??????
You are not logged in.
Yeah, there will likely be more regular tournaments after launch. Maybe some high roller ones too.
Yeah, that will happen until the next time your client fetches your current balance.
Yeah, I've already implemented a limit on amulet drops when the player population is low. Josh, I think this solves the dropping strategy you're talking about, because during low pop times (only 2 players), no dropped amulets would be picked up at all. You'd need at least 3 active players for there to be 1 amulet dropped. The formula is 2 * N + 3, where N is the number of current held amulets. You need that many active players before dropping another one.
Regarding buy-in behavior, here's the full history of the game:
+------------+----------+
| game_count | buy_in |
+------------+----------+
| 1 | 555.5500 |
| 4 | 400.0000 |
| 1 | 350.0000 |
| 1 | 333.3300 |
| 5 | 300.0000 |
| 1 | 200.8200 |
| 32 | 200.0000 |
| 4 | 150.0000 |
| 1 | 125.1700 |
| 1 | 125.0000 |
| 1 | 111.4400 |
| 1 | 102.0000 |
| 1 | 100.0100 |
| 72 | 100.0000 |
| 1 | 96.9400 |
| 1 | 90.7200 |
| 2 | 90.0000 |
| 2 | 80.0000 |
| 2 | 75.0000 |
| 1 | 70.0000 |
| 6 | 60.0000 |
| 27 | 50.0000 |
| 1 | 45.0000 |
| 14 | 40.0000 |
| 1 | 35.0000 |
| 1 | 30.5300 |
| 8 | 30.0000 |
| 1 | 25.0000 |
| 1 | 24.0000 |
| 1 | 21.0000 |
| 1 | 20.0100 |
| 17 | 20.0000 |
| 1 | 17.3300 |
| 1 | 16.6600 |
| 1 | 15.1300 |
| 6 | 15.0000 |
| 2 | 14.0000 |
| 1 | 13.1300 |
| 4 | 12.0000 |
| 1 | 10.6300 |
| 1 | 10.1700 |
| 5 | 10.0100 |
| 67 | 10.0000 |
| 3 | 9.0000 |
| 1 | 8.7600 |
| 1 | 8.7000 |
| 1 | 8.5000 |
| 1 | 8.0100 |
| 7 | 8.0000 |
| 4 | 7.5000 |
| 9 | 7.0000 |
| 1 | 6.6700 |
| 18 | 6.6600 |
| 1 | 6.4200 |
| 1 | 6.3600 |
| 1 | 6.1000 |
| 1 | 6.0100 |
| 12 | 6.0000 |
| 1 | 5.8400 |
| 1 | 5.7500 |
| 1 | 5.7100 |
| 1 | 5.5100 |
| 2 | 5.5000 |
| 1 | 5.0600 |
| 1 | 5.0500 |
| 1 | 5.0300 |
| 7 | 5.0100 |
| 115 | 5.0000 |
| 1 | 4.9500 |
| 1 | 4.8100 |
| 1 | 4.5500 |
| 1 | 4.5400 |
| 1 | 4.5000 |
| 1 | 4.4800 |
| 3 | 4.4400 |
| 1 | 4.4100 |
| 5 | 4.2000 |
| 3 | 4.0100 |
| 57 | 4.0000 |
| 1 | 3.9800 |
| 1 | 3.9000 |
| 1 | 3.7500 |
| 1 | 3.5800 |
| 1 | 3.5700 |
| 20 | 3.5000 |
| 2 | 3.4300 |
