I found THE solution to the collusion problem

Cobblestone · 2015-04-03 21:21:59

Soooooo I didn't get to play too much this morning, but from what I could tell this actually worked extremely well. There were lots of folks playing lot of games are various stakes. The games I played were real games without any reckless strategies. I was worried the emphasis on coins would cause more small lead leaving, but that didn't seem to be the case. I didn't get to play Jason, but I was never sure if I was or wasn't playing him at the time.

So it seems like April Fools is on you, jere! You came up with a perfect solution!

jere · 2015-04-03 21:36:54

Yea, I can't believe. I thought this idea was very absurd. The joke is also on me because I got -100 points.

Honestly, the only problem I saw was that I was F5ing the leaderboard constantly waiting for movement (signaling that Jason was getting out of a game). If I saw movement, I left my current game and tried to join a new one. Perhaps that leaderboard should be cached or delayed.

CaravanDisturber · 2015-04-03 22:10:07

It's a solid system. An other issue is, Jason technically couldn't appear on the leader board. So if say you had 36 random people setup as the VS. They couldn't win the amulet they were chose to protect. Would be capable of winning others though. Would be interesting to see how this structure would work over a longer time frame. Say 10 days, with multiple VS people. Interesting stuff for sure!

I do however think the small window caused a high increase, obviously, in the number of games played during that time. I think the tournament form fits this same philosophy. That makes for a solid spike at a chosen interval, 3 hours etc.

CaravanDisturber · 2015-04-03 22:12:14

Also... I think these "Mini Games" just make overall game play interesting...

1. Tournament
2. Amulet
3. VS

What's Next? Ideas?

LiteS · 2015-04-03 22:25:59

jere wrote:

Honestly, the only problem I saw was that I was F5ing the leaderboard constantly waiting for movement (signaling that Jason was getting out of a game). If I saw movement, I left my current game and tried to join a new one. Perhaps that leaderboard should be cached or delayed.

If it was delayed, it would be even harder to tell if you played against Jason. Right now there's no in-game indication of "Hey, I just played against Jason".

I think a pulse of demonic imagery post-game would be appropriate, maybe a sketch of Minosons or even a nice ring of amulets. Something to indicate "Hey, that game was special", regardless of monetary outcome.

edit: spelling

Last edited by LiteS (2015-04-03 22:27:04)

Cobblestone · 2015-04-03 22:29:19

jere wrote:

Honestly, the only problem I saw was that I was F5ing the leaderboard constantly waiting for movement (signaling that Jason was getting out of a game). If I saw movement, I left my current game and tried to join a new one. Perhaps that leaderboard should be cached or delayed.

Aw man, I didn't think of that!! I was using Canto, but since that's delayed I think I was always just missing him. I agree, that leaderboard should update on a timer like the others, and not when the values change.

Edit: LiteS, maybe putting the VS score in game like the amulet scores were? That'd be cool. Leave the game and see your score went up.

Last edited by Cobblestone (2015-04-03 22:31:38)

computermouth · 2015-04-04 01:37:05

In-game mark after the game is over sounds like a good idea.

jasonrohrer · 2015-04-04 17:29:48

Yeah, that leaderboard should be cached. Ooops.

Agreed that there should be something special happen for you post-game to let you know.

One concern that I had is how FEW games I actually ended up playing. I was pretty much playing or waiting for a game constantly, but in three hours, I only repeat-played a given person on two occasions.

This seems pretty frustrating for the players who are trying, especially if we have way more. Seems like it creates a kind of "let down" cycle for most people. "I was trying all day, but NEVER got into a game with Rohrer." I may be wrong about this, but I think people could descend into hopelessness if it's just too rare. It's like the vast majority of people don't even get a chance to participate in the contest. We had about 12 people playing at the peak, and some of them never played me. Imagine 100 people. It just gets worse the larger the pool gets. You may try for a few hours, but you won't try for 5 days straight if you never get a bite.

