Orc In A Spacesuit on 22 Apr 2003 00:29:01 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Fixing the Number Game

The Baron said:
The Orc said:
I don't have a problem with minor compensation, but I see a few problems with this prop as it stands. First, I think it should be 4^N instead. That way getting all 5 right puts you just barely above 1000 points. Of course, the speed limit keeps you from getting anywhere near that amount. Next, why are you giving ALL players the points. This doesn't really make much sense to me.
Next, you need to set the number game to Solved once somebody solves it.
Finally, the way you set it up, someone could get to a real close position and just guess repeatedly.

-First: Well, I think I'll leave it at 5 - for all intents and purposes, it makes no real difference, since mostly we'll see "victories" of something like 3-8 points. I mean, really. The odds of getting all 5 right are so astronomical... as it happens, the odds of getting all 5 WRONG is pretty low, too (something like (9/20)^5), so this is a nice way to get a couple free points a turn. Like a guilt-free lotto.

See the bottom of this post.

Next: Where does it say I'm giving everyone everything? I gave a method to awarding points to each player, not every player. Otherwise, we get into confusion - who is "the player" I keep referring to?

"At the end of each nweek, the Administrator awards a number of points to each player equal to 5 raised to the n power, rounded to the nearest point, where n is determined as follows:"

Yeah. The "to each player" part. I wasn't sure if it was a typo, but judging from youre response, I assume it is.

Next / Final: Yeah, I'll change this slightly. I think Dave should just replace everything each nweek. That seems easiest.-

Again, see the bottom of this post.

While I'm not against some reform to the game, perhaps this could be tweaked a bit. I'd also prefer that the game retain the "keep guessing and try to get closer" aspect, rather than resetting the number each time, which will make it truly random.

-Well, that was nice when the pot was smaller, but this way, you can find a spot that gives you 100 points a turn and just sit there. That's no good.-

And that's why I say don't have a giant pot. You can say these things balance each other out, and in a sense they do, but I don't think it's good.

If you have giant pots and make it entirely random, that sounds like a game for the Casino. Random chance. That's not what the number game is about; it's takes bit of brains to get the full benefit. If you think the number game has too little chance of getting you money, then don't play. And if you want an entirely random gambling system, make a new one. Heck, even change the proposal simply putting this new text in the Casino rule and calling it "5-Wheel Roulette".

You said that the giant pot and complete randomness balance each other out. And in a pure payoff-return comparison, they might. But I say doing it that way changes a fundamental part of the game.

This kinda reminds me of recyling Insta-rules debate -- I think it gives far too much RU's, especially considering that it repeals the insta-rule involved, and the great big explosion is something that can be dealt with, or even used to the player's advantage with the right conditions.

Orc in a Spacesuit
This signature has been ROT26 encrypted. Reading it is unlawful under the terms of the DMCA.

MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

spoon-discuss mailing list