| 1 | 3.4100 |
| 12 | 3.3300 |
| 1 | 3.2100 |
| 1 | 3.1100 |
| 1 | 3.0400 |
| 4 | 3.0100 |
| 99 | 3.0000 |
| 1 | 2.9900 |
| 1 | 2.9500 |
| 1 | 2.9000 |
| 2 | 2.8800 |
| 1 | 2.7900 |
| 1 | 2.7500 |
| 1 | 2.6700 |
| 2 | 2.6100 |
| 3 | 2.5500 |
| 1 | 2.5100 |
| 48 | 2.5000 |
| 2 | 2.4500 |
| 1 | 2.3900 |
| 3 | 2.3000 |
| 1 | 2.2800 |
| 1 | 2.2700 |
| 3 | 2.2500 |
| 15 | 2.2200 |
| 1 | 2.2000 |
| 1 | 2.1400 |
| 4 | 2.1100 |
| 1 | 2.0600 |
| 1 | 2.0200 |
| 2 | 2.0100 |
| 332 | 2.0000 |
| 5 | 1.9900 |
| 1 | 1.9500 |
| 1 | 1.8000 |
| 1 | 1.7700 |
| 1 | 1.7000 |
| 1 | 1.6800 |
| 1 | 1.6700 |
| 8 | 1.6600 |
| 2 | 1.6500 |
| 1 | 1.6100 |
| 1 | 1.5900 |
| 1 | 1.5500 |
| 1 | 1.5300 |
| 1 | 1.5200 |
| 7 | 1.5100 |
| 38 | 1.5000 |
| 1 | 1.4900 |
| 3 | 1.4100 |
| 9 | 1.4000 |
| 8 | 1.3100 |
| 9 | 1.2500 |
| 3 | 1.2400 |
| 2 | 1.2200 |
| 9 | 1.2000 |
| 2 | 1.1500 |
| 1 | 1.1300 |
| 1 | 1.1200 |
| 17 | 1.1100 |
| 5 | 1.1000 |
| 7 | 1.0800 |
| 1 | 1.0700 |
| 1 | 1.0600 |
| 2 | 1.0500 |
| 1 | 1.0400 |
| 1 | 1.0300 |
| 2 | 1.0200 |
| 28 | 1.0100 |
| 667 | 1.0000 |
| 5 | 0.9900 |
| 2 | 0.9400 |
| 2 | 0.9300 |
| 1 | 0.9200 |
| 2 | 0.9100 |
| 4 | 0.9000 |
| 2 | 0.8900 |
| 1 | 0.8700 |
| 9 | 0.8500 |
| 1 | 0.8300 |
| 4 | 0.8100 |
| 18 | 0.8000 |
| 1 | 0.7800 |
| 1 | 0.7700 |
| 22 | 0.7500 |
| 1 | 0.7300 |
| 3 | 0.7100 |
| 18 | 0.7000 |
| 6 | 0.6900 |
| 5 | 0.6600 |
| 2 | 0.6500 |
| 1 | 0.6300 |
| 1 | 0.6100 |
| 24 | 0.6000 |
| 1 | 0.5900 |
| 1 | 0.5800 |
| 1 | 0.5700 |
| 36 | 0.5500 |
| 1 | 0.5400 |
| 4 | 0.5300 |
| 12 | 0.5200 |
| 31 | 0.5100 |
| 531 | 0.5000 |
| 3 | 0.4900 |
| 8 | 0.4800 |
| 4 | 0.4700 |
| 1 | 0.4600 |
| 4 | 0.4500 |
| 2 | 0.4400 |
| 1 | 0.4300 |
| 11 | 0.4200 |
| 6 | 0.4100 |
| 38 | 0.4000 |
| 8 | 0.3900 |
| 1 | 0.3800 |
| 7 | 0.3500 |
| 3 | 0.3400 |
| 12 | 0.3300 |
| 6 | 0.3200 |
| 25 | 0.3100 |
| 92 | 0.3000 |
| 2 | 0.2900 |
| 5 | 0.2800 |
| 4 | 0.2700 |
| 10 | 0.2600 |
| 421 | 0.2500 |
| 5 | 0.2400 |
| 17 | 0.2300 |
| 16 | 0.2200 |
| 63 | 0.2100 |
| 259 | 0.2000 |
| 8 | 0.1900 |
| 4 | 0.1800 |
| 11 | 0.1700 |
| 22 | 0.1600 |
| 138 | 0.1500 |
| 13 | 0.1400 |
| 115 | 0.1300 |
| 113 | 0.1200 |
| 191 | 0.1100 |
| 1142 | 0.1000 |
| 97 | 0.0900 |
