|
Post by 10k on Jun 9, 2012 20:20:21 GMT
I guess the same reason a bunch of other people have random karmas. I think Forli and Liar Game have about 40+ for whatever reason.
|
|
Morte
Gambler #09
163 Poker Chips
Posts: 108
|
Post by Morte on Jun 9, 2012 20:27:47 GMT
Forli gives himself a lot of karma. Every day.
|
|
|
Post by Iain7 on Jun 9, 2012 20:49:50 GMT
Forli has a crazy amount! I'm quite happy with mine, apparently people like me :'D I thank them, whoever they are
|
|
|
Post by Nearco on Jun 10, 2012 3:30:26 GMT
Because people love me. Last time it got this negative I only found out because a someone else told me. Well, except when Forli and I were messing with the LGT3 boards, at which point it could jump from -12345 to 12345 rather quickly.
|
|
Veteran
Gambler #23
200 Poker Chips
Posts: 19
|
Post by Veteran on Jun 10, 2012 3:31:35 GMT
Lmaoooooooooo. You cheaters. Change mine to 69.
|
|
|
Post by Komatsu Tatsuya on Jun 11, 2012 20:21:53 GMT
I will not be playing in this silly little game that Veteran has set up due to many reasons that i wish not to disclose to others. I hope all of you have so much fun losing all of your money just for 80 poker chips!
|
|
Morte
Gambler #09
163 Poker Chips
Posts: 108
|
Post by Morte on Jun 11, 2012 21:43:41 GMT
I would love to know what makes you think anyone will actually play this.
|
|
|
Post by 10k on Jun 11, 2012 22:27:58 GMT
Actually, I will genuinely consider playing if I see the following amendments made explicit:
1. The game is ongoing until the Casino ends or someone makes a correct guess. 2. A dealer proclaims that there is indeed a correct answer or more than one, regardless of what Veteran's real identity is. 3. Chips paid in this game go to Veteran, not the LGT. 4. We either have a flat entry fee of 20-25 chips and trash the pay-per question/guess, or Veteran goes all-in with his pile of chips, keeping other costs the same.
If Veteran is any confident in his own game, I'm sure he can accept these revisions without hassle. I won't immediately play, but I will certainly begin to consider it.
|
|
|
Post by Iain7 on Jun 12, 2012 0:02:52 GMT
The problem is that I don't really know Veteran yet, whereas other people who've played in previous games might recognise him better. I don't even know which games he has played in! Once I get familiar with his writing style, sense of humour etc, I can activate my stalking powers, but until then, no money from me
|
|
|
Post by Nearco on Jun 12, 2012 2:33:57 GMT
10k: With Veteran's approval, 1. Consider it done. 2. Veteran is, in fact, a player from a previous game. I know who. And if a player successfully guesses it, I will announce the game to be over. (Or if I'm not dealing this, the dealer will). 3. This is up to Alydar, but I see no problem with it. 4. Clarify this a bit please. "Veteran goes all-in with his pile of chips"
|
|
|
Post by Forli on Jun 12, 2012 2:40:37 GMT
1. Actually it'd have to end at the same time the last Casino game ends. I'm sure you meant this, but the way you phrased it means that the game would end after a winner was crowned.
4. He wants Veteran to bet not 40% of his chips but 100%. That won't happen, sorry. Otherwise, winning this game would pretty much decide the overall winner of the Casino. In fact, even 40% could do that, so it might be lowered if Alydar deems it neccesary.
|
|
|
Post by 10k on Jun 12, 2012 2:53:00 GMT
Edit: Forli beats me to it.
If the stakes are going to lessen from 40%, I'm thinking just a flat entry fee, and then chopping out the pay-per-actions into 3 questions and 3 guesses.
I suppose 5-chip entry fee that pays for questions and guesses, leading to a 30-chip prize out of Veteran's pocket would be fair--if we're allowed stakes like that, but with a fixed prize, chips would be going to LGT instead of Veteran. I guess the question is how high of a stake this game going to run, but I'm certainly not playing with anything less; I'm not sure it would be worth the effort.
|
|
|
Post by Alydar on Jun 12, 2012 3:10:31 GMT
Yes, the problem that I've been trying to figure out in this game before approving it (if that ever happens) is whether or not this could be potentially game-breaking. Minigames are not supposed to determine the winner or loser of the Casino. As you may have noticed, all games not created by a dealer have only given 5 Poker Chips away. With this, there's a minimum of 80, much more than anyone has gained in a single game to date (less than the maximum possible, but still... you're not meant to get the maximum). In addition, people stand to lose a minimum maximum (sure, oxymoron, but it makes sense) of 50 Poker Chips to this game. With Veteran gaining the chips (as I had understood it originally and still do), he will only profit in the event that no one wins. Well, he breaks even at 133 or 134 chips in, so I guess that's something else entirely. However, the winner also stands to win a LOT. I mean, there's a minimum of 80, as I said earlier. That's way too much as of now. So for now, this hasn't started and may never start, but it will only start if I can find a way to minimize more. Also, I don't like the "sign" function where players have to give 5 Poker Chips automatically if they play, so I'm just going to get rid of that right now. Again, this feels (after looking into it a while) pretty game-breaking, and if it happens, it will be seriously dialed down. Sorry if some of you were looking to gain a lot from this (Veteran included ), but that's not the point of minigames...
|
|
|
Post by Alydar on Jun 12, 2012 3:15:44 GMT
Edit: Forli beats me to it. If the stakes are going to lessen from 40%, I'm thinking just a flat entry fee, and then chopping out the pay-per-actions into 3 questions and 3 guesses. I suppose 5-chip entry fee that pays for questions and guesses, leading to a 30-chip prize out of Veteran's pocket would be fair--if we're allowed stakes like that, but with a fixed prize, chips would be going to LGT instead of Veteran. I guess the question is how high of a stake this game going to run, but I'm certainly not playing with anything less; I'm not sure it would be worth the effort. I'll consider it. I still have a few ways to consider dialing this down. I could try to keep with the original intentions, or I could do something like what you suggested. I should come up with something (or approve something you all decide), assuming I have the time.
|
|
|
Post by 10k on Jun 12, 2012 8:26:07 GMT
Again, this feels (after looking into it a while) pretty game-breaking, and if it happens, it will be seriously dialed down. Sorry if some of you were looking to gain a lot from this ( Veteran 10k included ), but that's not the point of minigames... You know, I'm still baffled as to why Veteran accepted dropping the ban on teamwork, because that makes his game too easy to defeat. If it helps with your consideration, since we're not going to play this game, I'll let you all in on a little secret: if a challenger has even 1 reliable ally, Veteran has a 100% loss.
|
|