Pay for Play

Scott Hardie | August 8, 2007
Rather than clog up the Rock Block discussion with a side tangent, I'd like to ask for your opinions on Steve Dunn's suggestion that paying users R$ for participation in other sections of goo.tc is unfair or imbalanced. I may change the rules based on what feedback I get about it.

Currently, the only way that one section of the site affects another is that participation in the annual Oscars contest is restricted to users who have participated a minimal amount in at least one other section of the site. That was to prevent a reoccurrence of the flood of anonymous newcomers who, while having an ethical "right" to play in the open contest, sucked out all the fun for those of us who spent more than ten minutes on the site. The only downside has been the potential that a newcomer will post a flood of meaningless content just to qualify, which has only happened once and didn't hurt anything, so hey. (And in the interest of full disclosure, I still grant special permission to newcomers who ask for it without using the rest of the site, which happens a little.)

Paying R$ for site participation does give regular site users an edge in the bidding, which makes the game more fun for them, but ultimately doesn't give them a competitive advantage in actual play. Theoretically, the level of the concert should even-out any numerical advantage they would gain from all those great cards. What they do gain is variety of choice, I suppose, and that's not inconsiderable.

The real reason that I came up with this policy is because I want users who get screwed out of their collections (through big losses) to have a chance to earn their way back into the game. Originally I considered having an option to "reset" your collection, wiping it clean and selecting ten new cards as if you're just joining, but I feared players would lose one card and reset, or perhaps even reset without that first loss. Earning small amounts of cash elsewhere on the site was my next idea, and I guess I never thought about it after that. Now I am thinking about it, thanks to Steve, and maybe it's not such a good idea.

So, what say you? I could compromise and leave in the R$-for-participation system, but only for players whose collections are below a certain level. Or, I could ditch it and institute that reset button instead, perhaps with some kind of penalty for using it, like you get -$R100k or something. Or there are many other possibilities. But really, I think we need to solve the how-fallen-players-work-their-way-back-into-fair-competition problem before we solve the R$-is-or-isn't-fair problem.

Lori Lancaster | August 8, 2007
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | August 8, 2007
WAY TO GO, STEVE!!! (grrrr -- you and all your fairitude/lawyerness!)

Honestly... I have to give it a little bit of thought before responding -- being that a) I was sucking pretty hard until midnight tonight, b) I am a frequent user of other areas (pretty much a TC loudmouth), and c) I totally would have used that "reset" button if I had it before tonight...

On a totally biased side note... I don't think Steve should go messing around unless he's gonna' sign a label, dammit! ;-ppppp

Aaron Shurtleff | August 8, 2007
Well, personally, I like the current system, because posting comments is about the only way I have to get the $, since I can't be here except for sporatically, and can't be in 500 billion concerts in the wee hours of the evening! :) I think that I am now pretty much at a slight disadvantage, and I imagine it will only get worse if I don't get any sweet sweet money for posts like this! ;)

I can understand that it could lead to problems, though...

Amy Austin | August 8, 2007
500 billion concerts?!?!? Who's doing that? ;-)

Steve Dunn | August 8, 2007
Folks, you must remember that my underlying goal is to see Scott become the King Of Online Gaming with a diverse stable of revenue-generating amusingly diversionary web sites.

My comment was that the "pay for play" system might be a turnoff for the hordes of new users necessary before Scott can quit his day job. However, I also know that Scott places tremendous value on creating a fun and meaningful experience for a small number of dedicated users of the site.

Thus, I'm not against pay-for-play for its own sake (though it could create an incentive for frivolous posting). I'm just against it from a King Of Online Gaming perspective.

I think Scott IS a rock star, so I'd like to see him BE a rock star. But I'm not Scott. I'm Steve.

Amy, I am really trying hard NOT to join the game. I honestly don't think I can handle it. I think I'd be a junkie, and I just don't have the time.

Steve Dunn | August 8, 2007
Actually now I'm curious... what has happened to posting volume in the past week? The board looks more active to me, but I'm not going to count posts. Do you have a handy measure of board activity, Scott?

To the extent pay-for-play increases board activity, it could very well be a GOOD thing. If it brings in new participants, I say all the better.

Aaron Shurtleff | August 8, 2007
But then it's an issue of quantity vs. quality. There might be more posts, but are they quality posts, or just fluff?

OK, they've been sort of fluffy for a while now, but I don't know if they are more so... ;)

Matthew Preston | August 8, 2007
R$500 bones for a comment on TC doesn't seem unfair to me. Case in point: Amy was hurting there for a bit, but the many comments she made built up her bank roll enough to capture an R7. Now she is a force to be reckoned with. Of course, her comments probably won't slow down...

