Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[qwertyuiopas]

This is a simple game, but modified slightly.

Every 50 posts is a round(one page at 50 posts per page).

Each post in a round is worth a number of points.

That number is how many posts follow it, until either the last post of the round, or your next post, whatever is smaller. (double-posting or posting last gets 0 points for your post(in the case of double posting, your first of the two is 0))

Your score for the round is your lowest post score multiplied by the product of your two highest.
(lowest * highest* 2nd highest) (duplicates count as 1, so if you only post twice in a round, it is 1 * first post * second post, rather than the square of the lower one multiplied by the higher one)

In that way, double-posters and the last poster per page get *nothing* while everyone else who posts at least once gets at least one point.

Finally, to make losing more bearable, the last poster of the round gets a *1.5 multiplier for the next, though they get no points for the current round.


I will not keep track of scores, someone else will have to, by ironically posting here.

[Criptfeind]

Okay no one post now so that Armok loses.

[andfhe]

Too complicated. Try making it simpler?

[Cheddarius]

Listen, the last poster wins.
The average take will be about 25, min 1, max 50.
The last poster, if he is adroit, can make 150 points every two rounds.

Also, it should be 10 posts or something, not 50, or it'll never take off.
I suggest changing the multiplier to 1.5, or 2.

[qwertyuiopas]

Actually, if you post the first, 18th, and 35st, you get  16, 16, and 15, for 3840. I think.

Naturally, if this catches on, the competition will make any decent interval a random chance...

[Cheddarius]

Oh, I didn't see the bit where you multiply your posts by each other. I thought you were only allowed to post once per page, because you said double-posters don't get any points.
I take it you mean double posting as in posting twice in a row?

Nevertheless, no matter how many points it is possible to get in one round, it is possible to get 1.5 times that much by last posting, then doing the same thing next round.

[qwertyuiopas]

I assume you know Transformice?

Seen what happens in those levels where everyone is pushing for the cheese?

That sort of FUN will make any such strategy unreliable. When there are many people posting, they will interfere with each other. When there are few, they will have to leave their computers at least once before the next page. If it doesn't work, once any discussions reach a conclusion, I'll edit the new system into the first post.

[Cheddarius]

Yes, I know Transformice.
I understand that getting the last post will be difficult, and of course only one person can get it. It will be difficult to get the last post, very difficult.
But is that your goal? The rest of the game is geared towards posting as fast as possible. And the rules seem to be saying, "You don't want to post last!" If you want the last post to be a bad thing, make it a bad thing, neh? Why reward the loser?

Also. The way to get the highest possible number of points is to post first, 18th, and 35th, like you said. You want to spread them out as far as possible. That means, you want to post as early as possible, then wait a third of the round, then post, then wait a third, then post. So suppose I post first. Well, now you can't post first. But you want to post as fast as possible, so you post second. Cript posts fourth. Maxicaxi posts fifth. Some other guy posts sixth. Let's be optimistic here and suppose you get five times the current number of players - 15 players, a huge amount.
Now you're at 15 posts. Well... what now? I want to wait until at least 17 people post, so I'm not going to post. By the same logic, neither is anyone else. Unless you have a huge amount of players, the game will quickly stagnate.

[Armok]

post.

[maxicaxi]

IM A EATING MY LAZORS ONONONOONMONOMOONMMNONMONM

[Hugehead]

Confusing game is confusing

[qwertyuiopas]

I guess that the loser's multiplier would be better left at 1.5, then.

[Cheddarius]

Yup.