Mafiascum.net

the biggest thing a more payout-based system brings to the table is that there's a large gap of winning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2nd place >>>>>>> jury >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything else

you'd basically have the FTC values set: 1mil, 100k, 85k

then jury 'Pool' would be about 275k

remaining "pre-jury" pool would be the remainder

I feel like that still makes 6th place not literally the worst so yeah.

(jokes notwithstanding - I think that's better, but I would personally support only first place wins and everyone else ties)

I think it's pretty hard for people to differentiate "I want to make it far" v. "I want to win"

Like the payout system is cute, I'd like to see how that stacks up, but the ELO system in place is good too *shrugs*

Who said we have to have one stats/ranking system? I really like this idea though because it does give a lot better idea on things and I am very curious how that would rank up.

I like the payout system, and I'm going to calculate it tonight to give it a shot. Even gonna include Big Brother with its standard payouts ayy

Can I have a million dollars >_>

New LSG rule: You are not allowed to offer to share the imaginary prize money.

In post 83, Haschel Cedricson wrote:New LSG rule: You are not allowed to offer to share the imaginary prize money.

but i can buy the title?

Next we should make it that you have to pay a certain amount of your winnings to join "premium" games

but there are lesser games called "castings" that you can play for free to rack up money

In post 83, Haschel Cedricson wrote:New LSG rule: You are not allowed to offer to share the imaginary prize money.

Can you offer to help pay off people's imaginary mortgages with imaginary prize money?

In post 74, xRECKONERx wrote:i mean i think it's cumulative

and i think that gives people a reason to go for the "big win" to boost their rankings

perhaps we could curtail it to more recent games and exclude older ones in order to eliminate the games from before anon survivor became like a "legit" thing

or yeah average winnings could work too

no reason we couldn't keep both statistics handy.

i think both avg winnings and cumulative winnings gives people more reason to play for a win than elo which gives a minor difference between winning and coming in 3rd

You could do a weighted average too, which would make people feel like that awesome performance back in 2015 is still counted but doesn't keep a newer player from competing.

But I really like the payout method. Still, keep in mind that if you don't adjust it somehow for the number of players in the game then you're going to make it more beneficial to play smaller games.

FWIW proportionally the awards are:

1 67.29%
2 6.73%
3 5.72%
4 4.71%
5 3.70%
6 3.03%
7 2.36%
8 1.85%
9 1.35%
10 1.01%
11 0.67%
12 0.50%
13 0.37%
14 0.30%
15 0.24%
16 0.17%

I think that's actually the point, that Winning trumps everything? And higher places are always better then consistent lower spots.

In post 81, CuddlyCaucasian wrote:I like the payout system, and I'm going to calculate it tonight to give it a shot. Even gonna include Big Brother with its standard payouts ayy

wow wtf my wins only worth 500k to you

There have been seasons with different amounts of players; can we find payout tables for those too?

One option would be to use a poker tournament payout, but adjusted a bit. So like this chart: http://www.pokerworld.com/poker-tournam ... payout.asp but adjust to where it pays out for the appropriate number of players. So for example, for 16 players it'd pay out like so:

1 27.5
2 17.5
3 11.5
4 8.5
5 7.25
6 5.75
7 4.5
8 3
9 2
10 1.5
11 1.2
12 1.2
13 1.2
14 1.2
15 1.2
16 1.00

Dump the rest of the payout into the winner's category (making the winner's payout 31.5%). So if each prize pool is $1,500,000 then the winners of a 16 person would receive:

1 $472,500
2 $262,500
3 $172,500
4 $127,500
5 $108,750
6 $86,250
7 $67,500
8 $45,000
9 $30,000
10 $22,500
11 $18,000
12 $18,000
13 $18,000
14 $18,000
15 $18,000
16 $15,000

#justicefornicolefranzel

In post 88, zoraster wrote:FWIW proportionally the awards are:

1 67.29%
2 6.73%
3 5.72%
4 4.71%
5 3.70%
6 3.03%
7 2.36%
8 1.85%
9 1.35%
10 1.01%
11 0.67%
12 0.50%
13 0.37%
14 0.30%
15 0.24%
16 0.17%

yeah this only works for 16 player games though

so it's more like: the top three payouts are locked in
then you have a certain % of the pool for jury and a certain % of the pool for prejury

yeah, that's why I brought up using an altered poker tournament payout. It adjusts by number of players and probably incentivizes winning/finishing highly to a similar degree that you'd want to in these situations.

Payout of a 27 player game using the chart, altered:

winner should take a much larger % of the pool tho just based on how survivor works

I'll leave that to you, but winner getting twice what second place gets and 5 times what sixth place gets seems appropriate and provides the right incentives to push for risky-but-solid strategies in order to win.

idk like the whole thing is that "getting to FTC" should only be like half your game

the other half should come from WINNING a FTC

so like yes, the F3 should be rewarded higher for getting there than the next closest rankings
but the winner should smother the other two

i like survivor's proportions and im bad at math but if we could take the poker method but just apply it to non-FTC participants and keep the FTC pool the same as it is i think that'd be the best