And I've got to agree about participation.

Amy Austin | August 8, 2007
No more or less fluffy... but of course there are more -- we've been discussing the game intently. Yes, there has been a lot of frivolous banter, too, but I have specifically avoided starting a new discussion (something I have never done with great frequency) and/or responding to any post in any different fashion than I already would have (yes, there is more to respond to now, and you can judge my "fluff" just by seeing how much I've blathered in concerts -- not even just my own -- which is something that *doesn't* pay $R) just to avoid any appearances of impropriety. That may not be apparent to the casual user, but to anyone who knows me well enough, it should be fairly obvious.

Now Lori... ;-D (I kid Lori, because I know how she likes being singled out!) But seriously, even Lori (like me) has gone back in some instances and added edits to previous posts to also avoid this.

Does any of this change the fundamental issues of the debate? No, not really. It isn't an entirely fair system and will likely have to be tweaked more than once for that to happen. But just look at my RB rank to see that all my blathering hasn't done anything yet to improve my standings -- I still suck, even with Lynyrd Skynyrd! (Not that I find that so surprising... ;-D)

Amy Austin | August 8, 2007
I don't know about a "force", Matt -- I was dumping ALL of my $R earnings on that bid, concert by concert, post by post -- and I never did anything to specifically to hike the post count (Lori helped me with that! ;-D), as I already stated.

As Scott said, the leveling of concerts makes it less of a steamroll... I don't expect to run over anyone easily with my Skynyrd card -- proof positive of that = 2 draws with Scott last night... and likely a draw with Aaron today! I just have too many "1" weak spots in too many of the same places on my lot, and I hate it! I hate my bands and really want to fire some of them!!! ;-D

On a related issue, two of my lame-os have not yet sold... and will they ever??? 1) They're lame, 2) I have Skynyrd now, and 3) if I'm perceived to be "rolling in it" because I'm kickin' ass with Skynyrd (or even just "not losing"!) and because I have a lot to say here in TC... well, then... Who will buy my sweet Guns 'N' Roses? (Man, if only I had GnR... waste of a really sweet Oliver Twist reference there!!! I wouldn't sell them even if I had them, besides -- that card totally kicks ass compared to mine!)

Denise Sawicki | August 8, 2007
If anything I'm the one who shamelessly posted to accrue $R the past day or so. It's not really noticeable though since talking more than "none" isn't very difficult.

Amy Austin | August 8, 2007
Well, and actually, for that reason alone, I think it's a good thing...

Aaron Shurtleff | August 8, 2007
Well, if I ever get the R$, I will take Slayer...if it's still there. I know Scott said it's pointless, but I will collect every band!!! :)

Denise Sawicki | August 8, 2007
Motley Crue probably would have been a better idea strategy-wise for me to buy than the one I did buy from you (Foo Fighters) but both are somewhat similar, making it unwise for me to go ahead and buy that one anyway... Plus the one I bought is prettier. Man I doubt I will stick with this for long, it makes me too anxious, but it is fun to pretend.

Aaron Shurtleff | August 8, 2007
It's not too bad now. Wait until you have actual cards on the line! :( Just ask Amy! ;)

Denise Sawicki | August 8, 2007
Yeah I am not going to like losing cards very much. I hardly have any anyway!

Amy Austin | August 8, 2007
D'oh... wait 'til *you* lose one, Aaron! I should have invoked the One Trade this time!!!

Lori Lancaster | August 8, 2007
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | August 10, 2007
My first idea: Players who have less than 10 cards get a system to buy themselves back into competition. They get the aforementioned R$ for participating in the rest of goo.tc, and in the Artist Market, there are always four special sales (R4/R3/R2/R1) available only to them. Players with 10 or more cards don't get these advantages. (Can you tell I'm a Democrat?)

Oops, no, there is potential for abuse. A player could sell all of his/her R1 cards to get beneath 10 cards total, then replace them with R4 cards. My second idea: Perhaps I should do this based on your level instead of your number of cards, and make the system apply to anyone below level 14?

Oops, no, there is only one player less than 14 in level, but numerous players who have less than 10 cards and could use a way to get more. Ok, hmm. My third idea: The game starts you with one R4, two R3s, three R2s, and four R1s. If you have less than that base number, you get access to the special sales in the Market.

Oops, no, a player could sell his/her cards for a nice profit and then buy replacements back for cheap. Damn it!

Ok, you tell me: Is there any fair, balanced way to give players who have fallen behind a convenient way to buy themselves back in without affecting the majority of players?

