Of course a broader player base is the best solution. The path to reach this however is not as evident or simple as one might wish it would be. Myself I do not have valuable input to achieve this goal.

Having a broader player base you would almost automatically or with a certain acceptable probability have a few people going for higher tables and sticking to it regardless of the otf going on. It is not that there is none of this now, it might have become less or I'm more accustomed to it (or have become a part of it), but it is not gone.

In the good old days I refused to play 2k or 5k for a long time and was frustrated numerous times when I gave it a try. Knowing me you can be sure I wined and complained a lot. I still think the "unflag" after 1.5 turns of having all flags and acting accordingly on a 5k was the worst I've ever experienced. I ended up 4th halfing my points instead of doubling up. All 3 players seated thought it amusing...

Regarding table limits I do think they are a good idea. But given the small player base today it has to be dynamic table limits. You can't enforce a hard limit if there is only 1 person that is subject to it. Because then this person cannot play. So basically, limits should be active if there is a valid number of players fulfilling the limit logged in. Let's say you can't sit 500 or below if you have a score bigger than 5k as an example. If there is only 5 people with such a score logged in, the limit is not enforced. The moment there is 7 people logged in, the limit jumps to action. This way high tables finally start more quickly and people still can play even at times with low activity.

The main reason I hear for people not going to higher tables these days is "It won't start, I go to 0 tables it starts instantly". Forcing people to make an alt is not a solution imho. You'd fake a playerbase that doesn't exist. So, take care that higher tables start the moment there is enough players for it online, and it will be used. After all, if it sucks and you don't go for points, you are out of there instantly with only 1 or 2 bad games. The losses at 2k/5k are high enough for that ;-P

My vote would be table limits enforced depending on logged in scores.

thanks chloe, you are awesome. now divide those extra 1.5 million points between the top 100, normalized to their individual total points, and we have a fairly reasonable way to compare top scores between different months, accounting for all this silly inflation.

why play regular tables when you can make easy points in tourneys. hell, when i log on after work, there is absolutely zero percent chance of a 500 table, barely any for a 100 table. my time is much better spent playing a tourney and collecting the inflation. if you want more people playing reg tables, you have to reconfigure the inflation towards them and away from tourneys. and that might hurt the playerbase, who knows.

as far as increasing player base, lets think about why it decreased in the first place. i always used to blame it on lack of community development, lack of support. mostly pin it on Ryan. yes, i still fault him for not developing a trustworthy team to whom he could legislate responsibility.

but, think about how the world has changed since 2006. back then, flash games were all the rage. hardly anyone had smart phones, and there was no such thing as smart device gaming communities. you want to play a quick social game, you use your laptop or desktop at home or work. zoom to 2015, and the market has completely changed. now we've got ipads and smartphones galore, apps for any kind of quick social game. so much easier to access those. you dont need a clunky mouse/keyboard. the problem with kdice is that, in its current state, its completely reliant on a keyboard. no fucking way am i playing on an ipad where i have to type on the screen.

perhaps you need to create two divisions of kdice. one that is more tablet friendly, where typing isn't as crucial. hell, maybe remove chat and anonymize every game. well, at least remove chat during games. and then one which includes all the mouse/keyboard 2006 stuff. if you can develop the tablet-side of things, that community might develop to where you could start drawing some people from there to the chat-side. but as is, i have zero incentive to play kdice on my tablet. i am playing against people with keyboards who type a mile a minute. and its too damn frustrating to try to type on a tablet, then minimize keyboard, then click attacks, all while switching back and forth. it just doesnt work.

sorry im rambling. gnite. thanks again chloe.

stupid naive developer question:

is it a safe assumption that it's next to impossible to stream audio from each player? that would make the social game experience possible on a tablet. you wouldnt have to type on a clunky interface. you could just talk and listen. like a giant teleconference/skype (audio only) combined with the game of kdice.

but my guess is this just isnt possible as of now. right?

lmao id love to talk to bivo mother prostitute moron PGA beybi sistr HORSE

Chloe, of course I'm assuming things when I generalize. But I think my general assumption is fairly accurate, give or take 10% of exceptions or something.

