betting!!

[Mr_Adams]

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm kinda sick of cooks giving so few points because of thier score. My proposal is make a game option where the # of points won/lost is set no matter who wins. ex: set game at 15 pts per player, no matter who wins each loser loses 15 points.
If the mod thinks this is stupid he can feel free to delete it without hurting my feelings .

[Piestar]

That's not betting!

If you want betting, make a game where the game creater sets a 'point amount' as an ante. You could have 100 point games, or more. (Or less obviously.)

if you really want to be gutsy, add something similar to the doubling option, from Backgammon! Now that would be betting...

[insomniacdude]

I think this has been suggested and rejected before.

I don't think it's a bad idea. It wouldn't change the amount of points in the system. And I always think more options are better if the demand is there for them, even if a lot of people wouldn't use it.

The downside is that ranking up would be MUCH easier for multis. Two accounts play some 1v1s and set 100 points as the ante. One "player" wins them all. Normally if this were to happen then the "first player" would eventually start to level out as his score grew bigger while the other score became smaller.

A flat point option is pretty meh. Who decides where to set it? The game creator? That still doesn't stop the problems with multis.

Maybe a better approach to the idea would to have the average score of all players calculated at the game's beginning. Then at the game's end, the formula works with the winner's score against that average to find X. Then X points are taken from each player.

That way cooks lose more against higher ranked players, and those high-ranked players would have more incentive to play with the cooks. Not only would the GAIN more points from potentially beating them, bu they'd also lose less points against them.

[Herakilla]

it was rejected also because high rankers could play low ante games and stay at the top of the board with no worries

[TKO]

I think somthing needs to be done,I lost a multi to some chef and it cost me 75 points!! Some other dude got trigger happy and took me out but didn't cash,that left it wide open for the newbie.I have to beat like seven people to win that amount!

[kwanton]

it was rejected also because high rankers could play low ante games and stay at the top of the board with no worries

meh. maybe set a minimum bet. something like one-tenth your score or whatever. At least something comparable to the points they would lose normally. This would be in addition to the normal point system tho.

[The Fuzzy Pengui]

I think somthing needs to be done,I lost a multi to some chef and it cost me 75 points!! Some other dude got trigger happy and took me out but didn't cash,that left it wide open for the newbie.I have to beat like seven people to win that amount!

Your own multi???

[Piestar]

Maybe if it was a premium players only option? Unless there are people willing to pay for multiple accounts to do crap like this, it seems a reasonable idea...

[kwanton]

Maybe if it was a premium players only option? Unless there are people willing to pay for multiple accounts to do crap like this, it seems a reasonable idea...

well most of the top players are premium. the big problem was with top players using the betting to abuse the point system. Find a way to stop that and it'll be a great addition.

I think someone already suggested limit the number of bet games you can do even for premium members.

[AndyDufresne]

Once money gets involved, people are usually willing to do anything. We'd rather not have to handle any sticky issues with money...other than Premium Memberships of course.


--Andy

[hecter]

Once money gets involved, people are usually willing to do anything. We'd rather not have to handle any sticky issues with money...other than Premium Memberships of course.


--Andy

YAY FOR READING POSTS!! WOOT WOOT!!! For shame andy... *shakes head*

[Genghis Khan CA]

meh. maybe set a minimum bet. something like one-tenth your score or whatever. At least something comparable to the points they would lose normally. This would be in addition to the normal point system tho.

A 300 point minimum bet???

[kwanton]

meh. maybe set a minimum bet. something like one-tenth your score or whatever. At least something comparable to the points they would lose normally. This would be in addition to the normal point system tho.

A 300 point minimum bet???

That was a guesstimate. Obviously I was terribly, terribly wrong

I also said comparable to the points you would lose normally.

Thanks for pointing out my shortcomings tho. I appreciate it

[insomniacdude]

Maybe a better approach to the idea would to have the average score of all players calculated at the game's beginning. Then at the game's end, the formula works with the winner's score against that average to find X. Then X points are taken from each player.

That way cooks lose more against higher ranked players, and those high-ranked players would have more incentive to play with the cooks. Not only would they GAIN more points from potentially beating cooks, but they'd also lose LESS points from potentially losing to the cooks.

[Mr_Adams]

Glad to spark a good conversation, as for the first response given, your "suggestion" was what I meant, have the game maker choose the points. I also realized another loophole in my suggestion is, what happens to the WORST players? people with under 100 points could try to bet more points that they have!