Forum
Open letter to the Kdice Community
|
XxDiceyGirlxX wrote
at 12:08 AM, Monday September 24, 2007 EDT
Dear Kdice Community,
For almost 2 months I have tried to find a way to like the new version of Kdice. I tested on the test server, I have logged many games this past month and I finally have to say… this version leaves me frustrated. I get the whole poker style wagering system, but Kdice is a much more complex game. In poker, you can’t work a pair of threes into a royal flush, but in Kdice you can work a pair of three stacks into a corner and win the whole game. It’s not about the dice you are dealt in the beginning it is the way you understand the game and the strategy to make those dice work for you. In Poker – you are dealt what you are dealt. So for me, a poker style scoring system falls quite flat. It took me a while to get to this point. But yesterday, I played a game that went over 40 rounds and it was exciting… full of strategy and old-school kdice entertainment. There were allies and enemies fighting it out for 1st place. The 8v8 game was the best since August under the elo system. Something I rarely see in the new version. In the end… the only person to get points was first. A dull thud to what could have been a fantastic game. It’s a real shame that this has to happen… that games now can be completed in 5 rounds. There is no point to have a long game or to employ any sort of strategy to play. Just click, roll, and go. But that’s not the only thing that has suffered. When I started playing Kdice, I realized quickly that it was just not a game of war, but it is a game of war AND allies. The social aspect of the game was just as important to the strategy aspect. The sheer dynamic of this left the game open to players of many different skill sets. Social networking became an important factor of the game. Now it is different… There is very little community or communication… just complaints. To be successful you just grab as many points as you can as daftly as you can. I have watched rooms before logging in to see top players getting fed points. And that really saddens me. The race for first is no longer the best dice player… it’s just the best point farmer. In the old game, there were creative and extreme ways to win as well, but they were manageable and noticeable. In the new version, things are driven underground and the ugly underbelly is that the game is no longer about who is the best dice player… it is about who can figure out creative ways to grab points and with great paranoia watch others do the same thing. Now… I stumble upon people feeding each other points and endless conversations about how the new version doesn’t quite meet everyone’s expectations. Everyone is clear and unhappy with the point farming, but no one standing up and making a change. Just to be clear, I’m not putting this out to bitch about the game. I respect what Ryan has done to create and maintain the game. And I really enjoy the game and the people I have met. It’s one of the more fun games I have ever played. And Ryan, I hope you don’t take this as an attack on the new version. I would hope that you will give us a chance to voice our opinions because at the very basic level – we are all partners. You and the player community work together to make this game what it is and I would like to extend a platform for us to discuss where we are at as a community with this new version. I hope that in responding to this post, that you will forward the conversation and be honest about what you think. Whether you agree with me or not… that doesn’t matter. What’s important is that we have a voice. So, this is where I stand. I’m frustrated. How about you? |
|
kissygirl wrote
at 9:17 AM, Monday September 24, 2007 EDT I agree with DG, Jumblies and XC.
While I've gotten used to the new game, I prefer the old one. I realise that the old game wasn't perfect but I had a lot more fun playing it. I'm not going to rant about reasons. Lots more thoughtful and articulate people than me have already done that. All I will say is if there were a vote, I would vote for the old game to be brought back. Kisses :o |
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 9:21 AM, Monday September 24, 2007 EDT And to XCBatman:
The secret is out! I have always suspected that the first round is often make or break for a game. Since you mention that 2 v 1's are routine on the new starting tables, you imply that they weren't on the old 2000 tables. I have been risking too many 2 v 1's. Now that I know this maybe I can break out to the 100's too. |
|
Ryan wrote
at 10:07 AM, Monday September 24, 2007 EDT I hear what you guys are saying. The old system was actually optimized towards 2000 players (everyone that's posted here).
