This is abuse, arguments are second door on the left.

well i did censor it, and in my opinion you're spoiling the game. But I guess it's just my opinion.

You can say what you like about me I don't care in this forum.

I just don't get it, that's all, and it drives me nuts that I can't figure it out.

Pedro Martínez: Oops, I thought this was the room for abuse.

Universal Eyes: I have no idea why that feature exists. I don't believe it is in the spirit of the game. Can you explain in words that actually make sense?

MASTERMIND: I like watchin other people's games to improve my own game mostly, particularly games like Atomic Chess where there isn't a lot of theory. Professional chess players don't get to hide their games. :)

I'm lost as well. How do you get moves from other players. I understand you can see if they've been on line, but you get that even for cloaked people.

I'm about to bid 1 in all my ponds. Everyone else may as well bid 2.

haha me too.

BIG BAD WOLF: i disagree, 3 minutes is only 48 minutes for a game. Go to the bathroom before starting!!

Czuch Chuckers: I like the 3 minute option as well, who's going to be online 16 hours straight?

Nothingness: Who would team up?

Anyway that leads to a good variation. Teams! 4 players per team, winning team is the team with the winning player. Collaboration would be encouraged.

Actually that doesn't work quite right, the numPlayers needs a different treatment, but I'm too busy to fix it. Maybe later.

Andre Faria: I think the ratings should be based on a curve, so that the difference between 1st and 2nd is greater than between 2nd and 3rd etc.

This would obviously be modified by the opps ratings.

For example a simple hyperbolic formula 1/position could be multiplied by the opps average rating and used to calculate your new rating.

new = (old * n + (2/pos * oppRating * numPlayers))/n+1

where n = a modifier that increases with games played to a point.

I wish I had the data to try it.

rabbitoid: Yes, Ed definitely claimed he could guarantee victory.

Obviously advantages can be gained by applying good game theory, that isn't in serious dispute.

Hrqls: Well, without trying to decipher your methods, that is why it was proposed as an option. Also I would think weekends would not be counted.

It would speed up the later rounds immensely.

Also, why not finish the pond with 2 players left? Whoever has the most points wins. Why wait another turn?

Thad: QED

Walter Montego: I see some confusion still.

The deadline would be changed to be whatever the limit currently is. Last to move - start next turn, deadline = 1 day from now (or whatever the limit is). You would always have at least that amount of time between moves, so if I move now I would never have to move again until 1 day from now, if that is the limit.

SURELY this is the same as existing games, if you are a slow mover choose a pond with a longer limit.

An option would be fine of course, you could choose the pond that suits you best or create one.

Walter Montego: I think it's too complicated.

Why not when the last person makes their move, the next move starts and the clock resets. You would still have a day (or 2 or 3 depending on the limit) to make your next move. I don't really get the problem. In this case I would perhaps not count weekends as with other games, so if the pond started on a friday the move wouldn't schedule to end until Monday (unless of course everyone moves!!)

I vote for fast ponds as well.
Walter, I think you're getting cause and effect confused:

The person who logs in the same time every day to move is only doing that because that is the way they work, not vice versa.

Czuch Chuckers: Established by who???????? Nobody else seemed to know apparently but you. And my proposed solution is as good as anything proposed by you in the last 5 minutes.

Czuch Chuckers: Not at all, we established a problem (of sorts) and asked Fencer for a solution.

BIG BAD WOLF: That is too time consuming to be worth it, therefore there effectively is no way.

Fencer, how about adding the unfinished ponds we've fallen in to the list of running ponds?

BIG BAD WOLF: Running ponds here seems to be only the ones I'm still alive in, not the ones I have fallen in and yet the pond is not finished yet.

Pedro Martínez: Not sure how to get a list of running ponds from my profile... Where is it?

What's the easiest way to see a list of ponds that are still going where I have fallen in already?

Hear hear. Splendid idea! :)

WTF?

Nothingness: So you think that the reason we get so many ridiculously idiotic bids is because people have a bonus fixation? That would be sad.

The problem with applying a tournament ratings system is the following:

In a tournament you are always trying to win each game, and that will increase the chance of winning the tournament.

In a pond you can decrease the likelyhood of winning while increasing the likelyhood of finishing top 5.

Since the position at each round is proportional to the likelyhood of winning, I recommend that position at each round be taken into consideration. That way being bottom for 10 rounds is not rewarded (unless you catch up at some point).

It's still a flaw since you're not punished for making ridiculous bids. That's why some sort of logarithmic scale would be better in my opinion.

For some reason only some people saw that maxchriss had 0 points left. I guess scrolling down is a little difficult for some?

I think you're overreacting a little, most of the leaders have won a lot of ponds. I would have to assume that opps ratings is a big part of it, as well as the size of the pond etc.

How about showing number of wins as well as number of games.

Like candy from a baby.

Walter Montego: Point taken. I believe I already said the biggest difference would be by adjusting the bonus as a percentage of the total.

A bigger change in my opinion would be a dark ponds variant, where you don't see your opponents score.

Walter Montego: It doesn't really change the game though, so there appears to be higher priorities I would think.

tonyh: I don't actually think there is a material difference. For example even if you had 2,000 points, it just makes the amounts 10x smaller.

The main difference would be to award more for the bonus, or to be accurate a greater %age of the starting total.

So choosing the starting amount as well as the bonus amount would be good.

was suppose to read <2401. need to add >

Why????????

Thad: Because 2901 is net 2401, and most bids were 2401. 2901 would have been a stupid bet.

BIG BAD WOLF: I was wondering about those two high bids. Most important data is how many points opps have left isn't it?

Nice try on the 509 furbster, but I was pretty sure someone would bid a few thousand.

I agree, it isn't a helpful message.

On the other hand there are enough people bidding thousands early that I rarely get it! :)

ClayNashvilleTn: I know, I got burned by taking a vacation. oh well.

you got dropped because you don't work? Did you mean because you do work?

BIG BAD WOLF: I'll give newbies a pass on the first turn, but often it's the 2nd or 3rd. also it isn't vacation because they invariably change their bid next time.

I must say I find it idiotic to bid 2000 when everyone else is bidding 80. This ruins the dynamics of the game for no apparent reason. Anyone have any insight into the thinking?

And according to the public reaction, news channels and congresses actions, this is more important than curing world hunger.

I agree with using opponents strategy as a guide to playing them. That is normal game behaviour. It's the checking of whether players are auto moving that i object to.

I still like the dark variation, and you would not be hiding the opponents, just their individual totals.

How about a fuzzy variation. You know everyone's total rounded to the nearest hundred. :)

I'd like to see a "dark" version of the game. Here you only know the number of points that you personally have left as well as the total (or average - same thing) of all those still left in. Also you would see the amount that the players who dropped out bet.

Imagine the round with 3 remaining players when you have 1000 points and the total points = 3500. What's your bet?

The last round shouldn't be played, whoever has the most points of the 2 remaining players is the winner.

Fencer: My complaint is not about the server going down, but about people getting an advantage by checking players activity prior to bidding in ponds.

I strongly advocate against allowing autobid to continue as is. Those players tend to drop out anyway (me for instance) and the way it is some players are getting an undue advantage. This game should be about the numbers only.