Amy Austin | August 10, 2007
I like the idea, and if course, I was really bummed that the idea was presented *after* I spent a hefty load on Elvis and bumped myself up to 15! But yeah, with only 6 other weak cards, I could definitely use some more.

So my suggestion is this: couldn't you simply lock down the sale of cards for those who wish to have access to the "special" (as in "de-de-deh") market -- or, more specifically, sales of cards above R4 (to make it even with the beginning playing field)? That's all I've got.

Amy Austin | August 10, 2007
Btw... it isn't like I want to sell my King card in order to obtain better players... I really want to keep him primarily for collection purposes (which means I am *highly* unlikely to risk him in play... for all of you thinking about trying to steal him from me!), and which also means that I am still effectively a level 10 player (who can be challenged at level 15!!!)

Hey! That gives me another idea... Maybe in order to participate in the market -- *and* to prevent being challenged way over your head when you don't want to risk a special card -- you could implement an option to temporarily "lock down" certain cards (probably only one, to make it a really special option... so you couldn't protect a whole collection of big cards, for instance)... as in you can't play or trade this card in any way, shape or form. The only drawback I see is (I'm learning to see the potential abuses now... I wouldn't have even thought of the ones you did with your own ideas so quickly!) that you could lock down a card, get access to the market, and then just as easily unlock it and resume play at beefed-up level. Possible countermeasures... impose a time frame for the locking of said cards, for one... note player level when card is locked, and only permit unlocking when that level is resumed...

I have to give this some more thought.

Scott Hardie | August 12, 2007
Ok, I think I have it. This isn't going to be popular with everybody who likes getting R$ for site participation, which is maybe everybody except Steve Dunn, but bear with me.

In the new plan, nobody gets money for site participation any more. Players with less than five cards will be able to buy random R1 cards in the market at any time and go into negative R$ in order to do so. This way, nobody can be stuck without enough cards to play. As long as you have five cards, you can keep playing for trade, or keep playing for R$ payouts and go to auction.

New question: I've also been thinking about how the game can get a little stale at this early stage before any of us have a lot of different cards; it seems a little too familiar to keep playing the same set over and over, let alone face the same sets in battle. I'd like to offer some kind of random exchange, where you can swap any of your cards for another random card of equal rank. What limits would this need? Only one exchange per day? No trade-backs? I appreciate your feedback.

Amy Austin | August 12, 2007
I was thinking along the same lines, actually -- because yeah, those same cards do get pret-ty boring! My suggestion was even similar, with a random/same-rank swap. I hadn't thought about limits, but I guess that would be only fair. (Not like taking away our participation $$$... no fair!!! :'-( )

Steve West | August 12, 2007
Are player-to-player trades a possibility?

Amy Austin | August 12, 2007
Yes, I would like that, too!

Denise Sawicki | August 12, 2007
Every card over rank 4 is going for way over $100000. Argh. I'm hoping I could get a hold of some 50s or 60s band I might actually like, but those probably don't even exist in the game. So the participation $ are already gone? I will go check and make sure... :)

EDIT: the participation $ were *not* gone (yet)

Lori Lancaster | August 12, 2007
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | August 12, 2007
I won't get to it today, but soon I think I'll build some kind of Swap Meet page, where you can swap out some of your cards for random replacements, and also you can propose trades against other players. In both cases, you have to know what the card is in order to get it; in other words, those "???" bands are off-limits.

And yes, you can keep the R$ you already acquired.

Justin Woods | August 12, 2007
Just thinking but what if you were to allow people under 10 cards to buy R1,R2,R3 at a high price so that they have to participate in rounds to earn R$ then purchase these cards to catch up. I don't think players will want to spend all there R$ to buy low level cards, thus it preventing players to buy those cards and selling them for a profit to buy better ones. You would also guarantee more player battles witch will increase levels and there R$ for bidding on cards.


Another idea here, what if you were to add an option to bet some R$ for a battle instead of your cards, since were always making R$ for a battle.

Amy Austin | August 12, 2007
Just thinking but what if you were to allow people under 10 cards to buy R1,R2,R3 at a high price so that they have to participate in rounds to earn R$ then purchase these cards to catch up. I don't think players will want to spend all there R$ to buy low level cards, thus it preventing players to buy those cards and selling them for a profit to buy better ones.