The biggest reason for the change away from an ongoing ELO was to fix the social problems it caused. The 10% at the top were close and tight and alienated the other 90%. And in many cases this wasn't subtle. So, I'm interpreting your concerns not as a problem with scoring now but a social problem where your old group isn't the same. I hope to fix this in newer releases. Instead of only having one close group at the top I hope to make it possible to have many groups like you guys had. (where you can be a formal member of a group or team, and have your own tables) |
|
MickC wrote
at 10:48 AM, Monday September 24, 2007 EDT I don't think its fair to take all the above feedback and conclude people are just missing their old friends, and no one has an issue with the scoring system. The scoring system has a direct impact on game play. And after playing a bit this month, I do feel that the current system forces players to be very focused on their points, rather than on some of the more fun and strategic elements of kdice. Comparing the scoring system to betting in Texas holdem ignores the fact that they are two very different games. Consider that the majority of hands in texas holdem never end up showing down, and that in a full ring table (with pro players) only 2 or 3 players seeing a flop is the norm. Drawing the parallel to kdice paints the picture of a boring game, where players constantly resign, unless seeing a clear path to victory. In fact, one of the only things that stops players doing that under the current rules is that they are waiting for their equally disadvantaged opponents to flag out for a not insignificant reduction in points lost.. as interesting form of passive ninjering. Also, one must remember kdice is played for fun. I think the old system offered players much more game play per game, especially if one is disadvantaged early.
My 2 cents for tonight.. |
|
_\o/_ wrote
at 10:56 AM, Monday September 24, 2007 EDT well spoken dicey.
before everyone dogpiles on the subject with "me toos" and long stories of your own ... please note that Ryan stated ... "I hope to fix this in newer releases." The conclusion is that Ryan listens, and when appropriate ... will make changes as needed. it seems to me that a little patience is needed right now from everyone while that happens. . . . . . . also ... never ever trust a hooker when she says ... "i'll be right back" ... she is NOT coming back and that money is gone. |
|
Pinky Poo wrote
at 10:58 AM, Monday September 24, 2007 EDT I agree with a lot of what you guys are saying. The old version was more fun in that you could still gain points even if you were in 4th or 5th place. It's frustrating playing a long game and only gaining or losing a point or two getting in second or third place. It leaves you with an empty feeling inside like "Why did I just waste 15 minutes to not move up or down?" With that being said, I agree that the points are a little unfair and it makes for a different game that may be not as enjoyable in terms of points and rankings.
However with that being said, Ryan brings up a really good point about the social aspect of this game. In the old version I was a member of the 1500 table community but managed my way up to the 1800 table community with a lot of time and a great deal of patience. Being from the 1800s, I can honestly say that I rarely met anybody worth meeting. Everybody there just played like mindless freaks and it created a lot of frustration for me because I couldn't meet nice people. I always just wanted to get to the 2000 tables just to meet all of the nice players there. That's one thing that the new version has allowed me to do. Although I'm not in the top of the group points or elo wise, I still play with a lot of people who were 2000 and are very pleasant people to play with. If you aren't going to read my entire post, please read this part at least. The new version has allowed me to meet some really nice people that I couldn't have met before because of the social split in kdice. I feel like I have created some good friendships here which makes the game a lot enjoyable for me than the older version. None of this would have been possible with the old version (for me at least) and for this, I am very thankful for the new version. I'd rather have 0 points and have the friendships that I have now than go back to 1800 tables without any. |
|
Tirian wrote
at 1:35 PM, Monday September 24, 2007 EDT Ryan, I think you're asking the right questions. I'm not here because of some contest for a virtual trophy, I just want to spend a few hours with people who like dice games and aren't assholes. I like having a rating that indicates that I am a sound player, but I don't really like thinking of it as money. And there is all kinds of unpleasant emo that arises at both the 0 and the 400 tables when some players do and the rest are just looking for a good time.
So, yeah, having clans with separate tables and maybe even separate rankings seems like it would be a great way for everyone to play kdice the way they want. |
|
Onimushaport wrote
at 1:49 PM, Monday September 24, 2007 EDT I agree. I was muddled around 0 to 70 for the first 3 weeks, broke out to almost 300 and am down to 70 again.
I no longer chat with people because I don't know anyone, and no one knows me. That was the fun of kdice for me...the community. I just don't play because it's no longer fun since the social aspect is totally lost. |
|
Vohaul wrote
at 2:33 PM, Monday September 24, 2007 EDT I'd like to start off by saying that was an excellent post Diceygirl, and I have also been impressed by the quality and thoughtfulness of the numerous responses.
