Feedback on amulet contest

joshwithguitar · 2015-03-23 22:55:29

One thing I noticed, which shouldn't be too big a problem, is that after I had obviously dropped an amulet according to the leaderboard it still showed up in my client, and when I clicked "new game" it still showed "play amulet game". It only corrected myself when I went back to the main lobby.

jasonrohrer · 2015-03-24 20:35:59

Yeah, that will happen until the next time your client fetches your current balance.

Cobblestone · 2015-03-24 21:17:15

...what happens if you clicked play amulet game while you're no longer holding the amulet? Is there an "amulet has been lost" screen?

CaravanDisturber · 2015-03-25 00:58:11

I don't know if this was already posted. But I think another great feature would be a tournament event. With a set buy-in that's the same for each round. Then 25% of the winners take each rounds pot gets pushed into the next round. Amounts below not including rake.

Example: 64 players w/ $.50 buy in per round ---

Round 1:
64 * $.50 = $32 ($24 paid out + $8 advances) (Winners get $.75 {win $.25})

Round 2:
32 * $.50 = $16+$8 ($18 paid out + $6 advances) (Winners get $1.125 {win $.625})

Round 3:
16 * $.50 = $8+$6 ($10.50 paid out + $3.50 advances) (Winners get $1.3125 {win $.8125})

Round 4:
8 * $.50 = $4+$3.50 ($5.625 paid out + $1.875 advances) (Winners get $1.40625 {win $.90625})

Round 5:
4 * $.50 = $2+$1.875 ($2.90625 paid out + $.96875 advances) (Winners get $1.453125 {win $.953125})

Championship:
2 * $.50 = $1+$.96875 (Winner gets $1.96875 {win $1.46875})

The math might be wrong... but interesting. Basically the winners of round one pay the contest bonus. Small amounts but the winner could get a tournament amulet.....

or you could just make it easy and have half of the winnings of each player of each contest push to the tournament winner.

$.50 Entry of 64 People would pay the winner each round then a final prize:
125 * $.25 = $31

That might have much more appeal.

Dan_Dan84 · 2015-03-25 02:50:06

Congratulations again to all the winners! I'd like to think that I contributed to your victory by losing some games to you.

I'm glad to hear that the bugs were worked out during the contest and that the tweaks are in place for the next (probable) test contest (which will probably take place while I'm on holiday, but anyway... As long as I'm in for the real thing!).

I agree with a lot of the feedback already given. Here are a couple of observations I had while participating in the contest:

1) I think this will be fixed by the new "when a floating amulet is dropped" criteria, but getting an amulet was not exciting. In the original discussion on the contest, the idea behind the amulets is it's something unexpected that might happen while you're playing the game normally. The recipient will get excited and hopefully go on to play more amulet games. During the test contest, it was routine. More of a grind than anything. However, I suppose this isn't an issue anymore, due to the tweaks already discussed. Just hoping we get enough players to keep the amulets rare and exciting enough. (Though personally, I'm really hoping to win a physical amulet, so I suppose I don't mind having a lot of them in circulation!)

2) Something that hasn't really been discussed: What was the difference between Thursday and Sunday? On Thursday, when the contest initially launched, there were lots of active players, including ones I hadn't seen before. By Sunday, it was mostly familiar names trying to rack up points. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but seeing as how the launch contest is supposed to attract and retain new players... what happened? Perhaps some of the newer players, who may have only played a couple of games in the last four weeks, were intimidated by the level of play they encountered. I'm not sure why exactly they left, but it's something I really noticed.

Anyway, as others have already said, thank you Jason for letting us participate in this test contest. I'm glad that we provided enough data and feedback to allow you to create an even better launch contest!

jasonrohrer · 2015-03-25 16:50:09

Caravan: the idea was that tournaments are a little bit too intimidating for brand new players, so it's not a great fit for a launch contest. We held a few tournaments in the past, and the same handful of people ended up winning each one. Especially if there was an entry fee, that would be a "no way" for most new players. So I needed something that would fold into regular play of the game as a special bonus thing.

On Thursday, I sent out an email to everyone who had played the game in the last 28 days. That was over 200 people. So, I think it brought a bunch of new people back for a bit, but they thinned out by the end.

jere · 2015-03-25 18:26:01

One thing I forgot to mention. The leaderboards are a little unwieldy even with only 6 amulets. It'd be nice if the page that links all the leaderboards displayed who (if anyone) held each amulet. That way you can have a better idea of what's currently going on without clicking through.