I don't like that idea -- especially now that participation $R is going away -- because when you lose all the time, you stand to lose cards *and* you only take 20% of earnings... and it's only these people who are concerned anyway, so what makes you think that there's so much potential for abuse??? Like Denise, I am frustrated that even the lower-level cards are going for mega-bucks... and the only people who can afford these are the people who are *winning* at concerts (or else hoarding all of their $R/losing auctions long enough to splurge and win)... and taking all the cards from the losers!!! There's already a premium on buying back these cards from the winners... why punish more by making replacements ridiculously high, too? And so what if you want to sell one you bought at random, anyway? Everyone already has that option, and if there are daily limits to this (as well as no "tradebacks"), then that should account for it well enough.

The idea of betting $R at concerts is a good one though... ;-) (Might even be tastier if *spectators* can bet!!!)

Russ Wilhelm | August 13, 2007
Evening up the playing field? There's talk about doing away with R$ for site participation, buying and selling at exorbitant prices, playing for R$. Here's one more idea, although I can foresee it as not being very popular with some of our fellow players. Limit the number of concerts you can participate in over a period of time.

Example:
14 concerts in 1 week. You can use them all in 1 day or spread them around. Some players seem to have way too much time to spend on the concerts whereas others, like Aaron, have limited access or time to play. I can see them easily falling behind, while not being able to bid on cards at a realistic level due to the sheer volume others can, and do, play at.

Also limit the number of times you can play against the same player in that period. That will help spread the field a little as well, and limit your opportunities. Maybe even make it harder to score vendetta's.

Aaron Shurtleff | August 13, 2007
Well, obviously, I don't see a problem with this! :) I don't know if it will make things better, though. Right now, it's not so bad for me, personally, but I guess it could get worse in the future...

Russ Wilhelm | August 13, 2007
My point is that some players have have been able to play 8-12 times more games than you have in one weeks time. That may be by choice, but I know that you also have to get work done as well, which limits your access. That means that they can potentially outbid you by that same amount. Per week. If your goal is to collect all the cards, this severely hampers your strategy.

Aaron Shurtleff | August 13, 2007
That is very true, but I guess from a mega-card point of view, I'm not getting killed yet, in my opinion. For all of the biggie cards that are out there, I still think I can hang, since there would have to be weak cards in the concert to balance, and no one's "studio" is too large yet. In the future, when everyone has a lot of the mid-range (R3-R6), if I am still at this disadvantage, yeah, I'm screwed, since I will not have the kind of choices that they will, and a properly made grouping would slaughter me. For now, though, I think I'm good.

I need to challenge people and take their cards in trade while I'm still able to!

And collecting all the cards is a dream that I know will be difficult, if not impossible to accomplish, so it doesn't bother me that I will not be able to. But, I will still do what I can.

Scott Hardie | August 13, 2007
Russ, you have a good suggestion, but be careful not to overestimate the importance of the Artist Market to the overall game. The way to build your collection is not to bid well in auction, but to play well in concert, or at least that's the way it's supposed to be.

The purpose of the Artist Market is to introduce new cards into the playing community, at a gradual and controlled pace. Its purpose is not to introduce new cards into your collection as a player; if it was, I'd make your chances of a winning bid a lot more fair. Buying strong cards in auction does not improve your odds of winning concerts, since the level system forces balance, except that you have a slightly wider variety of cards to choose from when you're challenged.

Each concert may be zero-sum, but the larger game is not. Through the Artist Market, the joining of new players, and the (soon to be built) ability for trailing players to buy low-ranked cards to return to a competitive base, new cards are gradually introduced and the player body is capable of continuing to rise to greater and greater achievements. Thus, equal balance and fairness for all are, imo, not as important. The goo game has been around nearly a decade and we're still arguing about the fairest way to score it, since only one person wins it. But Rock Block has no winner, and it's intended that some players will advance faster than others.

I suppose it remains to be seen whether my prediction will come true, but I expected as I planned and built the game that the player body would gradually achieve different strata, probably divided by certain major play rules and trade rules. For example, when you start playing, you don't want to risk losing any cards, but later you become comfortable with the One trade rule and it's hard to go back to a no-risk game that you know won't pay off as much. Once you get comfortable with the Hidden play rule, it's hard to go back to matches where your opponent can see your next move coming. As this happens over time, invisible lines become drawn across the player body, and players begin to gravitate towards opponents of equal achievement. This isn't absolute by any means; there's still plenty of crossover play between the strata. I'm just saying that it's ok for some players to advance far ahead, because that has little negative affect on the players who don't.

