Durandir Darwin Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Madelaine McMasters wrote: I think I read that payment into skill games can only be done from PIOF accounts. That's another dissuasion, no? depends I suppose on how LL interpret it. What we do know is that the US Justice Dept is enforcing US law when it comes to US corporations recieving and paying out real money. both on and offline. So all the changes for residents that LL have put in place recently regarding US$ in and out of their service iIs not just LL doing this. All US companies are making these kinda changes also. According to US law, US corporations must know who it is in the real world they are transferring real money to/from + for L$ only inworld it may be different. Seems like it might be different given that so far L$ transfers between residents ingame are not caught in the US law at this time according to what LL have said so far. Conversion L$->US$ and US$<-L$ is the law/rule at this time. Might change in the future this. dunno anyone can easy enough get PIOF on their account. Can just buy something for L$0 on MP and get this PIOF on your account. Dunno whether this PIOF satisfy US law but that is something for LL to deal with and not us dunno why can get PIOF on your account by buy something for nothing on MP. It dont seem to be the PIOF that we used to have where to get it then had to supply RL details. So dunno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 about fair is subjective this. People stop playing a game when they think is unfair. So market rules in that sense I suppose for example in SL most L$ reward games tend to be split 80% payback to players. 20% rake split between creator/owner/operator(s) imo I think this is grossly unfair. If the rake on any game is greater than 2% then I dont play it. Is a regression formula the rake. example: $100 - 20% = $80 - 20% = $64 ... over the long run then on avg. 10 turns/plays you only got $2.70 left out of the $100 you started with people sometimes think that when they lose then they was unlucky. They werent unlucky. The rake killed them when they won + 2% goes: 100 - 2% = 98 - 2% = 96.04 ... after 10 turns the player still got $83.30 left to play with + if running a 20% rake game then imo the operator is running a bust-out joint. Take the resident/players money as quick as can. bust them fast am not sure why SL operators dont seem to know this. Maybe some do and dont much care. dunno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Guy Gossamer wrote: You brought up "deduce, and then apply, a hidden algorithm" in your initial reply to me. So, to be blunt, I haven't a clue what your point is any more, and I'm not even sure you know. I know the rules of chess on a very basic level, barely, but I don't know what the millions of potential moves are, but, does that mean that because I don't know how to really play it, that it shouldn't be a game of skill? Is there a rule that suggests I go and learn 'the rules' before I play? The point you are missing, is if you are not playing a real person, you are playing an alogorithm. So, if in one game you are playing an alogoritm having learned the rules, how is it different to playing an alogorithm in a different game with different rules that you also have to learn? I'm speaking clearly from the players point of view, just in case. What you are suggesting is that you may take a strategic move based on the possibility that a computerized game of chess ( alogorithm) may make a move to take a piece allowing you a further move in your strategy, is different to a computerized game of any type giving you an option or not based on an alogorithm, like I suggested with Candy Crush. Just because you know the rules of chess and a lot of others do too, doesn't make any other type of skill game less of a skill game, in my eyes, and a lot of other peoples eyes too, including most importantly legislators. As for your question about doing stuff in order, I believe that refers to the speculation of others on how games are won or not. I'm guessing there is a type of 'doing things in order' mechanism to winning at chess? (I'm sure everybody is informed of that beforehand) Point of order. You don't play games against an algorithm. You play against a programme. An algorithm is a part of a programme, although it may constitute the whole programme. If it does constitute a whole programme, then it's a very tiny programme and would be too tiny to be an actual game. Just thought I'd mention that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Valareos wrote: In the end, still becomes how Linden Labs interprest,s and as others have pointed out, they making it vauge and requiring US to get legal advice if we want to create a game. Just a quick point. Linden Lab doesn't have to interpret it. Either a rezzed game is pay-in or it's not. If it is pay-in,then either it's pay-out or it's not. If it is pay-out as well, then either it and the operator are licensed or they're not. If either is not then it's against the ToS and LL will deal with it on that basis. Whether or not it's on the right type of land also comes into it. My point is that LL doesn't have to make any judgment as to skill and chance at all. They only have to check whether or not it satisfies the above. They don't even have to make that judgment when licensing a game. The creator's lawyer does that for them and, as long as a reputable lawyer vouches for the game, then LL only needs to accept that. They don't need to check the skill and chance levels of each game as a license is applied for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 @those who are involved in the current skill-chance discussion (not just you Yingzi) This is the way i see it... It doesn't matter what LL means by the words they used. It looks like they are not going to tell us but it doesn't matter. The only thing that really