| 104 | 0.0800 |
| 93 | 0.0700 |
| 111 | 0.0600 |
| 506 | 0.0500 |
| 154 | 0.0400 |
| 227 | 0.0300 |
| 264 | 0.0200 |
| 1654 | 0.0100 |
+------------+----------+
236 rows in set (0.03 sec)Binning these by whole dollar amounts:
+------------+--------+
| game_count | buy_in |
+------------+--------+
| 6755 | 0 |
| 851 | 1 |
| 430 | 2 |
| 146 | 3 |
| 75 | 4 |
| 131 | 5 |
| 35 | 6 |
| 13 | 7 |
| 11 | 8 |
| 3 | 9 |
| 74 | 10 |
| 4 | 12 |
| 1 | 13 |
| 2 | 14 |
| 7 | 15 |
| 1 | 16 |
| 1 | 17 |
| 18 | 20 |
| 1 | 21 |
| 1 | 24 |
| 1 | 25 |
| 9 | 30 |
| 1 | 35 |
| 14 | 40 |
| 1 | 45 |
| 27 | 50 |
| 6 | 60 |
| 1 | 70 |
| 2 | 75 |
| 2 | 80 |
| 3 | 90 |
| 1 | 96 |
| 73 | 100 |
| 1 | 102 |
| 1 | 111 |
| 2 | 125 |
| 4 | 150 |
| 33 | 200 |
| 5 | 300 |
| 1 | 333 |
| 1 | 350 |
| 4 | 400 |
| 1 | 555 |
+------------+--------+Okay, here are the bins during a 4-day period before the amulet contest:
+------------+--------+
| game_count | buy_in |
+------------+--------+
| 68 | 0 |
| 4 | 1 |
| 4 | 2 |
| 1 | 9 |
| 3 | 10 |
| 3 | 12 |
+------------+--------+Here are the bins from the 4 days of the contest:
+------------+--------+
| game_count | buy_in |
+------------+--------+
| 326 | 0 |
| 10 | 1 |
| 12 | 2 |
| 1 | 3 |
+------------+--------+Yep, there were ZERO games over $3 during the contest. While sub-dollar games dominated, there were more games overall, and more 1 and 2 during the contest than before.
Here's the full break-down during the contest:
+------------+--------+
| game_count | buy_in |
+------------+--------+
| 119 | 0.0100 |
| 23 | 0.0200 |
| 13 | 0.0300 |
| 5 | 0.0400 |
| 28 | 0.0500 |
| 3 | 0.0600 |
| 5 | 0.0700 |
| 4 | 0.0800 |
| 2 | 0.0900 |
| 56 | 0.1000 |
| 10 | 0.1100 |
| 4 | 0.1200 |
| 1 | 0.1300 |
| 10 | 0.1500 |
| 4 | 0.2000 |
| 5 | 0.2100 |
| 15 | 0.2500 |
| 1 | 0.2800 |
| 2 | 0.3000 |
| 1 | 0.3100 |
| 14 | 0.5000 |
| 1 | 0.7000 |
| 4 | 1.0000 |
| 1 | 1.0100 |
| 1 | 1.1100 |
| 1 | 1.4000 |
| 1 | 1.4100 |
| 2 | 1.6500 |
| 7 | 2.0000 |
| 1 | 2.1400 |
| 1 | 2.2200 |
| 2 | 2.2500 |
| 1 | 2.7500 |
| 1 | 3.4100 |
+------------+--------+Only a single game was played out of amulet range. But within the range, there's a pretty good spread.