Not counting the RB Userrank page, the only place with direct competition across the board is in the Artist Market, where rich veterans can outbid broke newbies, which is what started all this. I still say it's ok for that mini-competition to be unfair. (Technically, it does have some built-in fairness, such as how you pay the full amount of your bid instead of only R$1 more than the next bidder, which exists to wipe out the fortunes of the high bidders on occasion and start them over from scratch.) However, if it means that much to all of you, I would entertain suggestions for balancing the auctions further, without introducing cards much more frequently or greatly influencing the rest of the game. What about breaking the player body into thirds based on number of cards or number of rock dollars, and only allowing each third to bid on one of the three auctions?

Russ Wilhelm | August 14, 2007
It's obvious that you've thought this through a lot further than I have, whereas I only looked at it from one point of view. I wasn't looking at it so much as building my collection of cards, even though it may look that way, that was more of a secondary thought. My thought was that I see a card on the auction block that I feel could strategically strengthen my hand to help me advance, but the odds of being able to win the auction are slim. Unlimited play means unlimited resources, and thus (and I'm not saying that anyone is doing this, or that it's wrong) paying an exorbitant amount for a card, because you can. But then again, this is how it works in real life, so in a way it's a positive aspect of the game as well. You see, I'm torn now that I've put some thought into it.

On the matter of breaking the body into thirds, instead of basing it on R$ or number of cards, maybe do it by level. R$ are deceiving as a form of balance. A higher level player could be broke at the start of the auction, and with one win, could potentially outbid a newbie, and still doen't have to weigh the cost of a card in regards to his net worth, and the value gained/lost.

Regardless of how it's done, have it as a special auction that happens every once in a while in place of the normal one. That way you don't have to change the frequency of introducing cards, and higher players still are able to bid on lower cards, and vice versa. After all, I'm still hoping to play them at some point, so I don't need them playing themselves out of being able to play me (losing all their lower, or higher if that ever becomes the case, cards). A question I have is, with any of these methods is what would happen if you swing into a new body after you bid?

Scott Hardie | August 14, 2007
It's all good. I hope it didn't seem like I was dismissing your input; I just want to communicate some of the thinking behind why I run the game the way I do. And I've had ten years to turn this over in my mind, so yeah, I've thought a lot of this through. :-)

Matt Preston gave me excellent simple advice for eBay: "Bid what you're willing to pay." If the price goes too high, you lose nothing, and there are plenty of good auctions coming up right behind it, so sooner or later you get what you want. The same is true in the Artist Market, even if you don't have enough money to bid what you're willing to pay: Don't sweat the losses, because you keep your money for more bids the next day.

I think that's a great idea about doing it by level. You're right that R$ changes too much throughout the day. I'll keep it in mind. I would think that if we divided into thirds by some other means, you'd stay classified where you started the day.

Lori Lancaster | August 14, 2007
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | August 14, 2007
I second that! ;-D

Scott Hardie | August 14, 2007
Players who wind up with fewer than 10 cards can now purchase "comeback cards" in the Artist Market, at ranks equivalent to the difference between their number of cards and 10. Thus, if you had only 7 cards remaining in your label, you could purchase an R3 or R2 or R1; then you'd have 8 cards and you could purchase an R2 or R1. These cards are sold at a discount, but they cannot be re-sold for one week to prevent abuse. If you don't have enough to pay for them, you go into negative cash.

Hopefully, falling behind no longer means you're as far out of the competition. Plus, new cards in the playing community means more fun for all of us.

Finally, I have removed (for now) the ability to delete cards, so you'll have to sell that unloved band if you want rid of them. If you're in a hurry, sell it for R$1 and it won't last a minute. :-)

Aaron Shurtleff | August 14, 2007
It won't last a minute if I can get to it!! :P

While I hope to never need to take advantage of it, that sounds like a good way to deal with lack of cards.

Russ Wilhelm | August 14, 2007
I didn't think that at all. You explained your reasoning behind it quite well, and that's all that matters. I'm not claiming that my ideas are good, or that they are even feasable. They're just ideas, and I take no offense from anyone who has a different posture, or even flat out tells me I'm wrong. It's all part of what makes it work.

Denise Sawicki | August 16, 2007
I can't believe I won an auction! I thought it would be mathematically impossible without playing about 5 times as much as I do :P

Scott Hardie | August 23, 2007
Can you help me untangle this problem? I had two intended purposes for the Swap Meet page: Players can swap cards with each other, but players can also swap a card in their collection for any random card of the same rank. Keeps the game fresh, right?

A few days ago, Steve bought a certain reggae card from R8. Today, that same card is up for auction. Currently, Steve doesn't have much incentive to buy that card since he already owns a copy; he's better off saving his money for the next R8 to come along. This helps to open up the game for other players who don't have as full of a collection as he does.