After reading all the posts and the responses, I believe the main issue is not that Dicey's opinions or Ryan's opinions are "right" and "wrong", but actually exist as a dichotomy. What Ryan said is "correct", as far as it goes. Under the former system as a consistant top 25 player the past 4 months, I would rarely ever play 90% of the opponents in Kdice. The ELO system discouraged me to play players below 2000 as "Vohaul" since I would need to place 1st or 2nd to protect my ELO (and it's ranking effect) against 6 other players with varying skills. Of course, many of the top players felt the same frustrations of facing each other game after game, so the concept of "alts" was created - new accounts made for the purpose of protecting your main account while being able to play against players in the 15-1800 levels. This new method of scoring has changed this dilemma, in that except at the highest level (400), you face a different mix of players in every game at the 10-100 tables. This has opened up the Kdice community much more, and I have met/played with many more people than under the ELO system. However, what Dicey has said is also "correct". As the main beneficiary to this scoring system based on my aggressive opening style and "reverse bell curve" history of play (18-19 % first - 19-20% 7th), I have been #1 for more than half the month. No lead is safe, however, as the other 2 players for the top spot include the highest rated player in Kdice (Rnd, with 1/2 as many games as myself), and Zosod - who has gained over 1500 points in only 5 days to take #1 at the time of this post (19th to the 24th - 1536 to 3083). This is much more than a little significant, since the 5th place player only has 1390 points, and the 23-25th players are under 1000. This leads to my own dichotomy, as well as the other 68,808 players (excluding the top 4, and the top 100 after). Under the 1500-2000 ELO system, I do not think I would have kept the top spot for the majority of the month. However, based on the poker style of gambling for the top position, I can safely say that NO POSITION IN THE TOP 25 WILL BE SETTLED UNTIL THE FINAL DAY OF THE MONTH. The top 3 players will have to heavily gamble... and the close grouping of the 5th-100th players can lead to an entire new leaderboard in a week. What does this mean - that other than gathering a stack of chips in front of you, the 1st-29th days of September meant nothing. We will all have to gamble near/on the final day, and what happened the previous days essentially means nothing except having more chips to gamble with. Of course I want the #1 spot as one of the 3 top contenders, but dropping out of the top 25 if it comes down to a single 1600 game to decide the month is not impossible either. With a monthly reset coming, and no other scoring system other than your chip pile to take the top spots, every player this week and the final day has no option than to go for broke. That system works in poker, as you can decide how much to wager/lose in a single hand. However, in the system of Kdice with fixed pots (at the 400 table, around 160 for 1st, -74 or more for 7th, -60 and -45 for 6th/5th) - a final day tournament for #1-#100 is unlikely to be in anyone's interest - including my own. |
|
XxDiceyGirlxX wrote
at 3:36 PM, Monday September 24, 2007 EDT Ryan - What I am glad to see in your post is the commitment you have to getting this right. We all appreciate that and hope we can be a part of this process.
What I want to clear up is this -- "So, I'm interpreting your concerns not as a problem with scoring now but a social problem where your old group isn't the same." I think that interpreting our posts as ppl who are just missing their friends/social dynamic of the game is incorrect. People are stating that the game has changed -- the strategy has changed and has affected the social dynamic of the game. The 'friends' people are missing are a byproduct of playing kdice... not a catalyst. Think about your own game... Do you play the same strategies as you did on an elo based game? Are you as engaged with the game now as you were in elo based games? What people are saying, including me is that the strategy has changed and it has become less challenging and more about luck and points. Clearly, the players of kdice are not interested in games completely based on luck – if they were this would be k-blackjack or k-roulette. Instead, Elo based Kdice was an elaborate game in which you had to be both warrior and politician. With this, you just have to click and react. This is not the same game. I do not play it the same way and I miss the strategy that I used to be able to employ in a game. There is no use for it anymore. This is not a chicken/egg sort of discussion. The strategy and depth of elo-based games created a very strong social bond between players -- no matter what level you played at. Through this was born an exciting social community... I played on a range of tables and made good fun friends on each. In the new system, the game doesn't last long enough to create this. It's like swimming in an ocean instead of swimming in a pond. You can’t control the current of the water and you are swimming with sharks and guppies… this can be discouraging for new players to get blown out of games time after time when a very skilled player keeps sitting on a ten table. In your post you also mention creating smaller factions/groups/teams. My first reaction is that this will further divide a community already pretty divided with the previous changes. 2k'ers would immediately flock to create their own teams – newer players would discouraged, having to get established in a group with no identity or history. How did you see this type of play working out? It's a cool idea, but I worry about the community. |