at least) without many millions of dollars being deposited into it. And that's just not going to happen with ~1000 players, unless we were all whales like cullman or we were dumping our life savings into the game. Rather I think the solutions should focus on player growth. Any statement like "X feature causes players to stop playing" doesn't strike me as practical when you don't have a playerbase in the first place.
TBH, if the problem is people don't want to spend money at all, I don't see how the solution is to get them to spend money repeatedly.
The only thing CM needs is more eyeballs. There are a lot of games out there these days and people are getting more and more accustomed to "free" games (which are the most profitable kind at the moment).
This has been discussed before, but a cashless version of CM on Steam might attract a lot of attention. It could be free or just cheap (so it could take advantage of sales). In fact, since the game is open source, it would be rather easy for any of the technical regulars on here to pursue such a project. If I were a better C programmer, I might do it myself. I do have a greenlight account... very tempting.
Preceded by:
I feel bad knocking a better player out of the game.
Hilarious, cullman.
Welp. I've withdrawn all but $10. Still wouldn't take up the offer though.
This seems like a revival of your ideas from your chain world talk in 2011. Also has a hint of Passage in that your life passes by so quickly and is just a blip. Can't wait!
A system where you have actual parents is something people have dreamed about before but never implemented to my knowledge, for whatever reason. Anyone remember Dawn? I remember seeing this in high school and quickly realizing it was all bunk: reproduction among players and monsters, constructible/destructible buildings, destructible terrain, a detailed astronomical system, etc. Looking back on it now, a lot of those features are not that far fetched. Minecraft has a lot of them (it was revolutionary though!). Part of it is just being willing to simulate the world at the proper level of simplicity (e.g. blocks).
Anyway, definitely sounds very gamey. The survival genre seems to be booming right now. I'm sure it will do well.
Kudos, Chin, for taking up the challenge! That was brave.
It sounds like an interesting offer, but here personally I'd like to keep at least some money in so I can show people the game in the future.
^Neat! I was exactly 2 points off also. Spoilers:
I guessed 21 and it was 19. I don't know if it's changing over time or anything. I really like the point about k-step thinking. I was thinking (2/3)^2 times 50 which is about 22.
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.
Yea, I came very close to buying after their post, but the reviews made it pretty clear that it wasn't worth a purchase. It's not impossible to make a great game in that style (Gone Home did it!). But I think they simply pulled off more than they could chew with their limited resources.
I'm in no position to be conducting commercial experiments with untested business models
Phew! The idea sounded really interesting, but I immediately was reminded by a common response to CM: "That's interesting, but...." when people are intrigued but don't like the idea of sticking their credit card into an unknown thing and potentially losing unbounded money (as far as they know).
you have to survive through infanthood through the goodwill/care of another player
I wonder if this means the game is unplayable if you're the only one online? A problem TCD and CM suffer for similar reasons, thought at least in TCD you work on your house by yourself. However, I suppose there'd naturally have to be some method of bootstrapping society into existence or the game couldn't begin.
Perhaps you should give it to the person who missed an amulet by the fewest points? Wasn't there someone who missed a 1st place finish by only 2 points?
Just kidding.
The fairest thing is probably to give it to the next in line, Chin Professor.
I don't think so. The success of a new game is sort of independent of the success of a new one. I'm skeptical that a mass of new features would affect the growth of the player base.
Anyway, I'm rather excited to hear about the next game. The premise sounds really interesting. Maybe another MMO?
“I’m trying to figure out how I can sort of check more commercial boxes in terms of like making a game that would appeal to more people in some way while still feeling like (it’s) something I’m really proud making,” the 37-year-old said. “Something that really touches on deep issues.”
Reminds me very much of Tale of Tales and what they were trying to with Sunset. TCD felt pretty close to what the mainstream is after and the success of it is evidence.
The award-winning veteran creator/developer is already hard at work on his 19th game, “One Dollar, One Hour, One Life,” where players pay one dollar to live for an hour in the Neanderthal beginnings of a society that will develop over time on the Web – with no respawning.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/art … 04169.html
Discuss.
An experiment we had talked about is somehow editing one board so it matched the other (rotation and/or color). Rotation is difficult to do without a custom client but I wanted to take a shot at color swapping.
Here's the results: https://youtu.be/hHDNFX-hVec
This is just a couple rounds, where I lose pretty badly in one, to demonstrate the idea. The color swapping didn't work perfectly, but that's about the best I know how to do in Premiere. I immediately feel like it makes more sense. Still, the thing I really want is an announcer narrating the match.
Thanks for the feedback ya'll.
Here's the final video: https://youtu.be/_qJvdQtyJAU
It's 2 hours long. We played 3 games. Apologies if it's not super intense. We spend a lot of time just discussing the game.
I'd be interested to know if third parties can follow what's going on with the split screen. This is, to my knowledge, the first split screen CM video that has been made.
I too have really enjoyed this game. Not only that, but through it I have met some VERY cool people.
As usual I have ideas for what could be done to generate interest (e.g. trying to appeal to people who might want to write bots). But I realize that no matter what campaign you come up with to generate interest you first have to generate interest in the campaign itself. It's a chicken and egg problem. I suppose all multiplayer games are doomed to fade out eventually and the lower your starting point, the sooner you hit zero.
I do want to try to record a couple more games, but after that I'll probably take out most of my balance. I guess I'll leave a few bucks in there under the assumption that the servers will be maintained for a while.
Anyway, I think it's safe to say that if Jason makes another game, we'll see each other again there.
They played 5 days ago according to CD. As far as I can tell, they have never tried to interact with CD directly and that phrase has not been mentioned on twitter. Maybe an in game message, news blurb, or link to the forums on the login screen might help.
It's kind of bizarre how they played the tournament, continue to play, and yet must not read the forum or be curious about their prize.
^Something I have noticed about the trend of Jason's designs in that they seem to be increasingly reaching into the real world. Chain world where you pass the game onto another person and there's a physical object associated with it, the board game buried in the desert, TCD's time commitment and theme and emotional impact, and now real money with CM. Sometimes I wonder: how do you top that! An ARG would be a pretty good answer: fictional websites, twilio integration so the game calls you (I went to answer a pay phone for ilovebees in 2004), physical objects, etc. It's an interesting thought at least.
What’s more, the $0.50 per game is a hefty price-tag, and it comes with $0.30 “transaction fee,” which Givling say is levied by service providers (although players can buy games in bulk, with the fee remaining the same). But it’s a well-designed web app—and crucially, it’s addictive, which could be the real key to its success.
Bizarre and confusing (just read the number breakdown). Sounds very much like a lottery. Even though there is skill, the money being paid out is only 50% of what is being paid in. And $0.50 seems pretty steep. I could see someone, over the course of a couple months, losing as much money as you have won at CM, Nate. The nice thing about CM is it's orders of magnitude cheaper even if one sucks.
I suppose there's no reason it couldn't work. In my state, the lottery is tied to education funding. But at the end of the day, it's also a corporation taking home 10% of everything by exploiting people's charity and addiction.
Also, this seems like it's partially owned by PayPal. That $.50 per round with a $.30 transaction fee is ludicrous; it's like they've engineered the whole thing around that. Barf.
DANG. I am so jelly. Seems like ya'll are onto something....
Jason's next game should just be an ARG.