But if the Swap Meet page existed, Steve would have every incentive to keep buying this reggae card every time it comes up, because he could swap it for other R8 cards that he doesn't have. I've tried thinking of ways to get around this – freeze (disallow swap) the card for a week after purchase, don't allow purchase of a band already owned, don't allow swaps for bands at auction today – but so far I can't think of one to get around the problem. Any ideas?

Incidentally, even if I never build a Swap Meet page, I like the sound of that "don't allow purchase of a band already owned" rule. It would be a way to introduce some more fairness into the auctions like Russ wanted but it's not a fundamental change. Anybody want to talk me out of programming that into the Market?

Russ Wilhelm | August 23, 2007
I don't much care for the "Swap Meet" idea. Something about it, and I haven't figured out what yet, doesn't seem like a good idea. Just a gut feeling.

As far as not being able to purchase a card you already own. That I like. The incentive to purchase a second card of one that already packs a punch is a strong one. Double deadly and it denies competitive equality. You want the card bad enough, you'll battle for it, and hope your challenge is accepted. Risk and Reward, right?

Denise Sawicki | August 23, 2007
I guess the "random" swap meet thing might make it less exciting to get a new card, since you could just go and swap for a random one for free. I still think it might be cool to trade cards with other players though. It would also be cool if there was an option to trade a card plus some cash for a different person's card (a way to get higher valued cards without having astronomical amounts of cash!) (though I imagine nobody would agree to this deal unless they were extremely fond of the lower-valued band you had to offer!) It technically is already possible to do these things on the artist market page by having one person sell a card to the other and the second person sell a different card back to the first person, but with that option you run the risk of: A. One person reneging on the deal and not buying/selling the card they were supposed to or B. an unplanned third person coming around and buying the card. Anyway if the "random" swap was not available, but the person-to-person swap was, I would think the problems you brought up would not be as big of a deal. Sure Steve West could go and buy every card at auction but if he wound up swapping it to one of the rest of us it would be a win/win situation because each person would wind up with a card they wanted :)

Aaron Shurtleff | August 23, 2007
See now, if I was Steve, I'd buy that R8 just in case I lost the first R8 in a match. Then, I would be MORE likely to risk it in battle (since I would still have it, win or lose), and other players who didn't have as much money (and thus couldn't buy it themselves) would be MORE likely to win it in battle(since it would be played more often), which is the essence of the game, as I see it. That's why I wouldn't want to prevent people from buying cards they already have. If the risk is negated (or lessened, if you look at it that way), you will put the card out there more.

The problem, then, becomes the issue of purchasing and swapping. (I hadn't known that swapping would work like that...I thought it was just trading between people, but I guess Denise is right in that we can already do that through the Artist Market). I would say limit the number of times you can swap, but then, with time and patience, you could still abuse it... What about only swapping in lower ranked bands? (R5 and below)? That would allow for a more balanced starting to mid-range grouping, but still cause people to have to go about getting the higher ranked cards through buying or trading...which is still a disadvantage to those who don't play a lot and make the R$. Hmm...

Russ Wilhelm | August 23, 2007
Then look at it this way. I'll bring the numbers down, because it's easier to see. Player "A" issues a challenge to you at level 14. Player a users the following Ranks R4,R4,R4,R1,R1. You put your best cards against player "A", and come up with this: R4,R3,R3,R3,R1.

The odds are with Player "A", so for the sake of arguement (the occasional upset has been known to happen), player "A" wins. Player "A" wants to play you again and again and again,....

Player "A" has made a hefty profit from playing you.

An R4 (the highest card in my example deck) comes on the auction block. Player "A" has this card but enjoys his superiority, and easily outbids you.

Wanna play again?

By disallowing a bid on a card you already own will allow a more competitive approach to the game, and help to keep it from being one sided.

Aaron Shurtleff | August 23, 2007
I don't know if Player A is the obvious winner you envision, but I'll take your word for it.

See, I think it would squelch competitiveness, since I think people are too risk adverse to put the big cards on the table. And even if I got that R4 from Player A, keeping the example you used above, I still lose every time, I still get outbid for cards Player A doesn't have, and I still end up in the same place, since the challenge will still be the same, and Player A will still have more choice in cards, since we already agreed he would win a lot more, and would have the R$ to get the better cards.

I guess I'm naive... Or maybe I'm making a bad assumption. My first example post assumes one player can't use the same band twice in a single concert.

