Mafiascum.net

Like I'm not suggesting not to give an outsized portion to the winner. But I am saying that 67% of the prize pool being the top prize makes sense for a game show but doesn't really make sense when we have people who are repeat players. Reduce it down to 45% and it's still SUPER important to win vs. come in second.

In post 144, xRECKONERx wrote:like if we list by total wins i look like im on par w/ snakes and betch and theyre very clearly above me in a big way

Nah man, I'm gonna disagree hard on this. You've also actually BEATEN snakes at FTC. Which you are the only person who can say this because Snakes has never lost an FTC except to you. And your game in School Survivor was pretty fucking great and proves that you're on par with them too. You've also won with different playstyles. I would not say that Hermione and Batwoman are the same gamestyle in ANY way. So in some ways, you might even be better than them because you've won with significantly different playstyles.

stop it i can only get so erect!

In post 150, zoraster wrote:Like I'm not suggesting not to give an outsized portion to the winner. But I am saying that 67% of the prize pool being the top prize makes sense for a game show but doesn't really make sense when we have people who are repeat players. Reduce it down to 45% and it's still SUPER important to win vs. come in second.

I'll try calculating new totals tomorrow with the poker-style handouts and see how much that changes things

reck if it helps i think you suck ass

Just keep two lists, one with high-payout dollar amounts for the winner and one with a narrower band of Survivorpoints for everyone.

lists! lists! lists!

In post 154, hiplop wrote:reck if it helps i think you suck ass

In post 152, xRECKONERx wrote:stop it i can only get so erect!

In post 155, Haschel Cedricson wrote:Just keep two lists, one with high-payout dollar amounts for the winner and one with a narrower band of Survivorpoints for everyone.

How many ranking systems do we need? lol

We need an infinite number of ways to jerk each other off

I added a new tab called "PokerMoney" with more even money distributions. I'm not the biggest fan since it puts xofelf considerably ahead of Snakes despite the fact that Snakes has far more wins, but if anyone wants to see what that ranking looks like, it's there!

xof has lots more games and is still 100,000 less in average.

I think what this does is more shows who consistently places well. Out of my 17 games, there are only 4 that I didn't do well in. So it would make sense I would have managed to earn more than Snakes because I also play more often.

new currency: mcmenno points

every time you vote with mcmenno when he's not immune you get an mcmenno point

In post 159, CuddlyCaucasian wrote:We need an infinite number of ways to jerk each other off

I added a new tab called "PokerMoney" with more even money distributions. I'm not the biggest fan since it puts xofelf considerably ahead of Snakes despite the fact that Snakes has far more wins, but if anyone wants to see what that ranking looks like, it's there!

Well it's only meangingful if you do it as an average (or at least a weighted trail off), not as a total. The total is still interesting, but not what you want to sort by otherwise it'll always tend toward those who play the most. You probably need to do a higher number of games to be considered "active" rather than provisional, though.

Looking at it, I might adjust the winner up a bit: somewhere between poker's current and the show's payout structure. Something like 40-50% to the winner rather than in the 27-30% range.

This is what poker money used as an average does to the active contingent. I do think the winner needs to be adjusted up to near half the pot, but I'd resist working backwards too much (i.e. who you want to see ranked as the best and then figuring out what gives you that answer)





Summer probably needs to play more than two games to be considered, but she's going to win any average contest in either system (there are others with only two games on that list that have done well, like SensFan).

The alternative if you really want to do a "lifetime winnings" thing is to act as if each player pays in $92875 to start and only gets back what's on the lists (although I'd probably make it 100k and adjust everything else to match that so people can more easily understand). So some people will go into debt and some people will come out on top. In the poker tables, the breakeven point is at 5 for 16 and 7 for 30 players (using the current unadjusted poker numbers).

The weakness with using average over total is that it might discourage someone like Summer from playing again, whereas a system that requires a pay-in and tracks totals would not.

Heyyyyy that's better than I thought I was doing moneywise

The comments about second and third place people usually being less active players or goats that can't win..
Well yeah but on the show they still end up with more money. I think that's why you even get moments where people on the losing side of an alliance will be like
"okay but can you at least vote the asshole that betrayed us out before us?" Because it does more then just put them a place lower, they actually get less Survivordollars.

It never compares to the BIG PAYOUT. So the big players still want to go big or go home. But it means the players that aren't likely to win still have incentive to place high.
(I feel like this is the opposite sentiment to what you guys want to express but it's also how irl survivor is, isn't it? The F3 goat still gets more money then the BIG PLAYER in 4th.)

It's also a dangerous thing to assume that all 2nd/3rd placers are bad players.

Sometimes you get (Survivor 22 spoilers) , sometimes you get (Survivor 24 spoilers) .

well yeah.

but I think in general winning has become kind of dulled in comparison to just making it to FTC

In post 166, Shadoweh wrote:The comments about second and third place people usually being less active players or goats that can't win..
Well yeah but on the show they still end up with more money. I think that's why you even get moments where people on the losing side of an alliance will be like
"okay but can you at least vote the asshole that betrayed us out before us?" Because it does more then just put them a place lower, they actually get less Survivordollars.

It never compares to the BIG PAYOUT. So the big players still want to go big or go home. But it means the players that aren't likely to win still have incentive to place high.
(I feel like this is the opposite sentiment to what you guys want to express but it's also how irl survivor is, isn't it? The F3 goat still gets more money then the BIG PLAYER in 4th.)

This is exactly it. All ranking systems are going to have the opposite affect of what people want unless they are just counting wins, because they make going out earlier so much worse than going out later that people aren't going to make a big move at 9 or 11 that could send them home in an early spot and hardly give them any money. And in general I think most people do want to win, but realize that with the way MS Juries are it's hard to predict what they're going to do and the best way to win is to get to FTC. I mean, Juno really proves that, even though she didn't win if any of the Hermione votes switch to Dan she does.

nah see the difference is that the big gap between winning and 2nd/3rd/whatever place via the money system is big enough that it makes the difference between 7th and 9th or 11th not that big of a deal, value-wise

with elo it means the person who wins just get 1 more match win over the person who comes in 2nd

Can we got back to my version where the person who gets first wins and everyone else draws each other as the new Elo system?

The "First/Not-First" paradigm is one that I clearly believe in.

makin' that monnayyyyyyy

In post 167, Chevre wrote:It's also a dangerous thing to assume that all 2nd/3rd placers are bad players.

Sometimes you get (Survivor 22 spoilers)

Natalie/Phillip/Rob

, sometimes you get (Survivor 24 spoilers)

Chelsea/Kim/Sabrina

.

both are good player + two baddies