One idea is to "elect" amulet guardians from the current leaderboards. I shot that idea down before because those people wouldn't be able to win an amulet themselves, but Caravan points out that the rule could just be that they can't win their own amulet (obviously). These people could be trusted folks that I speak to directly to ensure that they won't collude with each other to give each other points.

The other idea is to elect people automatically throughout the contest without telling them, and keep mixing it up by changing people depending on who's active.

This is like a dozen random, unwilling me surrogates. The number could be adjusted based on the player population.

Though this seems vulnerable to collusion again (pairs of accounts that fast-play each other are more likely to get elected because they're always online, and even if they don't know they're elected, they'd be scoring points by fast-playing each other).

Getting back to a fixed set of people, which fast-playing colluding partners have no effect on, it could just be a straight-up point leaderboard like it is now instead of specific amulets, so they're not even out of the running for any amulet (they're at a slight disadvantage because they can play one less person for points than non-guardians, but I'd give them each a bonus of some kind).

Obviously, the list of people could be secret, and the chosen would have no motivation to tell each other (giving each other an advantage). Maybe I've already chosen them. Maybe they were already operating in the most recent test contest....

jere · 2015-04-04 18:12:00

You could keep yourself involved and make it so only the gold amulets are winnable by playing you.

Then you can elect an amulet council, even if that tier is slightly vulnerable to collusion. You get the best of both worlds that way.

jasonrohrer · 2015-04-04 18:18:36

Jere, are you saying that I can't trust you not to collude?

claspa · 2015-04-04 18:32:01

Yes, it's true that leaderboard should be cached, I had two games where my opponents left although they were behind. I assume, they saw some movement on the leaderboard and figured out that they were not playing Jason.

I also think that with a larger player pool it would already be a lucky strike just to play against Jason.

This tournament style had a very different feel to it:
- I was able to play games with higher stakes. (I believe stats should show this)
- Every game could be decisive, so the tension was high. In the previous one you could afford to lose some games, there were chances to come back.

Thanks again for the contest! I am glad to have achieved some kind of hattrick with three consecutive winning places in the last tournaments.

claspa · 2015-04-04 18:42:27

jasonrohrer wrote:

I was pretty much playing or waiting for a game constantly, but in three hours, I only repeat-played a given person on two occasions.

As far as I remember the movement on the leaderboard you played three players twice: arbiter expression, inhabitant obsession, majority moment

jasonrohrer · 2015-04-04 19:21:27

Yeah, maybe so!

jere · 2015-04-04 19:22:23

I think if you're going to elect these council members and they need to playing the game LOTS to support a huge playerbase, shouldn't they also have some additional incentives?

Jere, are you saying that I can't trust you not to collude?

Can you?

Maybe cullman is my rich uncle. Or maybe "Josh" started as a pen name so nobody would know I was spending all my time on Primrose and then was repurposed into a dual account for robbing houses in TCD. I might even be one of Caravan Disturber's many "friends." How far does the rabbit hole go?

jasonrohrer · 2015-04-04 20:00:12

Yeah, I said somewhere in this thread that there would be some bonuses for these people...

CaravanDisturber · 2015-04-05 00:31:10

Those are all good ideas. I think you should reward them their bonus based on a few things...

1. Total Number of Games Played. (Obviously)
2. Number of Unique Players Played. (Would most likely mean adjusting playing times)
3. Average cash amount of coins won/lost. (Adjusting Game Types)
4. Number of Coins Won. (Removes much of Collusion desire)
5. Total time playing. (Would need to log game start and end time for each game, could be used in a leaderboard too.)

Need a cached leaderboard that only your amulet protectors are aware of and can follow.