Russ Wilhelm | August 23, 2007
I too have to make assumptions, because there are certain variables to each game, at least the first time two players meet up. Yes, I assume a player can play the same card twice if he has it. The variable I have in mind is that nothing is even, but that's exactly what I'm doing, R4=R4, R4 beats R1, R1 loses to R4. Remember that 14 was the level you started at. If you eliminate those cards that will draw you have

Player A: R4,R4,R1
Player B: R3,R3,R3 (This is the you above)

Next eliminate the wins and losses that should equal out.
Player A: R4
Player B: R3

If Player A can't bid on an R4, because it's in his hand, and somehow Player B is able to outbid all others (even losing gains R$), the same match can now look like this.

Player A: R4,R4,R4,R1,R1
Player B: R4,R4,R3,R2,R1

Doing the eliminations I did above, the end result looks like this.
Player A:
PlayerB:

That's right, it's balnk. they are now even. And yes, it's not precise, but it does show that the odds favor player A. Just look at our top few spots and how they're win to loss ratio has changed. Part of that is because they were able to place more R$ on auctions, part was because they were able to bid on higher cards.

Keep on playing, and if you save up you're R$, you may be able to outbid Player A on that R2 by putting up R$150000. It's probably because he's after that R8 card. If he can't bid on it, you could use that same R$150000 to win that card instead.

Scott Hardie | August 24, 2007
First of all, Russ, you can no longer say that I've thought about this more than you have. ;-)   (And incidentally, I think it's time for Steve West to stop pretending that he's not good at this game.)

I have always believed the opposite about imbalanced matches: To me, the player who tends towards medium cards will beat the player with some high and some low. For an extreme example, R4 R3 R3 R2 R2 would clobber R10 R1 R1 R1 R1, unless certain play rules gave the latter player an edge. For the same reason, I'm inclined to think that R4 R3 R3 R3 R1 beats R4 R4 R4 R1 R1, but they're so close that it's hard to tell. I could write up some kind of script that analyzes past matches and/or runs some simulated matches to figure it out, but for now we'll have to rely on hunches.

It didn't take me long after I wrote that at midday to put my finger on the problem with the Swap Meet as I have proposed it: It introduces new cards to the player body that it shouldn't. As I explained earlier, there are only supposed to be three ways that new cards are distributed: The Artist Market, new players signing up and getting ten starter cards, and something that was only invented after the game began, the "comeback" system for players who fall behind, which isn't much different from the starter cards. I have also prevented cards from being deleted; right now, the only way for a card to be destroyed is for someone to achieve a rock block in battle, and obviously that's a rare event.

Introducing some kind of random swap where you could exchange your R7 for another R7 would only work well if it included the unknown "???" cards, and doing so sends another card out to the community and destroys an existing card in the process. I don't like it. So, this weekend, I'll add some kind of player-swap to the Artist Market, and forego the rest of the plan.

For the record: You can use the same band twice in the same concert if you have two cards of that band.

Russ Wilhelm | August 24, 2007
You're right Scott, that player A with a R4,R3,R3,R2,R2 will beat player B with a R10,R1,R1,R1,R1. Which is true using my simple calculation as well. R10 vs. R4 negates R3 vs. R1, which leaves the following:
Player A: R3,R2,R2
Player B: R1,R1,R1

Player A should have a clear advantage.

Of course not knowing what combination your opponent is bringing to the table helps negate certain advantages, as well as the number combinations do. So even though the odds point in a certain direction, there's always chance at play as well, so nothings definite.

As far as thinking about it too much. It just happened while I was trying to figure out how to maximize the playability of my hand. I think it hit me the first time I got slammed by an R5 played just right. I thought at the time that that was tremendous power. The hardest part was determining an easy to understand demonstration of my thoughts.

Scott Hardie | August 25, 2007
Please tell me more about your calculation method; I'm not sure I follow, but I'm intrigued.

Russ Wilhelm | August 25, 2007
It's very simplistic, based off of the rank of the cards and has nothing t do with the way the numbers fall. Seeing that an R4 should be able to beat an R3 on at least one side, more often two sides, but regardless an R4 should beat an R3. An R3 has an even chance of being able to take an R3 as it does not being able to take an R3. Not precise, not practical for some, but it appears to be true in almost all ot the matches I've had so far.

Line up the ranks played high to low.
Using the match I just lost at level 14 for example:
Challenger: R4,R4,R3,R2,R1
Loser: R4,R3,R3,R3,R1

First eliminate those pairs that are of even ranking, in this case the 1st, 3rd,and 5th. This leaves the following.
Challenger:R4,R2
Loser: R3,R3

In all essence this should be an even match, but a slight superiority goes to the challenger as they have the high win with the R4. I'm not deterred by that, and consider that even enough.

