CORDIAL MINUET ENSEMBLE

Just a big "ditto" (or +1, as the internet would have it now) to what everyone's said so far. The contest was fun in the same way CM is "fun." I changed my sleep schedule to try to catch the peak play hours (which didn't help, of course, in the slightest. If I wasn't flipping the sliders I was clicking on the 10s digit for betting, or clicking "Fold" instead of "Bet").

I didn't end up with an amulet, either. Whenever I started making headway, it seemed like a cabal member would smack me right back down. I ended up going for the minimum that might end up winning me at least some prize. No guts, no glory!

Thank you again for the contest, but at least now when I lose all my coins, I won't have the extra pleasure of hearing an unexpected chime and seeing a heart-sinking "-100" message.

So I was thinking about this: the excitement of knowing something your opponent doesn't know you know that gives you a major advantage. But, because of the skill-based nature of CM, it can't be hidden information given to you by chance (as is the case with AA in Holdem).

I remembered this thread from a while back, which discussed ways of reducing anti-climactic situations in the game. There was talk of adding little "trickster" functions, such as an extra high tick on the score graph, or an extra first-pick column that you select to tell your opponent which column you did not pick for green.

This got me thinking, and since we're talking about "out-there" ideas... Here are two "tricks" I thought of:

1) Choose your green column after you see which row your opponent gave you.

2) Click on a red square. If it goes dark, your opponent does not have it. If the rest of the column goes dark, then it means your opponent has it. In both cases, the score graph updates to reflect this additional information.

These tricks, of course, would not be unlimited. Perhaps you can use one every three or six rounds or something.

The information you get, especially from the second trick, could give a real advantage-- and there's no way your opponent would know that you used it. You click on that 33 and it goes dark, revealing that you indeed have the highest score, while your opponent thinks he can bully you with a high score potential. Alternatively, if the column goes dark and the 33 stays illuminated, you know you should fold.

Anyway, just an idea I had to mirror some of those "secret way-upper hand" moments in Poker. I know these tricks would somewhat affect the purity of the game, but it might also help with some of the issues we've been discussing.

"Alt-mode" does sound intriguing. I don't want to misrepresent you again, Jason, but I seem to remember you mentioning in an article on CM that you initially wanted to do something like this, but the feedback you got was that "It's too complicated." But the way you've described it here, it definitely sounds manageable: both for you and potential players. The hardest thing would be working out the order of hands and then conveying that to players. A new version of the score graph could do that, I suppose.

Anyway, I love the elegance and numerological (?) underpinnings of CM, but I can see everybody's point.

As for drama, uncertainty, and luck... Well, I still find there's a lot of uncertainty in the game, which provides the emotional impact. I admit that I have felt some of the "tiredness" Prof. Chin and others have mentioned, but that could be just because I've been playing so many games recently ("too much of a good thing" and all that). Unless you're always getting the top number, there will always be some uncertainty: Did I just fold the winning hand? Could he really have that 35? Will she actually call my all-in?

Anyway, I like this "Out-there" idea, and I think people have made some good points so far. I particularly like the idea of a Holdem-style "public cards" pick. I hope the psychological elements stay, while possibly finding a way to add in that element that you feel is missing from the current game.

All right, so the launch contest is over, my head has cleared (a bit), the chronic knot in my stomach has disappeared (somewhat), and I can try to gather my thoughts on this subject.

1) The game

Rarely have I played a game that has made me this emotional: the agonizing column-picking mind games, the thrill of getting the highest score, the heart-pounding moment when you're waiting to see if your opponent will call your bluff, the shock at seeing your opponent did indeed have that high score, the satisfaction of watching your opponent fall into your trap... For those players who open themselves to the experience, Cordial Minuet packs a punch.

However, that works both ways. When I lose games, even if for only a quarter, I feel pretty down. I can only imagine how it must feel to those who lose higher-stakes games-- especially if the losses start to accumulate. How easy is it to bounce back, especially when it was clearly your bad decisions that led to your loss? In Blackjack, it was just bad luck that the dealer hit 21. In Poker, it sucks that your opponent caught a straight on the river. But it's nobody's fault.

In CM, whose fault is it that you never get the highest score, while your opponent seems to get it every time?

2) The players

It's no secret that there were over 150 active players on launch day, falling to about half that by the end of the contest period. Where did everybody go? There was a user comment on the original Rock Paper Shotgun CM article that has stuck with me:

Bitcoin's out for tax reasons, but it's the "fickle beard stroking indie crowd" comment that's important here. The people in the middle of the Venn Diagram discussed earlier are indeed few, and I would suggest that many people who contributed to the initial active player graph spike are not in the middle at all. Rather, they're just folks who wanted to try it out, to see what all the commotion was about.

