RB: Risk and Reward

Scott Hardie | June 5, 2008
Rock Block started well, but gradually lost one essential element: Trading. I don't mean 1-for-1 swaps in the Card Exchange; I mean risking cards in concert and the winner taking some of the loser's cards. When was the last time you felt that rush of triumph or blush of defeat with cards on the line?

Some players simply don't enjoy the stress of risking cards, and they're welcome to avoid it if they like. It's not mandatory, but it is an essential part of the game, and you're missing out on some fun by avoiding it. Everybody feels burned the first couple of times they lose cards, but you get over it quickly, and the ups and downs of trading cards comes to feel like a natural part of the game.

In considering how this shift had taken place, I realized that the primary incentive for trading, gaining good cards, was blown away by the free card giveaway each day. The Card Exchange started out as a nice supplement to the game, a way you could still get cards if you didn't do well at trading, but soon it replaced trading almost entirely. You could muddle along with an occasional themed concert, taking zero risks, and still amass a huge collection of cards. I wonder why I didn't see this before; maybe I needed to see several defiantly anti-trade players cross the 50-card mark on free cards alone to recognize it.

I hope to solve this by changing the terms of the free card giveaways. Starting tomorrow, there will still be three cards available each day, but now they will be broken down into classes. A high card (R5-10) will be given away to a player who has played in a trade concert within the last week, rewarding risk. A medium card (R2-4) will be given away to a player who has played within the previous 24 hours, rewarding consistent play. A low card (R1) will be given away to anyone who has played in the last three weeks, like what we have now but with an extended cutoff.

If you want to avoid trades, you can still collect low cards from the first four ranks just like before. But high cards should be a reward for something, and now the only way to add them to your collection will be to take some chances. It's possible to reap big rewards with minimal risk, by merely risking R1s once a week and collecting free cards of much higher ranks for the effort, but it's not possible with zero risk.

If this seems like I'm persecuting players who don't like to trade, that's not my goal. I'm like the Fed looking at a long-stagnant economy; my mission is to spur as much new trading as possible, since it's healthier for all.

Comments? I expect this to be unpopular with a few players and reluctantly accepted by most, but I believe you'll come to appreciate it when trading becomes frequent and you see how it belongs in the game.

Incidentally, this has come up at the same time as a lesser problem, which is that we're falling further behind in new bands joining the mix. Right now, there are 52 unowned bands and counting, where there should be none or few at any given time. Within each class (high/medium/low) of free card given out daily, I'm going to give away an unowned card as long as there are some to give out. This should also help to freshen up the game.

First minor note: It used to be that issuing a challenge to someone, whether they accepted or not, kept you "active" as a player and thus card-eligible. Since the stakes are higher now, I'm changing it so that you must actually play a card in concert to count as "active," for all three classes of free cards. Otherwise you could challenge someone to a trade match and immediately cancel it.

Second minor note: As of now, no one has played in a trade match within the last week, although there are a few pending challenges. If there are no eligible players for a particular class of card that day, the system won't give one out. The previous conditions (you can't get two cards on the same day or consecutive days) still apply.

Amy Austin | June 5, 2008
I know I'm probably counted among the "defiantly anti-trade" (maybe not... I hope not), but I really think this is an improvement, actually. It isn't so much that I'm "anti" or can't bear to lose cards, but my ratio has only recently improved to the point of wanting to take that risk -- and sadly, that is mostly due to one or two newer/less frequent players than myself. I don't feel like taking advantage of that any more than I'd like to keep losing cards to those with higher win ratios/larger collections than mine (particularly if consistently in concert with me!).

But I think this is a fair implementation, and besides... I'm kind of fed up with seeing certain freebies, too, as I've waited a *really* long time now for an R9 to complete my collection. I just wish it had already come before this change! ;-)

Scott Hardie | June 5, 2008
I wasn't counting you, but I regret characterizing some players that way. It's wrong for me to put ascribe a position to anyone, even if it's based on earlier statements. Sorry, friends.

Tony Peters | June 5, 2008
hummm I sure could use a few more R3s ...now that I'm over 50 I'd be more inclined to risk a card or two at the lower ranks

Russ Wilhelm | June 5, 2008
Just so I'm straight about this, Scott. Does eligibility for a higher level make you ineligible for a low card, or does it actually increase your odds exponentially?

So hypothetically, there are 26 players who played in the last three weeks. 17 played in the past 24 hours. 3 have played for trades within the last week, two of which have played in the past 24 hours.

Does this mean that 3 players are eligible for R5-R10, 17 are eligible for R2-R4 (but only two of the Trades players), and 26 are eligible for R1.

or

3 are eligible for R5-R10, 14 are eligible for R4-R5, and 9 are eligible for R1.

Just looking for clarification. I'm glad you found a way to hopefuly regenerate the Trade concerts.

Scott Hardie | June 5, 2008
Sorry, I neglected to explain that part earlier. You can be eligible for all three, but you can only get one. They're chosen in descending order. First, one of the players eligible for a high card, who was not chosen to receive any card yesterday (whether they claimed it or not), will be chosen to receive a high card today (which is up to them to claim). Second, this process will repeat for a medium card, choosing someone other than the player chosen for the high card. Finally, this process will repeat for the low card, choosing someone other than the first two players.

Aaron Shurtleff | June 6, 2008
Has it been since May 20th our concert for a trade, Scott? It seems more recent...

I didn't think I was defiantly anti-trade, but I do have bands that I enjoy, and I do hate to lose them. I think I've accepted almost every concert that was offered to me. (I do recall turning down one that Justin offered...nothing personal to him... I was just nervous about losing a card, and I was on a losing streak at the time.) I'm not trying to add to Scott feeling bad for saying that some people are anti-trade, but I would say I am one of the uncomfortable.

I think it's a good idea, honestly. I don't know that I will necessarily go with more trades (and honestly, I haven't won any matches with some of the more obscure trading rules, so pulling out the rules other than One would tempt me!), but I have no problem with accepting the consequences. I know that won't solve the problem outright , but I'll do what I am comfortable with. That really all you can ask of me, right?

And, I'm already on record as wanting low level cards! Ha! ;)

Denise Sawicki | June 6, 2008
Well...I am probably the only one who really won't do trades. As you'll recall I wasn't sure I wanted to start playing Rock Block at all since I obsess over being a moron if I lose and obsess over the thought of how I might have won unfairly if I win. I don't expect anyone to understand, but I already feel bad any time I lose AND feel bad about the people I'm making feel bad because, by some bizarre streak of luck on my part, they haven't beaten me yet. Actually I doubt anyone can conceive of the variety of everyday things in my life unrelated to this site that shouldn't make me feel bad but still do. Anyway I am sorry if I have been a contributing factor to ruining the game for you Scott... nonetheless it is a game and if playing with certain rules is just too stressful for me because of my insanity, I am going to try not to feel obligated to do so. :P I know nobody was saying I am obligated, just wanted to state my position for the record... :-)

Amy Austin | June 6, 2008
Denise, it's an OCD form of self-deprecation... and I do understand -- I just don't have it as bad as you!!

Now go challenge me, so I can beat you for once! ;-)

Tony Peters | June 6, 2008
and me too please

Aaron Shurtleff | June 9, 2008
Geez, Scott! Did you set up the exchange to give yourself all the high cards??

;) I kid, of course!!

Amy Austin | June 9, 2008
Ha! How conveeeeenient... ;-DDD