But at level 16, assuming card comination:
Challenger: R5,R4,R4,R2,R1 (I've seen the R5 so I know it exist)
Loser: R4,R3,R3,R3,R3 (My best play at this level)

There are no even matches here and the challenger wins three of the five pair matchups, and all three are the higher pairs. I have yet to beat this, and I'm not sure if I've ever tied on it either.

If I was the challenger, I'd have to play my same combination. The challenger above has the choice of choosing an R1 as the low card (they don't have to play one card in their hand) to maximize their power, or, for instance with the Decades rule, change it about for diversitility.

Now I'm not saying it's 100% accurate. But it plays out more often than not.
So part of my playing strategy is to try to even the odds somewhat. Which right now means going low.


Now this post gets wordy but stems from the above, and has nothing to do with the calculations.

I know that it's the nature of the game and that's fine, and sure I'd use it if I could. But on the other hand, if in the comments, someone said "Russ, I'm playing the following ranks, R4,R3,R3,R2,R1", then I would do the same, and guarantee the challenge is accepted. And I would be more apt to put a card on the line, not always, but at least sometimes. If that honor is broken, I would not play that person again, and I would expect the same from them, if I broke that honor. If I don't have the Ranks to match them I'd have to let them know as well, but I think I have enough low cards right now to do do that.

I'm tired of making others rich, so I have to be more calculating. I wish more folks would play, or if they are, announce that they are available. Most matches are played with the "1 hour". In my challenges I put at least 1 day, and most of the time it's 3 days. I have a couple of reasons for this. I accepted a challenge at 1 hour, and my adversary got called away, and wasn't able to get back. I felt, had the game completed, that I would have been hard pressed to get a tie out of it, but instead I got a win. I felt bad about it, even with the outcome in my favour. Three days is long enough that most players are able to play at least once in that time frame. And if it takes a week to play, why not.

As I've said before, I'm not out to play as many rounds as I can in the shortest timeframe, I just want to play a challenging hand, and not feel that I'm being taken advantage of. I have no problem having a challenge declined, and I may start declining challenges based on how one-sided I think the outcome will be.

So for anyone who took the time to read this, and have their own reasons not to play me, or anyone else for that matter, tell us what your terms of fairness are, and "LET'S ROCK".

P.S: If your wondering about my emotional state, since that's what you lose online, nothing I've written, ever, concerning "Rock Block" is out of anger or hatred or anything like that. What's to be mad about, I'm in control of my game. These are just thoughts from my observations. It's all been light hearted banter, even the stuff that's been argumentative.

Russ Wilhelm | August 26, 2007
Of course I have to say that with each new rule, my method become less and less accurate. But still holds true for a straight up, on-to-one game, everything shows, or withthe hidden rule. After that is when it applies less and less.

Scott Hardie | August 26, 2007
Interesting strategy. My own method is less about the cards up for play, since I'll accept just about any challenge, and more about the possible outcomes. I use a bastardized version of the minimax method: For each possible play, count how many outcomes will lead to victory, and how many to a draw, and how many to defeat, then choose the play with the most victories and the fewest defeats. Of course, I often botch this by forgetting the Same rule or miscounting, but hey, I try. :-)

I had hoped that players would use comments to declare terms of combat like you mentioned ("let's play R4,R3,R3,R2,R1"), or better yet, to go after specific cards ("I'd like a chance to capture your Eagles card, please play that card in your hand if you accept"). So far it hasn't happened, but the game is still young.

Scott Hardie | August 26, 2007
I am relieved to announce that the "swap" feature is built at last. In your label, click "swap this card" under any band in your collection. It will appear in the Artist Market. Other players can then exchange a card of equal rank for it, but only if you don't have that card already. Using a card in concert now also cancels any pending sales or swaps involving that card.

Originally I began building a more complicated swap feature, where you could propose swaps involving multiple cards and R$, and multiple players could respond with offers of multiple cards and R$ and you would get to accept/decline each one separately, but that seemed like overkill. I think that this simpler approach will satisfy the need to freshen up our collections, force all swaps to be fair, and spare us all some headaches.

Russ Wilhelm | August 26, 2007
I may have thought about it more, but I can honestly say that you've thought about it better, I think. I took a look at the article on minimax, and all I can say is "WHAT???". I didn't go that far in math yet, so I'm having trouble grasping it. But, I am going to divert a little of my spare time into trying to figure it out. It seems to have more of a bearing when new rules are applied. If it, or maybe my demented interpretation/modification of it, works, it could change my whole strategy.

I'm glad you kept the R$ out of the swap feature. Of course I'm the one whose made several suggestions on how to get rid of them without gaining any benefit, so I guess that's par for me. Sorry everyone.