As for why they didn't get sucked in, as this self-professed beard-stroking (albeit without a beard) indie gamer unapologetically has, I don't know. Maybe it's just something they wanted to try out quickly, and then get to the next game in their Steam queue. Maybe this kwyjibo character is right about the indie crowd's fickleness. Or maybe it's...

3) The moneys

Others have pointed this out previously in this thread, so I'll be brief: looking at the players with the Top 20 profit (excluding contest winnings), the top 2 have head-turning profits. The next two have very respectable profits. But after that, it goes way down.

I am by no means one of the best CM players, but I'd like to think I have a good grasp of basic strategy (which in CM, really isn't so basic). Since launch, however, I have made almost no profit. Some very skilled players (who have won previous contests and tournaments) either made some profit, no profit, or even lost money. Their skill, developed through playing dozens (if not hundreds) of games, translated into a low (or even negative) return.

I saw on Canto in the early days that some new players were willing to play 5 and 10 dollar games. Even if they initially won, it appeared like their winnings were eventually absorbed by, say, Jeopardy Alcohol (this isn't a criticism of JA, just an observation).

Like LiteS, I deposited a certain amount in the game, and that's what I'm playing with. I'm no gambler; I love gambling games (I've enjoyed casual poker at the local pub, and of course I adore CM), but I don't like losing money (or even winning money, oddly enough. Winning games, though, definitely yes). So that's good for me, but not for the economy of the game. I think many players who have stuck with the game see money (or specifically, their profit amount) as a score, rather than cash winnings.

I'm sure both new players and those who participated in the pre-launch testing will attest to how much they've enjoyed playing the game. But as a way of winning some money...

4) The game again

CM is billed as a strategy game where reading your opponent is the key skill. However, towards the end of the launch contest, I started to realize that mathematics might play a bigger role than initially advertised. This is a topic for another thread, but the point is this: I started to feel like I was being beaten by people with better math skills than me, who are able to read the board better, and are not necessarily reading me.

Of course, this is a legitimate skill, and if you have the ability, then by all means, you should deploy it to your full advantage. But it's kind of making me shy away from the game a bit...

So those are my thoughts.

The tl;dr version:

The game is an amazing experience, and I'm glad to be a part of the CM community. However, I've outlined some fundamental issues limiting critical mass as I see them: the game, the players, and the money.

With that said, I think more tournaments and other means of structuring play will help. I look forward to participating in my first tournament (hey, you need somebody to fund those prizes ).

I must say, this is an awesome thing you two have done.

Looks like some people have started picking numbers (I like the one who chose 333).

One person, however,

thought this. Which is of course what it all looks like (though I doubt he even bothered to click on the story links).

But you don't want your contest reported as spam.

Of course, this leads to the perennial question of what is a win, and what is a loss. Should one coin wins have the same weight in this calculation as 90 coin wins?

I admit that I never played TCD. I lurked in the forums and followed the Steal Real Money launch contest, but in the end, I just realized that I'm bad at building stuff like that (I was never into playing with Lego, or building forts, or even making booby traps). I think I'd really enjoy the robbing part, and I'd probably get so swept up in it I wouldn't maintain my house properly. It'd just be a matter of time until I came home to find everybody dead. And I just don't think I'd have the patience to rebuild my house.

But the concept was fascinating.

I woke up this morning with a knot in my stomach, and I can't get rid of it. It's a familiar feeling: the same one I get when I have the second highest score.

Did JA really only start with a $2 deposit? That is amazing.

Oh, wow. Glad to see it worked out!

Wouldn't a rake ensure that the house would always win? After all, just like the CM we play, it would be players against players, no? And the house takes a rake for hosting the game-- like Jason takes the tribute.

I don't think an in-person casino would want it because I think many are reluctant to host player vs. player games. Do they still provide player vs. player poker at casinos nowadays? Or only the "play against the house" type?

Yikes. Your first time being called a "shitbird" online?

The internet is such a lovely place. So supportive of others.

I've done this a few times. I see the ink appear, and I'm like, "Wait a moment..."

On occasion, it actually works out better, and I'm happy about my ditziness.

But on pick 3, I'm very careful, and I double-check I've placed the slider correctly-- especially when I've got a forced win.