Post by Yanbetari on Jan 23, 2005 23:02:10 GMT -5
Not sure exactly how DF/Kait's proposals worked, but here's what I was thinking.
Both participants, on going into a match, pay a fee. It could be constant for all fights, or dependent on the PC limit. Then, at the end of the match, the total of all players PC limits would be given to the winner (or winners for FFAs). Total in would equal total out. Zero sum game. And because the fee is paid up front, there's no reason not to give everything you've got to the match.
However, these matches are supposed to contribute to the creation of wealth, rewarding those who fight and win. Thus, we have a wager system. Each player can put as much money as they want down on the fight. This money doesn't contribute to their PC limit or anything else. However, at the end of the match the winner gets twice the total of all wagers made on the match. This means you could make big money off a match, but to do so, you have to risk some. Furthermore, because these PCs weren't part of the match itself, they would be unaffected by things like Tem Ray Circuit or Lucky, to prevent people from betting their entire bank account for a chance at quadrupling it, with a risk of 10 PCs.
The reason I think this would be an improvement, is it gives more incentive to fight your hardest. With the current system, it favors conservative players. Going into a match, and not using any PCs lets you walk away with 0 losses, and a chance at double gain. If both do this, it's a net gain of 200% total. However, if you go into a match, and fight your hardest, spending all your PCs, even if you win, you only gain the PC limit. If both do this, it's a 0% net gain, in effect penalizing extreme effort.
This way, people who play it safe and bet nothing stand to gain only the PC limit if both wager 0. Whereas those who are willing to risk it could gain considerably more. Fortune favors the bold, they say.
Of course, some rules would be needed. Maybe no wagers higher than the fee or the PC limit. Also, because this requires extra PCs to wager, it favors the richer, but to mitigate that, we could make it so you don't have to nessecarily wager in a match. So a poor rookie could fight a rich vet, and only the vet wagers, meaning no extra loss of the rookie, but a chance to get a nice boost to his bank account. This could also benefit the vet, as a match against a rookie could be easier to win, and hence a good chance to make a buck.
Opinions?
Both participants, on going into a match, pay a fee. It could be constant for all fights, or dependent on the PC limit. Then, at the end of the match, the total of all players PC limits would be given to the winner (or winners for FFAs). Total in would equal total out. Zero sum game. And because the fee is paid up front, there's no reason not to give everything you've got to the match.
However, these matches are supposed to contribute to the creation of wealth, rewarding those who fight and win. Thus, we have a wager system. Each player can put as much money as they want down on the fight. This money doesn't contribute to their PC limit or anything else. However, at the end of the match the winner gets twice the total of all wagers made on the match. This means you could make big money off a match, but to do so, you have to risk some. Furthermore, because these PCs weren't part of the match itself, they would be unaffected by things like Tem Ray Circuit or Lucky, to prevent people from betting their entire bank account for a chance at quadrupling it, with a risk of 10 PCs.
The reason I think this would be an improvement, is it gives more incentive to fight your hardest. With the current system, it favors conservative players. Going into a match, and not using any PCs lets you walk away with 0 losses, and a chance at double gain. If both do this, it's a net gain of 200% total. However, if you go into a match, and fight your hardest, spending all your PCs, even if you win, you only gain the PC limit. If both do this, it's a 0% net gain, in effect penalizing extreme effort.
This way, people who play it safe and bet nothing stand to gain only the PC limit if both wager 0. Whereas those who are willing to risk it could gain considerably more. Fortune favors the bold, they say.
Of course, some rules would be needed. Maybe no wagers higher than the fee or the PC limit. Also, because this requires extra PCs to wager, it favors the richer, but to mitigate that, we could make it so you don't have to nessecarily wager in a match. So a poor rookie could fight a rich vet, and only the vet wagers, meaning no extra loss of the rookie, but a chance to get a nice boost to his bank account. This could also benefit the vet, as a match against a rookie could be easier to win, and hence a good chance to make a buck.
Opinions?