Toast
Mood: |
| posted on 26/3/2006 at 06:51 PM |
|
|
Online game is relatively boring
I used to play on occasion on here and decided to come back and give it another try... and I'm unfortunately reminded of why I stopped playing
originally.
Basically, both the tournament format of top however many players from each game moves on, and the format of giving or taking points based on ranking
in a normal game encourage people not to always play to win.
The number of times I've seen people with an easy opportunity to set the current leader but instead make the absolutely safe play to protect their
second place standing is completely staggering. People on here almost never try to create a switch when the bid is even, despite having two wizards
and two jesters in their hands!
I came on here trying to recreate the experience I have playing wizard with my friends, where everyone is trying to win and the games are constantly
exciting. Frankly, this isn't even coming close.
I don't know what a practical solution for this situation in a tournament setting would be, but I really think that in the standard games, positive
points should only be given out for a first place finish, and everyone else should lose some. You'd find the games getting far more entertaining if
that were the case.
My experience has shown that this game is infinitely more exciting when everyone is playing to get 1st place, and only 1st place.
You'll still see me on here periodically trying to get my fix, but I doubt it's going to happen very often 
Anyway, thanks for listening 
Response from wizard
I think that some valid points have been made but there is no simple solution. In fact we have taken some time to evolve to the current system.
1. RE: "People on here almost never try to create a switch when the bid is even, despite having two wizards and two jesters in their hands!"
This may be true but I believe that as the quality of play continues to improve players will realize the opportunity they have to set 2 opponents.
Advice for this is provided under "Strategy" for those wanting to take the time to read it.
2. RE: "My experience has shown that this game is infinitely more exciting when everyone is playing to get 1st place, and only 1st place." The problem
with a winner-take-all format is that players who have little or no chance of winning may tend to be simply disruptive by making nonsense bids and
illogical plays. Part of the strategy of the game is to take into consideration the bids already made but if a player is bidding 4 but planning to
take zero simply to disrupt the game then strategy goes out the window.
3. RE: "Basically, both the tournament format of top however many players from each game moves on, and the format of giving or taking points based on
ranking in a normal game encourage people not to always play to win."
This is not unusual. In many Pro-sporting events and the Olympic Games athletes play simply to be able to go on to the finals. They may be satisfied
with placing 2nd if they know that the top 2 go on to the finals. Also it makes sense to be satisfied with 2nd if the gamble for first has little
chance for success and missing your bid would drop you to 6th.
RE: "I really think that in the standard games, positive points should only be given out for a first place finish, and everyone else should lose
some."
This would be very discouraging as 95% of the players would have negative scores. I think a lot depends on the player's attitude towards competition.
I am very competitive and play to win but others like my wife play for the enjoyment and really don't care very much about who actually wins. Some
gaming sites provide a choice between competitive games for points and social games simply for enjoyment.
In any case thank you for your input. I am sure others will respond with their 2-cents-worth.
|
|
|
CardShark
Mood: |
| posted on 28/3/2006 at 11:18 PM |
|
|
Agree to an extent
I agree with you in part. Too many players play only to get their bid and have the strange idea that you should "be nice" in how you play your cards.
This I never understood... Be nice in words be evil with play..
I for one always play to win and love to set those even bids. But due to my nature of enjoying setting even bids etc and enjoying a very pink game I
have become the target of many of the people who like to "play nice" (even when in last place). I am not sure the solution but if you like to play
for first I hope I get the oppertunity to play you sometime.
CardShark
|
|
|
The Boss
Mood: |
| posted on 1/4/2006 at 06:55 AM |
|
|
My 2 cents. (1.70 cents US...!)
Since I don't like the Canadian Rule, I don't share your point of view. But I've heard a few players lately saying that even bids should never be
allowed. So, maybe in a future improvement to this software, an option could be added for the host to allow even bids or not.
And even when the bids are even, the score can change every hand. If you bid 2 and everybody make their bid, you'll get twice more points than those
who bid 0, 10 less than the one who bid 3, etc.
Also, at the begining of a game EVERYBODY plays to win, but our strategy evolves as the game moves on. If Mr. Wizard is 100 points ahead of me (I've
seen that often, believe me...) and deanna is tied with me, why should I try to set
Mr. Wizard and not deanna ???
If positive points would only be given to the winner, I believe those with no chance to win would drop out of games more often than we see now.
Reply by wizard
I hope you and everyone else is aware that the host has a number of options. One is to play the C.R. (Canadian Rule) or not. It can be turned off by
the host prior to the start of the game. If turned off then even bids are valid at all times.
In "Grand Prix" card tournaments there are 4 players in a game and points are awarded as follows: 6 - 3 - 2 - 1. This scheme provides a lot more
incentive to go for the numero uno position. However using our current system the best we could do would be to add 1 additional point to the winner's
total so that in 3-4-5-6 player games the winner would get 3-4-5-6 points instead of the current 2-3-4-5 points.
|
|
|
The Boss
Mood: |
| posted on 3/4/2006 at 03:27 AM |
|
|
Few replies so far...
I thought that this would be a topic that would sparks more replies than this...
Come on Mr. Wizard, you play both table and online versions. So you must have something to say about this.
|
|
|
Toast
Mood: |
| posted on 13/4/2006 at 08:09 PM |
|
|
RE: "Also, at the begining of a game EVERYBODY plays to win, but our strategy evolves as the game moves on. If Mr. Wizard is 100 points ahead of me
(I've seen that often, believe me...) and deanna is tied with me, why should I try to set Mr. Wizard and not deanna ??? "
That's exactly the situation I'm talking about. Even with say, 2 hands left, you have a chance to win at 100 points behind if you go after Mr.
Wizard. But you don't try because it's far easier to go for second. All that does is reinforce the status quo and keep people set in their ranks in
the game, which is boring.
The main thing that people have to get into their heads is that you are very very rarely out of a game of wizard. Even a large point disparity can be
made up in a couple hands with some luck.
The way it's played on here, the rankings rarely change dramatically after about 5 hands, and the scores in the early hands rely more on luck than
anything else.
The thing is, when I play with my friends, there's the winner of the game, and then there's everybody else. There's no difference between 2nd and
5th, you both didn't win. That mindset keeps the games very exciting, but I'm just not sure how it could be incorporated on here.
Anyway, thanks for the replies guys
|
|
|
The Boss
Mood: |
| posted on 14/4/2006 at 04:56 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Toast
The thing is, when I play with my friends, there's the winner of the game, and then there's everybody else. There's no difference between 2nd and
5th, you both didn't win. That mindset keeps the games very exciting, but I'm just not sure how it could be incorporated on here.
I have to admit that when we play the table version, we also just care about 1st place. All the rest didn't win. But I think that one of the things
that makes people coming back here is the points standing. So if only the winner would get points, maybe people would not come to play as often.
And also, I think that more people would drop out of games, as soon as their chances to win would be gone. When we play the table version with
friends, nobody leaves in the middle because they don't win. But we see that once in a while here.
P.S.: -When I'm 100 points behind Mr. Wizard, I KNOW I ain't gonna win...  But things are different
when I'm 100 points behind... __________ (Should I risk to write some names there???)  
|
|
|
Mark68
Mood: |
| posted on 8/8/2007 at 02:35 AM |
|
|
This posting stuff gets kind of addicting
I agree whole-heartedly with Toast, Cardshark, and Mr.Wizard as far as strategy and play is concerned. The game is much more lively, entertaining, and
challenging when you play to win.
Someday, when this site has thousands of members playing games on-line, I hope to see an option to play Rated or Non Rated games.
|
|
|
|
