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? |
|
jss wrote
at 9:37 PM, Monday September 24, 2007 EDT Before, if you were lucky enough, you could get to the 2k tables. It was mostly luck to get there, admit it!
And there weren't many people, so everyone knew you, so once you got there the winning strategy was to be nice to people (or cheat). The only reason this strategy worked is that you knew most the people you were playing. Everyone would gang up on new 2000 players they didn't know for the first few games, even. If the top players refused to play 10 or 100 games I think the old gameplay style would return, but because the stakes are so high at the 400 table it would be hard to stay there. This plus the monthly resets are enough to get rid of the old "2000 clique" problem, I think. The game has always been such that the strategies which worked at the low tables don't work at the high tables and vice-versa, just because you can't trust people not to make stupid moves that are not in their own interest at the low tables. People are playing unstrategically at the high tables because 90% of their games are at the low tables and they have forgotten that this doesn't work as well. This is very frustrating if you are counting on your fellow 400 table partners to play well. If the ante for each player was variable and based on that player's rank, rather than the table minimum, it would bring back the disincentive to play most of your games at low-ranked tables, and the top players would relearn their old strategies, and would stop feeling so much angst towards this addiction^Wgame. Old kdice: you have to cheat to win New kdice: you have to be an asshole to win |
|
|
jss wrote
at 9:40 PM, Monday September 24, 2007 EDT cadpilot, you're just being paranoid about the dice rolls. They are fair.
|
|
Shooter007 wrote
at 10:07 PM, Monday September 24, 2007 EDT ryans post seems like he is trying to push out the former players:
"The old system was actually optimized towards 2000 players (everyone that's posted here)." "but a social problem where your old group isn't the same." |
|
Mikeypoo wrote
at 10:09 PM, Monday September 24, 2007 EDT I gotta agree With Dicey. One hundred percent.
Ryan your attention to detail and involvement with this game is what made it one of the hottest places on the Net. I will always appreciate the game you made. And I will appreciate your intuitive genius. I trust you will pull the game out of its rut and make it good again. Good luck. I look forward to watching the game find itself again. However, despite your attention to detail I think you missed some key points in these intelligent articulate posts. These people aren't begging for a return to elite status. They are simply saying that the game has been rendered unrecognizable in certain key areas. It’s not simply that there was a good old boys/girls club. What some of these posts are saying is that socializing; politics, and diplomacy were key ingredients to the game. When you changed it to the GPokr Plus System (GPS) you altered the game and changed its genetic make up. Also its not just former 2000 players complaining-- I have spoken with so many people, former players of the 1500s and 1800s and 2000s and I have heard similar complaints. There were tons of former 1600 and 1800s players complaining. Ones you may have missed or not taken seriously. Generally the complaints are in two areas: 1) Removing strategy and the social aspect of the game has changed it for the worse and/ or rendered it unrecognizable; 2) Under the guise of "luck" the cheating and "hate" play has increased exponentially. In direct opposition of your new rules against "no hate" and "be nice." I think you saw "elitists posting" and over looked much of the meat of what they were saying. Remember we are not the group that was causing problems and attacking "noobs." You took care of those guys. None of those posts said "bring back our elitist status." They said bring back one of the most amazing games every to hit the Internet. Ryan you had a hybrid strategy game/virtual world, there was nothing like it on the net. I wish you luck. You have made some very positive changes in the last few weeks. I know you are going to fix this. And like always blow everybody away. GG RYAN! |
|
Deanypop wrote
at 10:14 PM, Monday September 24, 2007 EDT A few quick notes on the new system:
1) I'm about to crack 400, and I'm still rocking and robbing the fools at the 10 tables. There needs to be a break at around 200-250 to keep me "on the ladder", playing the 100+ tables. In general, slotting in "more rungs" may help get people back to their days of exclusivity/ladderage... While still not totally making life suck for the newbies. 2) Too many boring-ass endgames. Agreed, the beginning of the month "savage land" theory was often painful and annoying. I hated it plenty. The mid-month update, however, has me right back in longer games where everyone (but me) clams up and builds, while simultaneously destroying my aggressive ass. So, I'd like a happy medium - more depth/strategy, but retaining, somehow*, a greater incentive for people to ditch/flag/whatever instead of holding our with 2-3 8-stacks. That said, with these longer games, I'm often able to aggressivitate my opponents into submission over a longer haul, seemingly for many more points? So, again, I kinda feel bad about that in some ways, but maybe you intended for folks to be able to jump from 200-400 in, like, 6 games? Anyway, overall, I like the ante system, it's somewhat easier to understand than ELO... But it's still too complicated. It needs to be a very SIMPLE system, that at the same time allows for great deals of strategy. Honestly, if you're going to sacrifice any one thing about the game, PLEASE MAKE IT THE SATISFACTION OF THE TOP PLAYERS. Make them work harder, play with more annoying people (and cheaters), whatever. Just make it possible/easy to understand for the lower ranks, so that new people keep joining up/making life interesting. I feel in a way the earlier new system was a reaction to alts/cheaters/etc... And like music piracy, I think the best way through will be to largely ignore the complaints and offer an easier alternative (rather than fight off one form of attack only to have it replaced with something even worse). If possible, I do* think having very distinct "breaks" in the ladder - where even rules/scoring changes - may be good. If one set of rules/scoring works best as is most fun for casual folks, go with that from 1-500, and then have a second "hardcore" rulebase from 500-1000 to keep the wannabes out of olympus, and then a more sedate/refined "tumbler of sherry" ruleset for the big egoed pajamas-and-pipe set like rnd & co. |
|
WayneRooney wrote
at 10:26 PM, Monday September 24, 2007 EDT After reading what is clearly the most educated and civil discussion ever on this forum I felt compelled to reply.