matters is a what a suitable lawyer thinks it means for each game that s/he's shown. If a lawyer thinks a certain game is compliant with the new rules, and the creator gets what's needed from the lawyer, LL will license the game, perhaps after giving it a cursory glance. If the very same game is presented to a different lawyer who thought that it infringed the new rules, the creator wouldn't get what's needed from the lawyer, and the game wouldn't be licensed. Imo, this is all about LL washing their hands of any judgement calls, and making them the legal responsibility of the creators. So LL doesn't need to clarify the skill/chance part and what they meant by 'material'. They can happily leave all that to suitable lawyers, which, imo, is exactly what they've done. All LL will need to do is deal with any black and white infringements concerning licenses or not, type of land, pay-in, pay-out, etc. They do not need to make any judgement calls concerning skill and chance at any time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 irihapeti wrote: <snip> anyone can easy enough get PIOF on their account. Can just buy something for L$0 on MP and get this PIOF on your account. Dunno whether this PIOF satisfy US law but that is something for LL to deal with and not us dunno why can get PIOF on your account by buy something for nothing on MP. It dont seem to be the PIOF that we used to have where to get it then had to supply RL details. So dunno If memory serves me correctly when it was announced that PIOF would be required to open a store on the MP some of the Merchants pointed out this little problem and LL fixed it. There was a Thread about it down in the Merchants sub-forum but I'm too lazy to dig it out right now. If I feel more energetic later maybe I will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yingzi Xue Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Phil Deakins wrote: @those who are involved in the current skill-chance discussion (not just you Yingzi) This is the way i see it... It doesn't matter what LL means by the words they used. It looks like they are not going to tell us but it doesn't matter. The only thing that really matters is a what a suitable lawyer thinks it means for each game that s/he's shown. If a lawyer thinks a certain game is compliant with the new rules, and the creator gets what's needed from the lawyer, LL will license the game. If the very same game is presented to a different lawyer who thought that it infringed the new rules, the creator wouldn't get what's needed from the lawyer, and the game wouldn't be licensed. Imo, this is all about LL washing their hands of any judgement calls, and making them the legal responsibility of the creators. So LL doesn't need to clarify the skill/chance part and what they meant by 'material'. They can happily leave all that to suitable lawyers, which, imo, is exactly what they've done. All LL will need to do is deal with any infringements, and they do not need to make any judgement calls at any time. I agree with what you're saying. It's just wishful thinking on my part. I remain skeptical that the wagering policy has been adhered to over the years. I suppose we'll find out eventually, when/if approved games get put to the legal test sometime in the future. If one game finds its way into hot water, the rest may fall like dominos. If it never happens I'll be surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 It's interesting to discuss it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yingzi Xue Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Phil Deakins wrote: It's interesting to discuss it though. Agreed. With that said, time for me to take a back seat to this thread, sit back and watch with some popcorn and see where it goes. :smileywink: Sorina should be posting any minute now. *grin* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Yingzi Xue wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: It's interesting to discuss it though. Agreed. With that said, time for me to take a back seat to this thread, sit back and watch with some popcorn and see where it goes. :smileywink: Sorina should be posting any minute now. *grin* LMAO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 irihapeti wrote: anyone can easy enough get PIOF on their account. Can just buy something for L$0 on MP and get this PIOF on your account. Dunno whether this PIOF satisfy US law but that is something for LL to deal with and not us dunno why can get PIOF on your account by buy something for nothing on MP. It dont seem to be the PIOF that we used to have where to get it then had to supply RL details. So dunno I think that loophole has been closed retroactively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Madelaine McMasters wrote: irihapeti wrote: anyone can easy enough get PIOF on their account. Can just buy something for L$0 on MP and get this PIOF on your account. Dunno whether this PIOF satisfy US law but that is something for LL to deal with and not us dunno why can get PIOF on your account by buy something for nothing on MP. It dont seem to be the PIOF that we used to have where to get it then had to supply RL details. So dunno I think that loophole has been closed retroactively. Well, I got energetic. Here was the Thread in the Merchant's Forum: http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Merchants/LL-Are-you-even-aware-of-this/m-p/2321507/highlight/true#M46689 As far as the fix being retroactive, that I am not sure about. Sassy's test account she did for that Thread still shows PIOF: https://my.secondlife.com/sassthelass And the item she made is still listed for sale: https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p/New-Note/5518102 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Snugs got PIOF after trying that maneuver. That has since vanished. So, I don't know what conclusion to draw! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Madelaine McMasters wrote: Snugs got PIOF after trying that maneuver. That has since vanished. So, I don't know what conclusion to draw! The law of random probabilities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Gossamer Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 How about we go 50/50 on this :matte-motes-nerdy: I would say the calculation, processing and reasoning done by the alogorithm is what you are playing against, and that the programme is what is delivering the result visually, or similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richh Devin Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sorina Garrigus Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Madelaine McMasters wrote: I've only skimmed the thread, so I could be way off base here... What's the bigger issue; what constitutes "skill" or the size of the Skill Game Region license costs (both the direct fee and the time and external cost of registration for the region/game)? I don't know what the costs might be, but I wonder what L$ volume a game would have to move to make such fees tolerable. If the fees end up being exhorbitant (what Linden fee here isn't ;-), and If the only way to avoid the fee is to eliminate any payment into the system by players, then the skill/chance discussion is moot. The only games here will be those in which nobody pays to enter. Did I get this wrong? ETA: I think I read that payment into skill games can only be done from PIOF accounts. That's another dissuasion, no? I had to do some googling what you meant by PIOF. As it is not a common enough used term even within SL to have it abbreviated. But the way it works is only those that have payment information on file can even enter a given gaming sim and from there only those that where playing games of skill can enter such a sim that are not from states or countries that do not allow their citizens from playing games of skill in a pay and win scenario. On what constitutes skill that is tricky but that is what the reasoned legal opinions are in the approval process for so LL has something on file that the game was presented as skill based. Games can have random elements and LL allows for that as long as thoes elements are NOT the predominant factor in determining the players success. Backgammon is a tested game that has clear elements of skill and chance for example but the skill outweighs the chance. How specifically LL will "determine" that I am not sure other than they will putting responsibility on the operator and game creator entirely. The Linden fees have yet to be fully disclosed. There is an unstated quarterly fee that they have not said what it will be. This is a major issue and they need to disclose this prior to anyone entering into any kind of agreement. They can just say oh ... the quarterly fees are $1000 us dollars. Its things like that which LL needs to be more transparent rather than effectively say ....... meh .... we will tell you later .... maybe. Not exactly profressional. "and If the only way to avoid the fee is to eliminate any payment into the system by players, then the skill/chance discussion is moot" If by that you mean using some external money system say like bit coin or some other non direct to SL way of paying to play, that won't fly because the activity is taking place their servers. If that was kosher then there would be full casinos all over SL now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillon Levenque Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 Sorina Garrigus wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: I've only skimmed the thread, so I could be way off base here... What's the bigger issue; what constitutes "skill" or the size of the Skill Game Region license costs (both the direct fee and the time and external cost of registration for the region/game)? I don't know what the costs might be, but I wonder what L$ volume a game would have to move to make such fees tolerable. If the fees end up being exhorbitant (what Linden fee here isn't ;-), and If the only way to avoid the fee is to eliminate any payment into the system by players, then the skill/chance discussion is moot. The only games here will be those in which nobody pays to enter. Did I get this wrong? ETA: I think I read that payment into skill games can only be done from PIOF accounts. That's another dissuasion, no? I had to do some googling what you meant by PIOF. As it is not a common enough used term even within SL to have it abbreviated. Wow, you need to get out more. It's a very common term and one that applies ONLY here in Second Life, to the best of my knowledge. I'd seen it used when I'd been here a month. I did have to look it up then, mind you. But it is used all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 Sorina Garrigus wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: I've only skimmed the thread, so I could be way off base here... What's the bigger issue; what constitutes "skill" or the size of the Skill Game Region license costs (both the direct fee and the time and external cost of registration for the region/game)? I don't know what the costs might be, but I wonder what L$ volume a game would have to move to make such fees tolerable. If the fees end up being exhorbitant (what Linden fee here isn't ;-), and If the only way to avoid the fee is to eliminate any payment into the system by players, then the skill/chance discussion is moot. The only games here will be those in which nobody pays to enter. Did I get this wrong? ETA: I think I read that payment into skill games can only be done from PIOF accounts. That's another dissuasion, no? I had to do some googling what you meant by PIOF. As it is not a common enough used term even within SL to have it abbreviated. But the way it works is only those that have payment information on file can even enter a