Yeah, with the minor tweaks that I finished today and will release tomorrow (along with one final amulet test contest, why not?), I think this is as close as it's ever going to get to being right.
I do wonder about the pressure toward throw-away penny games, though... hmm... but I also don't want to push amulet acquisition out of the reach of new players but putting a $1 floor in place...
Here, with so few players, pretty much every game was an amulet game, so everyone was fighting for an amulet in pretty much every game. Thus, penny stakes made sense. But if 1/100 of your games are amulet games, then are you going to want to waste time with so many penny games, or would you be more inclined to "just play for real" and hope for a chance at an amulet whenever? You know, if penny games are meaningless to you, playing 99 of them for ever 1 amulet game would be a waste of time (you're not making money).
Yes, playing more games is advantageous for sure. I think this is okay.
Oh, this also means we will never hand out amulets, at all, unless there are at least three active players.
dot-dot:
I think I've fixed it to handle these issues.
Here's what it's doing now:
1. Count the total live, paired, non-amulet games G.
2. Cap that value at 10 max (so if there are 100s of live games, we don't wait forever).
3. Never hand out a floating amulet if there are unpaired amulet games waiting for a partner
4. Never hand out a floating amulet if there are less than 2 * N + 3 active players (in the last two minutes, where N is the number of held amulets).
If 3 and 4 are satisfied:
5. Wait for G non-amulet games to end before handing out each floating amulet (counters decremented one-by-one, not in parallel).
The 2 * N + 3 number comes from realising that you need 2 * N + 1 players to provide match ups for N amulet games. If you have 2 * N + 2, you can't hand out an amulet, because then you'll have N+1 amulets, and will need 2 *(N+1) + 1 players, but that's 2 * N + 3, and you only have 2*N + 2.
Thus, if you do have 2 * N + 3 and you hand out another amulet, you're still good.
You always need at least one extra, non-amulet player to facilitate the pairing of the other N non-amulet players so they can pulled into amulet games.
Okay, all payouts have been made.
These were made directly into the winner's accounts. Keep in mind that this does not affect the profit or profit ratio leaderboards (those show profit made through the main game only).
I think the asymmetrical risk part will be better when the amulet-holder is informed of their randomly-chosen stake.
The drawing out issue is an obvious problem. That's what the minutes-held penalty is supposed to be for. If you draw the game out, the number of points you'll win on the amulet will be mostly eaten up by the penalty. Maybe the penalty is too low? It could be 2 points per minute or even higher. Well, to make it cleaner, the number of points won by winning could be adjusted instead. Maybe 100 instead of 200.
Drawing-out is a consequence of how we define "win" here (being the last player standing). Is there some better way to define a win for the purpose of the amulet?
I do really like the mechanic of "taking" the amulet from someone, so I wouldn't want to change it to "how many coins can you win in 2 hours, with a forced drop at the 2-hour mark" or something like that. The problem here is that a "win" in this game is ill-defined, so any way we chose to artificially define it will encourage distorted behavior of some kind.
Yeah, choosing which amulet to rack points on is a good way for it to work, I think.
Yeah, Fortune and Cobblestone, I will add this info.
corner: I believe you emailed me about this, correct?
dot-dot: Yeah, the drop to the Nth player thing was concocted to prevent colluders from dropping to each other BEFORE the whole "pull a player from a non-amulet game" thing was in place. I don't think it's needed anymore, because two alt accounts, playing against each other, can not even be guaranteed to play against each other (one of them is likely to be pulled into an amulet game).
It should probably wait to drop until there are X non-amulet games running.
If a non-amulet game actually runs, then there are an excess of non-amulet players. Otherwise, one of them would be pulled into a waiting amulet game. If there are a bunch of amulet games waiting to start, non-amulet games will never start.