Some algorithm of the above would help to make sure the people with the amulet are playing loads of games. Which I'm pretty sure what everyone NEEDS, especially when the game is launched. Would be nice if there were always games available in multiple price levels... $.01 - $1.00 - $10.00 - etc??. More games played and more people playing would obviously what's in the best interest of the game and Jason.

jasonrohrer · 2015-04-05 01:21:26

Well, what you're talking about there is prop players. Card rooms employ these, and it's something that I've thought about.

However, this game is exclusively heads up (poker term for 2-player only), so prop players don't make as much sense. This game will ALWAYS have a "parity" problem, where there is generally at most one unmatched opponent at each stake level (the odd opponent). A prop player could give that odd player a partner, but is also taking that odd player away from the next even player who joins (essentially passing the buck).

In 9-seat poker, a prop player sitting at an empty table can serve as an opponent for up to 8 other players, and then can drop out, leaving an empty seat for the 9th non-prop player.

When picking the amulet guardians, I'd be picking people who would likely be playing a lot anyway and would likely be candidates to win prizes themselves. Which makes me think that they should probably NOT be compensated (it shouldn't be a chore).

In fact, I don't know that I even have to tell them about it... Well, that would probably encourage them to try to figure it out, maybe employing an alt account to help them figure it out. And that might open the door to collusion. So I think I would need to talk to them about it. I do know three CM players here in town, for example.

Anyway, I wouldn't want it to be a "YOU MUST PLAY X GAMES A DAY" demand. I'd just want them to play how they'd normally play.

CaravanDisturber · 2015-04-05 02:06:36

jasonrohrer wrote:

Anyway, I wouldn't want it to be a "YOU MUST PLAY X GAMES A DAY" demand. I'd just want them to play how they'd normally play.

Yes. Making it not a chore for them obviously smart.

I just think always having an option for a game would get more users to come back, and come back often. I almost wish Clock Form was still around or some variation or bot always submitting a penny game. Which is also scary.

Dan_Dan84 · 2015-04-06 11:02:59

I go away for a vacation for a week and THIS is what you come up with? HAVE YOU ALL GONE MAD?!

I love it.

I'm on (almost) computer-less holiday for one more week. Don't do anything crazy while I'm away.

I'll be back for the real thing.

And I'll stop losing. Maybe.

Oh, and congratulations to the winners of the latest test contest. Claspa: your strategy of always picking higher numbers than your opponent seems to be working.

CORDIAL MINUET ENSEMBLE

#26 2015-04-03 21:21:59

Re: I found THE solution to the collusion problem

#27 2015-04-03 21:36:54

Re: I found THE solution to the collusion problem

#28 2015-04-03 22:10:07

Re: I found THE solution to the collusion problem

#29 2015-04-03 22:12:14

Re: I found THE solution to the collusion problem

#30 2015-04-03 22:25:59

Re: I found THE solution to the collusion problem

#31 2015-04-03 22:29:19

Re: I found THE solution to the collusion problem

#32 2015-04-04 01:37:05

Re: I found THE solution to the collusion problem

#33 2015-04-04 17:29:48

Re: I found THE solution to the collusion problem

#34 2015-04-04 18:12:00

Re: I found THE solution to the collusion problem

#35 2015-04-04 18:18:36

Re: I found THE solution to the collusion problem

#36 2015-04-04 18:32:01

Re: I found THE solution to the collusion problem

#37 2015-04-04 18:42:27

Re: I found THE solution to the collusion problem

#38 2015-04-04 19:21:27

Re: I found THE solution to the collusion problem

#39 2015-04-04 19:22:23

Re: I found THE solution to the collusion problem

#40 2015-04-04 20:00:12

Re: I found THE solution to the collusion problem

#41 2015-04-05 00:31:10

Re: I found THE solution to the collusion problem

#42 2015-04-05 01:21:26

Re: I found THE solution to the collusion problem

#43 2015-04-05 02:06:36

Re: I found THE solution to the collusion problem

#44 2015-04-06 11:02:59

Re: I found THE solution to the collusion problem

Board footer