given gaming sim and from there only those that where playing games of skill can enter such a sim that are not from states or countries that do not allow their citizens from playing games of skill in a pay and win scenario. On what constitutes skill that is tricky but that is what the reasoned legal opinions are in the approval process for so LL has something on file that the game was presented as skill based. Games can have random elements and LL allows for that as long as thoes elements are NOT the predominant factor in determining the players success. Backgammon is a tested game that has clear elements of skill and chance for example but the skill outweighs the chance. How specifically LL will "determine" that I am not sure other than they will putting responsibility on the operator and game creator entirely. The Linden fees have yet to be fully disclosed. There is an unstated quarterly fee that they have not said what it will be. This is a major issue and they need to disclose this prior to anyone entering into any kind of agreement. They can just say oh ... the quarterly fees are $1000 us dollars. Its things like that which LL needs to be more transparent rather than effectively say ....... meh .... we will tell you later .... maybe. Not exactly profressional. "and If the only way to avoid the fee is to eliminate any payment into the system by players, then the skill/chance discussion is moot" If by that you mean using some external money system say like bit coin or some other non direct to SL way of paying to play, that won't fly because the activity is taking place their servers. If that was kosher then there would be full casinos all over SL now. I'm saying that if, to play a skill game, you must have payment information on file, and that the game operator must pay a substantial license fee, then I don't think there will be any licensed skill games in SL. If LL can satisfy the legal requirements for the quality of their anti-gambling radar (the new TOS and licensing mechanisms?) then I suppose they're off the hook for people who fly under it. I don't know what will be required to fly under it, but I imagine it'll be tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 Sorina Garrigus wrote: I had to do some googling what you meant by PIOF. 'PIOF' is extremely common here in the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirhc DeSantis Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 I have to add..you pontificate and did not know what PIOF is the common abbreviation of in SL? And you claim to be involved with this? In what capacity? I learned it within a day.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 Guy Gossamer wrote: How about we go 50/50 on this :matte-motes-nerdy: I would say the calculation, processing and reasoning done by the alogorithm is what you are playing against, and that the programme is what is delivering the result visually, or similar. Nope. Not even 50/50 An algorithm is the design of piece of programming that does a specific thing and nothing else. Performing calculations, for instance, can involve a number of them before the final result is arrived at. When a chess programme works out its next move, it needs a number of programmes (parts of the whole) to do it, and each part has its own design - its own algorithm. A flow chart is a good way of thinking of an algorithm. If the flow chart is complete in itself, and is the whole programme, then the flow chart is both the programme and the algorithm. But if it calls other functions and procedures, then it's calling other small programmes that have their own algorithms, and they in turn may call more. More specifically, it's the design of the flow chart that's the algorithm. The same result can be achieved in various ways (various designs), and each is a different algorithm - a different way of doing it. Using LSL as an example: A game programme will almost certainly include various functions. Each of those functions is a small programme in its own right and the design of it - the way it works - is its algorithm. The design of the main part of the programme is also its algorithm, of course. So we don't play against "an algorithm". We play against a programme which encompasses various algorithms. I know that the word 'algorithm' is often misused in this forum - probably always - and I don't know why, unless it's intended to imply a degree of programming knowledge by the writers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Gossamer Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 Never heard of PIOF before until this thread either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Gossamer Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 That might be true if you are speaking about a very specific alogorithm that does "a specific thing and nothing else". Most of the definitions of an alogorithm I have read (I don't need to reference as you seem intelligent enough to do a little google search all of your own) suggest that an alogoithm is a piece of programming that is used for calculating, processing, automating or reasoning something. I believe it is fair to say, it is an alogorithm (not defining specifically which one) that is responsible for processing, calculating, reasoning and automating the moves of a computer based chess program, for example. So, for instance, if you talk about LSL, in a game someone created, it is the alogorithm that determines, when, where, which colour, how often, to what degree of probability certain things will happen when a player does X. If is not the programme, or the functions, it is the alogorithm. As a result, to my mind, the player is playing against an alogorithm (I use 'an' loosely). I don't know why people might use or misuse the word alogorithm, and I really don't care. I'm taking back my 50/50. :matte-motes-big-grin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now