CORDIAL MINUET ENSEMBLE

The_Doctor

Member

Registered: 2015-05-11

Posts: 6

Re: Fundamental issues that limit critical mass

I was thinking about doing a stream, but there are some issues with that. I'd want to put in an extensive delay so any potential opponent watching the stream couldn't cheat me. Also, to make the stream interesting for viewers I would have to discuss my line of thinking. Any opponent watching the stream, could figure me out, and then beat me in a subsequent round. Also, there isn't a critical enough mass of players to make it so people wouldn't know they are playing against me.

That said, I'll give it a go anyway.

Awesome! Make sure to post the link on the forums.

jasonrohrer

Administrator

Registered: 2014-11-20

Posts: 802

Re: Fundamental issues that limit critical mass

The lack of "lets play" videos for this game is a little strange, though.  I think it's a matter of just not enough people knowing about the game, so the youtubers don't know about it.

As I recall, all the TCD videos didn't start appearing until after it was on Steam.

LiteS

Member

Registered: 2015-01-27

Posts: 82

Re: Fundamental issues that limit critical mass

There were a few Let's Plays of TCD before Steam, I know that English sounding guy had a bunch up during the beta. He went over designs and had a tutorial on clocks and timers.

Cobblestone

Member

Registered: 2015-01-28

Posts: 212

Re: Fundamental issues that limit critical mass

I'll be streaming sometime in the next few weeks. I've had the same concerns about revealing my strategies as we discussed before, but I think I'd honestly rather get more people interested in the game and do my part in building the community.

joshwithguitar

Member

Registered: 2015-01-07

Posts: 128

Re: Fundamental issues that limit critical mass

You can always play a bit dumb in your let's play videos and use strategies that you used in the past or well known strategies in the video. So using the video to introduce people to the game more than showing them exactly how you play.

shallow_depths

Member

Registered: 2015-01-10

Posts: 6

Re: Fundamental issues that limit critical mass

Being in an non-US timezone is making the issues worse.  What playerbase there is is being further fragmented by both timezone and the stakes people are playing.  It's been difficult to work up to the stakes other regulars are playing without as many games available.  If I could at least reliably get penny games that would be nice.  I was hoping this would be more playable with the influx of players at launch but it hasn't really worked out that way.

Not to be a downer, just hoping there's some way to make this work.

LiteS

Member

Registered: 2015-01-27

Posts: 82

Re: Fundamental issues that limit critical mass

Returning to Fundamental issues of the game:

I'm not sure about y'all, but when I put down my initial payment, that was it for me. That was all I wanted to put in the game, and I don't think I will ever put any more into the game. The only way I'd need to put down more money to keep playing is if I was losing, and this game is very discouraging to losers. In order to have an actual incentive to deposit more money, I'd either have to run out of money or see the availability of games at a magnitude of higher stakes, i.e., $50+ games. All I see now is the occasional $20 one put up by JA, and in the long run I think accepting those games is a recipe for failure. It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation.

With poker, even the losers have a perceived equal chance to win some cash, where as in CM a poor player will essentially never make money, feel discouraged, and stop playing.

It's a bad scene when I start playing The Castle Doctrine to destress after a loss in CM.

shotgun

Member

Registered: 2015-05-11

Posts: 22

Re: Fundamental issues that limit critical mass

ongoing contests will probably help, since after the amulet contest ends i think a lot of people are gonna fade away

maybe have there be a buy-in, so it's not all out of pocket for you, jason? you could even have a few tiers, like pay $2 to enter the C-level competition for this week, $10 for B-level, $25 for A-level, or whatever, and the prizes could come out of that pool of money.

jasonrohrer

Administrator

Registered: 2014-11-20

Posts: 802

Re: Fundamental issues that limit critical mass

Yeah, there's a tournament system in place that works very well.  You can buy-in using your balance, and there's a prize pool that is computed automatically depending on how many people enter.  It is a guaranteed money-maker for me as long as at least two people enter, and the top prizes can be quite big if a lot of people enter.  Here's a calculator that you can play with to see prize payouts for various pool sizes for a tournament with a $10 entry fee:

http://cordialminuet.com/gameServer/ser … players=20

It's mostly collusion-proof, because the winners are chosen by total profit, and once you've made too much money off of one other player, you are blocked from playing them again.  So you can't win by feeding off of an accomplice (you could win by feeding off of several accomplices, but that requires several entry fees).

Here's one that we ran back in January with a $5 entry fee:

http://cordialminuet.com/gameServer/ser … ea_goat_18

shotgun

Member

Registered: 2015-05-11

Posts: 22

Re: Fundamental issues that limit critical mass

awesome!!
i only started playing this week or so (when i saw the metafilter post) but i do plan on staying after the amulet contest. i definitely plan on entering later contests if/when they appear!

Dan_Dan84

Member

Registered: 2015-02-14

Posts: 106

Re: Fundamental issues that limit critical mass

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:

Rohrer’s stuff always has me interested in a beard stroking way, but never enough to actually buy the game... He should implement Bitcoin transactions. Anonymous online betting which gives them a skill-based feeling of superiority? They’d love this and it might create a hardcore audience that will stick with it, as opposed to the fickle beard stroking indie crowd.

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 ).

..

Member

Registered: 2014-11-21

Posts: 259

Re: Fundamental issues that limit critical mass

Considering that I didn't even complete most of my favourite games before losing interest I'm pretty surprised I'm still playing CM, though not that much before the contest and I've played fewer than 200 games. But it definitely gets a bit same-ish for me too. It's most fun when you're both trying to double-guess each other, but you might be playing on the side rather than concentrating, or your opponent is doing the same or just acting randomly, so the minds of the two players aren't meeting.

My take away is that what keeps people interested in CM is when something changes. A contest or challenge, an experimental game mode, new ante settings. Maybe you could add additional game modes or adjustable game settings to CM (not necessarily radically different games).  Currently the game very much lacks variety. Don't always use the "don't split the playerbase" argument without considering whether doing something will increase the playerbase to compensate. But I guess this should go in the other thread instead.

I don't think it matters that turning a significant profit is hopeless right now. It would matter to the poker players, but it shouldn't matter to the normal gamer. Having a few cents staked on a game is enough to make the game more dramatic and with purpose even if the amount is insignificant. This aspect of the game works perfectly!

Regarding the 'terrain' of the magic squares you mentioned, I think this comes down to thinking ahead one or two moves which I find very hard to do aside from some easy patterns; there are too many possibilities. This is the main point on which a computer could outplay a human.

Last edited by .. (2015-05-18 22:10:00)