Durandir Darwin

Wasn't it YOUR WORLD, YOUR IMAGINATION (BUT OUR RULES)? ;-)

No Devil was approved as a skill game. *lol Somebody should try an RLO for "Toss a coin".

irihapeti wrote: Durandir Darwin wrote: I'm afraid even when the operators use skill games after September 1, these will be set with scores which always guarantee a profit to the owner. No matter how skilled you are. Mainly you do not compete against other players, but against the machine/owner. And the latter one will always keep an eye on his advantage. if is no expectation (guarantee even) of profit then is no point in pay-to-play games. the landowner/operator has to pay their tiers. the game designer has to pay their bills also if is a work of love then landowner/designer will make/operate it for love and bear these costs themself Sure, i know that. In the example i gave the profit for the owner is guaranteed (if there are players who use these machines, of course). But even a skill game can be set to a score which makes it highly impossible for everyone to beat it. The few skill games you find now on the grid are often set to these scores. Fairness here would mean that a percentage of experienced players (let's say 30%) can make a (decent) win on these machines - as these players use their skill. If 70% of (less skilled) players lose, there is a profit for the owner too. Simplified, i know, not taking into consideration the height of payment etc.

Yingzi Xue wrote: An ideal skill game would be balanced to give modest profit while having a decent payout. Both the game operator and the player win in the long run and it's a happy relationship. Such systems existed. I can remember playing on machines with skill involved, where different players competed against each other. After 5 games there was a proportional payout of 95% of the pot to the players. The owner had a guaranteed 5%. That was fun & fair. I'm afraid even when the operators use skill games after September 1, these will be set with scores which always guarantee a profit to the owner. No matter how skilled you are. Mainly you do not compete against other players, but against the machine/owner. And the latter one will always keep an eye on his advantage.

Valareos wrote: Durandir, I agree. Interesting thing though, the toppers wouldnt be against the new rules, because they dont influence game play, only payout, which is triggered on a win. If those toppers had a chance to give something less than 1x bet back, it would fall foul.. SInce the toppers can be removed and not have any impact on the game, they would not be concidered material There are toppers which have a 0.5x multiplier - so even when you "win", you get only half your money back. And I see toppers as a part of the game. Even if you don't pay in into them. They are connected to the game. The game itself does not pay out, but triggers the topper/wink.

I'm no native speaker of English, but i'd see "material" as significant, substantial. Antonyms are minor, negligible, trivial, unimportant. 90% or more of all games which you can find at arcades now do not (imho) have a substantial part of skill and only a minor part of chance. And should not be allowed as skill games according to the new regulations. In some games the outcome is additionally determined by winks, toppers. These can not be influenced by skill. They don't even give the same proportion of multipliers, that means they are scripted to have a higher probability to give a 2x than a 10x for example. Creators call that "mathematically balanced to guarantee a fair profit to the owner". If I toss a coin in RL and it is manipulated to give more heads than tails, i call it fraud...

Sorina Garrigus wrote: Finally I am not sure if your spiritual or not but are you aware the Bible does not indicate gambling is bad or a sin. It really doesn't even address it at all. It has things to say about the obsession with wealth but nothing about gambling. God even anticipated Linden Lab's skill gaming regulations: "Dishonest money dwindles away, but he who gathers money little by little makes it grow.” (Proverbs 13:11) And He/She addressed game place owners personally in the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not steal." ;-)

Sorina Garrigus wrote: ...But LL allowed Zyngo for years and has been considered by them to be a game of skill. As I recall it was demonstrated that a more experiernced skilled player can attain on average a higher score than a less experienced player.... _______________________________________________________________________________________ Do you know how Aargle defined games of skill? "A game of skill isn't a game of skill because skill makes you win; instead, it's a game of skill because your failure to apply skill prevents you from winning." In one RL lottery in my country you are allowed to mark a maximum of 6 numbers. If i mark more numbers because i'm missing the skill to count, my lottery ticket will be invalid. Failure to apply skill here (choosing 6 instead of 7 numbers) prevents me from (having the chance of) winning. So lottery is a skill game?

Sorina Garrigus wrote: "Zyngo and No Devils are not too terribly different in game play than they have been for years. Zyngo was around for over 7 years. So your implication that it is changed drastically from way back when compared to now is not accurate other than improved scripting." When the hammer fell before on gambling (JP Linden, autoplay, devils stealing points), Aargle quickly came up with a different version of Zyngo, v8.0 (Zyngo Hunt). And that one was different from other Zyngo versions: Special symbols could be found by deducting them (skill element), clicking wrong numbers resulted in a loss of points, letters (Z,Y,N,G and O) gave points a different value (each letter appeared 20 times in a game), no devils to substract points from your total score, the right order in filling a line, pattern or the board was important and so on. Sounds complicated? Then it might contain a higher percentage of skill.

Sorry, this "chance part" was probably misunderstandable (i'm no native speaker of English). If i toss a coin, it's chance, if it lands on head or tails. If a topper/wink is scripted to give 70% multipliers of 2x for payment and 30% 10x (simplified), it's not chance, but deceiving players/manipulation.

"Two private sims is not uncommon. There are some out there that are 4 sims large. A couple years ago there were game sims 6 sims big. I think there is at least one that is 6 sims large still. I am not entirely sure why you were suprised at a two sim sized gaming place. You must not have visited too many I guess. Some residents for some reason want to think of skill games as problematic activities that have been hiding in the shadows." Skill games have not been hiding in the shadows, the truth is, that most games in SL now are based on chance rather than skill. The "material part" of skill demanded is certainly not to be found in games like Zyngo v8.5 or No Devils. Loads of games now even use toppers/winks or other elements, where the amount of the payment to the players is determined by pure chance. Spinning a wheel and getting 2x, 3x or 10x of your payment. Sorry, i may have to correct myself. Not "chance", as these additional elements are of course scripted to give a much higher probability of giving a 2x than a 10x. "If the score that triggers a victory is correct, Wink always ends up (in the long run) by giving the expected profit to the owner. " (Manual of Wink) Any skill in that? No.