My point is that people will go to the table they feel most comfortable on and forcing them somewhere else is not going to make anyone happier with the game...well except the people that want more high stakes games.

But honestly, look at the games that DO start. Yes, about half are almost entirely filled with regulars only. But I still see people with barely the amount of points needed to sit that play the higher tables.


And about 500s, I see a lot of games where one or two people with say 10k points are sitting. Sometimes even 20-50k. What's the problem again? Are these all ruthless pointwhores who just come to 500 to force everyone out of their points?

If you're going to impose strict table limits, you will also deny the top players to play a casual game on 500 when they're drunk or bored or not feeling like playing with all the drama for a few games.

If you really care about "protecting" the less skilled people from having to deal with a few higher skilled players on the 500s, setting strict table limits isn't going to help you that much. These players can then make an alt and still bully the newbs. In fact most medalling people are already making alts so they can play a few casual games. Nobody really complaining about too many pros stealing all the points on the 500s so I think things are fine over there.

So are you going to try and forbid "pros" to make alts and play casual 500s? In the logic of "we can't have pros (even on alts) at the 500s or 100s" then that's what you need to impose. Unfair imo and same logic why you 'd want to set strict table limits for mains.

If we talk about unfairness, it's kinda unfair that a lot of the points from freerolls are stolen away from the target group of newbs by alts. Sucks a bit but in the end, plenty of free points around so no biggie. Of course you could forbid skilled players from joining them with alts.

My question is - and this might seem odd coming from a mod - do we really need to over-regulate the site with strict table limits? In the end you're trying to enforce a rule: people with lots of points cannot play low risk games anymore.


PS: we're also assuming that people with lots of points or with the highest medals are the most skilled players ;-)

btw, this is a nice discussion and it's good that we're having it

I do think, Jurg, you are neglecting something important: people cheat on KDice for little gain (because it's "fun"), and you and other mods have been very public about not policing 0 tables because of the low stakes. If somebody's idea of fun is playing in teams or with your own alts, you can get away with it on the 0 tables for much, much longer than you could at a higher-stakes tables or tourneys. Re-adding table limits isn't just about forcing people on to higher tables -- it's also about keeping experienced players from preying on newer ones. top 10 players on 500 tables aren't the problem, or are a very different sort of problem than experienced jerks working the 0 and 100 tables for an afternoon's kicks and an easy 1000 points without putting your own points or -play at risk.

Jurgens approach is to give fun to the non-ambitious player that wants to relax at a low table with nothing at stake.

Chloe on the other hand is trying to give the daring highstake player the thrill he/she is looking for.

Jurgens approach might take the fun out of this for the (more or less) pointfocussed base of oldtimers. Chloes way might expell the newbies.

The question is, what does this site have. Is there a significant number of totally new players trying this game every month? Or is this game basically living from a limited number of addicts creating new alts to fight their wars over and over again?

The summaries like the alternatives are over-simplified and exaggerated. Nevertheless they present 2 possible scenarios. The decision on what to do, table limits or no-score fun is depending on what we have here. Plenty of new players or a valuable base of oldtimers.

BTW, why not give tables with no scoring at all a try? Would be interesting if anybody would play that - no stats, no points, no record on your personal page...

I've just remembered an old solution to yall's problem: reintroduce elo. It allows people who want to hang out on lower tables to do so without penalty, and basically forces those who want to gain rank to sit as high as possible.

God I wish Ryan would reimplement that. Did he ever give us reasons why he banished it in the first place? Was it due to cabal manipulation? We've got mods now to stop that. I wonder....

Oh right, I forgot it's tricky to figure out a system that combines regular table elo with tourneys. Could you make tourney rewards be in elo points or the old-school total points?