-This is mostly former 2k players but I've always felt that 2k players play the most. How many people log in and play 5 or less games? How many people still play monthly? The stat says like 40000 people, but most of them are gone now. -As a former 2k player, I totally agree with the 5v4 being a risky move, it was only broken out if it was all you had. Now it is common place and people can minimize the loss of being stupid by flagging fast. -When 2 titans emerge from a game, people flag quickly and the points for winning are low and 2nd place ends up losing just for hanging out trying to win for a few rounds. -RND was right about the 2k being a magical dream world. It was something you fight and fight for and when I got there I put my computer down for 2 days, it was something awesome for me. In August that score was 2100 but there was no table to signify that but either way. -The biggest reason I no longer play is because everything I worked hard for was gone, back to the chaos of the low tables. I might not play 200 games a month but the 80 I play, I'd love to play with people who I know won't do something dumb and kill my game (Panzer and r0n being the exception, but I know that sitting with them) -Ryan said something that I always thought he wanted to do, mix the 2k players back into the other players. I know he didnt like the elitism either but it is bound to happen. But I think some of that elitism was deserved, for me that climb was hard as hell. So he broke the elitism, but it will be back give it time and at the same time drove many people away. -One last thing, this text box is way too small to write a long reply |
|
|
WayneRooney wrote
at 10:30 PM, Monday September 24, 2007 EDT One other point: When you cracked a new level in ELO you had a better chance of staying there even if you had a crappy game. 1820 took 2 maybe 3 bad games to knock you back, but a win was worth 10 or so extra points. Now its the same for the highest and the lowest. Mixing isnt always the best thing when the top players can snipe small points on the low tables, minimal they may be.
|
|
frosty34 wrote
at 10:40 PM, Monday September 24, 2007 EDT Points I'd like to make:
1) I have not noticed point-farming. It is most likely because I'm so wrapped up in my own game I don't notice it. I have been around the 400-500s for the last couple weeks now and have not moved, so about 98% of my games have been on the 100s tables, where I hear it doesn't really happen. I've only played 2 games on the 400s tables, and gotten killed fast both times--more than likely, too fast notice the point farming. 2) Under the old scoring system, I was mired in the 1600s for the first couple months. As I played more games and learned, I climbed more and more... staying consistently above 1700, then 1800, then 1900. Never got to 2000 by the time the new system came into being. The old system, though, favored practice, patience, and above all learning. This scoring system seems to favor the people that have the least to lose. Conservative play tends to be penalized. 3) This is a positive note on the new system. Since I never cracked 2000 ELO, there were a bunch of folks that I never played with/against. This didn't really bother me, as I pretty much just saw kdice as a game, not a social community. Having had a chance to play with these folks using the new system, however, has changed the way I view kdice entirely, and has introduced me to several awesome people. Strictly from the standpoint of being a change intended to widen the social community of kdice, it's my opinion that the new scoring system is a tremendous success. If I think of more to say, I'll post it. But trying to put together this much coherent babble makes my brain hurt. |
|
Cal Ripken wrote
at 10:56 PM, Monday September 24, 2007 EDT Okay. I promised I would post and I have had some wine so here goes:
I've been playing the kdice for a fair amount and haven't posted before, but this seems like a good time to chime in. I only started playing kdice because my friend searches the internet day after day finding way s to amuse himself and we always had said to each other "a multiplayer kdice would be awesome!" (thanks Ryan!!) and he finally found it. But yeah, I didn't know anyone and never really played with friends, so I hardly chatted either. But I made it to the 1800+ tables in time to meet Mikey when I was stoned on codine and I think I made him laugh so he friended me (a very selective honor right?). Anyway, I totally hear what everyone is saying about the loss of the club of people we always saw on the 2000+ tables. It seems like there are lot of random new people and we don't quite have the fun drama that we had before the summer (which I heard took a turn for the worse in the summer). But I think I need to defend the new way with a couple points: 1. Having more people in the higher ups can be awesome, because a lot of them still really suck. Although, that can lead to having to deal with obnoxiously bad playing, so I see both sides... 2. I've been playing the 400 tables all week and its still the same 12 people over and over that you saw on the 2000 tables so not too much has changed 3. Playing with lots of different players (And not with the risk of losing tons of ELO like in the old way) opens the door to avoiding the upper-tier PGAs, team play, and arguments while still getting enough points. Not that I don't like the Kdrama, I just think it is nice that others can have the opportunity to do so. a couple additional points: -I completely disagree with jss, getting to 2000 had very little to do with luck, although good luck could get you there faster I guess -Vo's post was great, but he continually referred to two groups: the top three players, and then the 5-25th plays. What the f? You completely left me out of your assessment! Okay, so if I have one point I want everyone to take away it is this: The new system certainly lacks the community/strategy of the old, in that there is a lot less diplomacy overall, BUT, on the 400s it really could be like the 2000s if everyone didnt keep playing 100 games and I think that the door is a little bit wider open for new people to join the higher ranks is a good thing and will only promote more parity and competition. |
|
|
frosty34 wrote
at 11:07 PM, Monday September 24, 2007 EDT Something else I'd like to point out that I have learned... is that I had no idea the extent to which people care about this community, its health, its members and its future. Not only did I learn that there is a very real community here, I've learned that this community means a _TON_ to a _LOT_ of people here. And y'all are starting to convince me. :)
|