Those who won:
Any feedback on how you won? Did it feel broken? Was there an obvious "method" that was a shortcut to winning that I've missed?
dot-dot:
You're penalized for however many minutes you held it when you finally drop it. So, if you hold it for more than two hours (because you actually play games during that time, extending your hold time), you will be penalized for more than 120 points.
Ano:
Thanks, will check that.
I'll add a "minutes left" to the web-based leaderboard for the person currently holding it.
I think it will be pretty easy to mirror the live amulet score on the WAITING FOR OPPONENT screen.
It seems to be pretty much working, though, right?
No bugs remaining?
Quite a bit of activity at the higher-value amulets, and less at the lower amulets, as expected.
I went to the jewelry supply store and bought some carving wax yesterday....
Well, players could self-regulate based on their perception of point loss for holding it any longer (with the new DROP AMULET button).
In fact, I think this is happening automatically to some extent. Because a free amulet is only dropped to a player that is in a non-amulet game, and there are only non-amulet games when there are an excess of non-amulet players. Otherwise, all players are pulled into amulet games.
For example, and the moment, THREE amulets are in limbo and haven't been handed back out, because there are no non-amulet games happening that would trigger the handing-out part.
Thoughts?
This still means that there will always be SLIGHTLY too many amulets out there, but when it's at that threshold, some players will be motivated to drop instead of continue to shed points.
Okay, I just released v18 to fix this.
OH MAN! .... can't believe I screwed it up like that... fixing it now, gotta release v18 to fix it.
Well, Jere, I also wanted to keep it as simple as possible to explain, and I also wanted to settle on something and move on after so many weeks of round-and-round on this subject.
Full change log here:
Hmm... yeah, that is interesting.
Free-floating amulets perhaps could only be released into the player pool when there are enough players around to support extra amulets.
Drop amulet button and auto-tickdown score have been added in v17, just released.
No... it's actually water-tight, but confusing.
I track the time you picked up the amulet, and your points won, and that's it.
When I need to show you your score, I calculate how many minutes you've held it, and subtract that from your points won, and show you that score. But I don't update the score or save it. Your points won remains untouched.
Then, when you finally drop it, I calculate how many minutes you held it, subtract that from your points won, and save it as your points won.
So, granularity of player actions has no effect on the score. Reloading the score, time gaps between activity, etc, have no effect. No round-off errors, accumulating errors, etc.
The amulet possession and amulet score is currently provided to the client only in one call (get_balance). Your balance is only retrieved when returning to the menu page from somewhere else that may have affected your balance. Refreshing the game list does not retrieve the balance again.
I suppose that the score could auto-tick down based on minutes that have passed since last reload. Then you could actually sit there and watch it decay. I'll do that.
Yeah, I guess I need to get a DROP button in there pronto.
See the other thread for the explanation about negative points....
Good catch there on the lingering tool tip!
The REFRESH button only refreshes the game list, not the balance or amulet score.
Whoops! The OTHER GAMES list is incorrectly showing waiting amulet games. These have place-holder stakes of $3. That's also why there can be more than one of them (multiple amulet holders waiting for games).
I've fixed it so that when you pick up a free-floating amulet, you get 200 points to start. Thus, you won't ever be able to tell the difference between picking up a free-floating one and taking one from someone.
You lose points while you are holding, it, but it can't go below zero. Essentially, when you finally drop it, the server subtracts a penalty for however long you held it, capping it at zero.
But as you observed, that meant that you could lose point while holding the amulet BEFORE winning points on it, making you instantly jump down (to 158 or whatever) when your 200 points for the win are added in.
Well, this contest is mainly to work out legitimate bugs in the amulet code. I'm not trying to tune it to this situation, really.
In your example, there would be some additional ordering to the amulets based on their number (maybe the money prizes would be different for each gold one, too... so #1 gold would actually be worth more than #2 gold because of the cash attached).
So, this would work like this:
A wins 1
B wins 2
D wins 3
4 goes unclaimed (in your example, only B had points on 4, but B already got one).
C gets nothing.