To make chained wins harder, limit the amount of tickets any one player can put in the lottery at any one time to 25% of the total amount of tickets.
Example:
The lottery currently has 1000 tickets in it ->
- The max amount any one player can have put in in the pot at that moment is 250 tickets (25%)
This makes it so that the maximum chance of winning the lottery is 25%.
Other considerations:
- The interface should calculate this limit for the player (because no one wants to do the maths themselves)
- Does not have to be 25% if another value turns out better
-1; but not a passionate -1. I just have a different perspective.
This probably won't be agreed on, which is totally fine, but I at least want to offer a differing perspective. I personally like seeing these chained wins because as someone who also participates it 1) makes the pot even higher than it typically would be. 2) makes it oh so much better when that chained win finally loses.
Is if fair? Hell nah. It's a lottery. Lotteries are never fair. I don't want it to be fair. That's what makes it fun imo- at least for me.
-1; but not a passionate -1. I just have a different perspective.
This probably won't be agreed on, which is totally fine, but I at least want to offer a differing perspective. I personally like seeing these chained wins because as someone who also participates it 1) makes the pot even higher than it typically would be. 2) makes it oh so much better when that chained win finally loses.
Is if fair? Hell nah. It's a lottery. Lotteries are never fair. I don't want it to be fair. That's what makes it fun imo- at least for me.
Yeah, that's fine. It's still more points than would be in the lottery if he didn't do that. I really don't care if he has more points left over for himself when he's done.
and yet no one wants to put their points in because if they put any large amount to get a good chance he is just going to put more points in and win- so overall it's just him having fun playing the lottery and everyone else too scared
and yet no one wants to put their points in because if they put any large amount to get a good chance he is just going to put more points in and win- so overall it's just him having fun playing the lottery and everyone else too scared
Yeah, I'm okay with that. Gamblers going to gamble. I'd hope he does that after me to increase the pot.
If we want to create a lottery that is more inclusive to a larger amount of people who want a low-risk pool then, I wouldn't mind there being a separate "safer" baby-lottery I suppose. Ik some servers have a 50/50 that is pretty popular.
-1; but not a passionate -1. I just have a different perspective.
This probably won't be agreed on, which is totally fine, but I at least want to offer a differing perspective. I personally like seeing these chained wins because as someone who also participates it 1) makes the pot even higher than it typically would be. 2) makes it oh so much better when that chained win finally loses.
Is if fair? Hell nah. It's a lottery. Lotteries are never fair. I don't want it to be fair. That's what makes it fun imo- at least for me.
A cap is an interesting idea.
But at that point, it's probably better to do away with the ticket system entirely and do a fair lotto where everyone has the same buy-in and with it the same win%. Perhaps with a flat pool to sweeten the pot, say a static 10k pot plus 1k buy-in per player. Rather than introducing an artificial, variable cap, I think that equal buy-in system would be better.
I think it's worse and less interesting than the current system of high stakes player-driven lottery. Yes, players with a huge buy-in have an extremely good chance at winning. It's unfair. I think it makes for a fun dynamic - I say as someone who has not won the lottery once but buy-in every day when I'm able to play. I, like helix, see the extremely low win rate for an extremely high pay out as the fun of gambling.
So on this idea as proposed, -1
On the emergent idea of adding an extra lottery - the baby lottery/equal win rate lottery - I think that's better than changing the current lottery, so +1 to that as an addition, not a replacement.
honnestly, how many people would go through the trouble or having alts for that? and quite simple put only 1 account can gamle, or alts will get banned.
I think you guys have to consider that these wins include the purchase of 100s of tickets by Gimc, so in the end he's not actually profiting as much as you think, most of the points "won" are points he already had, it's essentially just stealing the ante of other people.
I think you guys have to consider that these wins include the purchase of 100s of tickets by Gimc, so in the end he's not actually profiting as much as you think, most of the points "won" are points he already had, it's essentially just stealing the ante of other people.
That sounds like a lot but we can break this down mathematically:
The average of all the pots that Gimc didn't win is 50,435,(rounded up, its 505 tickets worth) and like you said his winnings are 639400 over 11 wins, possibly ten if the 1st win didn't have a massive ticket purchase. So that's an average of only 58,127 or 63,940. So the games where Gimc won had an average of 81-135 more tickets than the games he didn't win, and those tickets came from other players, not Gimc.
That sounds like a lot but we can break this down mathematically:
The average of all the pots that Gimc didn't win is 50,435,(rounded up, its 505 tickets worth) and like you said his winnings are 639400 over 11 wins, possibly ten if the 1st win didn't have a massive ticket purchase. So that's an average of only 58,127 or 63,940. So the games where Gimc won had an average of 81-135 more tickets than the games he didn't win, and those tickets came from other players, not Gimc.
Just as an experiment, I tried comparing my general "strategy"/method to the pools since the advent of Gimc.
My strategy being to buy 1k worth of tickets (=10) every time I'm on the servers, since I usually earn >2x that amount in the time I'm on the server.
This is hypothetical, since I didn't play in all of them, but entertaining for a moment what it would be like if I had been in all of them;
Breaking this down mathematically from lowest to highest pool into some easily digestible stats:
The chance to win (win%) for any one of these pools with a 1k buy-in ranges from: Lowest win%: 0.47% Highest win%: 3.8%.
The potential multiplier of my investment (winX) with a 1k buy-in ranges from Lowest winX: 25.9x Highest winX: 215x. The average win% is 1.5%, while the median win% is 0.89% The average winX is 102x, while the median winX is 113.
That's honestly not bad at all. The fact that Gimc has >50% win% is offset by his winX being considerably lower too. I get that it feels unfair that Gimc has won so consistently. But the average gambler has a decent chance of winning as well. And if we roll all other gamblers into one vs Gimc, there's a good chance of a non-Gimc win.
I'd be more willing to entertain the idea of a cap if some uber rich gamer in the future is winning the lottery by dumping like 5 million on the lottery every day, making the win% for everyone else a pipe dream - though even then, as long as the lottery is fair in rolling, there's a chance to steal said gamer's monies if RNGesus deems him unworthy. Nevertheless, at that point, I'd feel it was actually unfair in practice - since with that many points, you'd have bought out the shop as well so any further points serves no functional purpose (except maybe bragging).
A win% of roughly 1% with a 1k buy-in to get a potential 100x return on investment, that feels pretty fair to me.
Flipping my math around, I'd have a 99% chance to lose what I throw at the average lottery right now. I'm comfortable losing 1k points every day. So I'm not peeved in the slightest that I've not won on the days I did play, nor would I have been peeved if I had played every day and lost.
Hell, even if Gimc rinses me for 14k in this thought experiment, if I had won any one of the games I would have made a minimum of 11900 points profit after offsetting all other losses.
Disclaimer: I'm way too tired to do math, so I may have made an error, but this should be accurate. Feel free to correct me otherwise.
It's absolutely a flawed system - but I think it's fine the way it is.
Your expectation should be to lose whatever you put in the lottery, with a win being a pleasant surprise.
That's true whether you're Gimc buying 1000 tickets to get an 70%, 80%, 90% or whatever chance of winning for himself - or some random schmuck buying 1 ticket and settling for the 1/1000 to win. My position remains that if you're not willing to take the odds, don't take the gamble. And if you do take the gamble, accept the result.
I also still think an equal win% lottery would be a fine addition. But I'd love to keep the no-limits, high-stakes lottery as well. It's neat.
It's already been said. A lottery is gambling, gambling has risks. Don't like the risks? Don't take them but you can't begrudge the person that does take the risk and wins -1