Also, it was sort of reasonable to memorize the symbol of your amulet with only 6, but with 36 perhaps they should each be named.

jasonrohrer · 2015-03-25 18:48:00

Ahem... write down the symbol.

C'mon, Jere, how long have you known me?

I'll work on a better "who's holding what" report page.

jasonrohrer · 2015-03-25 18:48:32

That page should also probably list the top score for each, so you can know what score you need to be trying to beat.

jere · 2015-03-25 19:02:24

Ha, yea. Maybe you should be handing out Moleskines instead of gold amulets.

Niateph · 2015-03-25 20:28:12

The warning screen when joining an amulet game is cool and all but you should keep the chime for when the opponent is found.
I joined an empty game because my opponent had left before I clicked ok and the game just after that I lost my amulet because "game has timed out" or something. And I have dual screen so I seriously take pity of the guy who doesn't and has to keep an eye at all time on CM.

jasonrohrer · 2015-03-25 21:17:03

Yeah, should fix this. Sorry about that!

claspa · 2015-03-25 21:26:46

I was waiting for a game, than I decided to cancel it as I saw a different game open.
When I clicked "Cancel" it showed me the message as if I just left a game.

jasonrohrer · 2015-03-25 21:32:38

But did it show that you lost money? Or did you get all your money back?

It is possible for a game to start right before you click cancel. In that case, you will see the game-end report. However, in v19, it was fixed to NOT penalize you in this case, because you never requested the starting game state.

claspa · 2015-03-25 22:42:11

I am sorry I don't recall, I was too confused and just clicked OK.
But I think according to CD I didn't lose any money.

Niateph · 2015-03-25 22:43:40

Sorry I don't remember wich one but I think it did happen to me on one of the two mentionned (the zero sum game I mean). But one of them I gained 200 amulet points and the other I dropped it, that's for sure (garnments infection, I don't know if you get a log of all the games and sums played/gained).

claspa · 2015-03-26 00:44:08

It's now the third win in a row and I don't get any amulet, although one is available.

Last edited by claspa (2015-03-26 00:45:03)

Cobblestone · 2015-03-26 00:54:29

That means there's less than 7 people playing (N * 2 + 3) and you haven't gotten matched up with an amulet holder, right?

jasonrohrer · 2015-03-26 00:55:02

Right... if there are N=2 amulets out, there need to be 7 active players (2 * N + 3) before another one is dropped.

jere · 2015-03-26 00:57:42

What does active mean? Logged in?

storeroom leaflet · 2015-03-26 03:52:57

jasonrohrer wrote:

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.

I'd recommend (at least) 4N rather than 2N+3 if amulet holders can't play each other. Otherwise you still have a very high density of amulet games which makes things easier for colluders, means longer wait times for amulet holders, less chance to have games played at a variety of stakes. Also, this system doesn't get rid of the fundamental problem of having amulet holders sitting around for 2 hours unable to get a game, as that is the mechanism to reduce the number of amulets in circulation as I understand it.

CORDIAL MINUET ENSEMBLE

#26 2015-03-23 22:55:29

Re: Feedback on amulet contest

#27 2015-03-24 20:35:59

Re: Feedback on amulet contest

#28 2015-03-24 21:17:15

Re: Feedback on amulet contest

#29 2015-03-25 00:58:11

Re: Feedback on amulet contest

#30 2015-03-25 02:50:06

Re: Feedback on amulet contest

#31 2015-03-25 16:50:09

Re: Feedback on amulet contest

#32 2015-03-25 18:26:01

Re: Feedback on amulet contest

#33 2015-03-25 18:48:00

Re: Feedback on amulet contest

#34 2015-03-25 18:48:32

Re: Feedback on amulet contest

#35 2015-03-25 19:02:24

Re: Feedback on amulet contest

#36 2015-03-25 20:28:12

Re: Feedback on amulet contest

#37 2015-03-25 21:17:03

Re: Feedback on amulet contest

#38 2015-03-25 21:26:46

Re: Feedback on amulet contest

#39 2015-03-25 21:32:38

Re: Feedback on amulet contest

#40 2015-03-25 22:42:11

Re: Feedback on amulet contest

#41 2015-03-25 22:43:40

Re: Feedback on amulet contest

#42 2015-03-26 00:44:08

Re: Feedback on amulet contest

#43 2015-03-26 00:54:29

Re: Feedback on amulet contest

#44 2015-03-26 00:55:02

Re: Feedback on amulet contest

#45 2015-03-26 00:57:42

Re: Feedback on amulet contest

#46 2015-03-26 03:52:57

Re: Feedback on amulet contest

Board footer