Could you please put a colored background (a nice light blue would look good) behind the bonus winner in the list of pond participants on any pond page just like you put a grey background around me in any pond I'm in? Please? ;-)
Thad: personally, I think that may not be the best idea. This particular pond is a great example as to why. There are 5 pawns entered as of now, that would mean that there would be frozen bids for the first 5 rounds at least.Add to that that these huge ponds don't occur very often, those 5 pawns could easily affect bidding for 10-25 rounds. I think the way it is now is best. the pawns bids don't matter, play the pond as if they aren't there
I'd like to see the way Ponds work changed. I think a player should make his (or her) first move when he signs up. Thta way, everyone's first move would be made and all the confusion about players falling with a zero bid and the lowest other bid also falling in round one could be eliminated. Not much else would change. The pond would still appear on your list of ponds once it has started and you could edit your first bid just like any other bid. I see no drawbacks to this change.
This game would be better of you were required to make your opening bid when you signed up. That way, there wouldn't be any confusion over how the first round bids differ from all the other rounds. Of course you could still change your opening bid once the game starts. Essentially, the game would start as soon as you sign up, but the timer would not start until the minimum number of players signed up or the starting deadline was reached.
joshi tm: I see what you mean, there are people that bid higher in the first round and then lower in later rounds., and there are people who will bid smaller toward the end but not nessecarrily with less than 2000 points left, pawns cause some of this bidding also. I guess that I don't see being observant the same as cheating.
joshi tm< I'm talking about the current round, where Brian fell in with a 598, Alan stayed in with 667 and the next closest bid was backoff with a 1222. so it fits your criteria of the next lowest bid being 200 points lower than the next (595 in this case).
Vikings: No, because FANTAS had the lowest bid of 53 (after bidding everything he has), and in that round he has the lowest inside the criteria. so 200 under the last bid of FANTAS would be -147, and is all fair again.
joshi tm: under your criterea, AlanP's bid in this pond http://brainking.com/en/Pond?bms=21&g=2875 would be considered cheating when in fact it was a good and gutsy bid,there was a logic to the bid that only he followed, yet you would have him punnished by falling in? these bids happen in many games
How different do you thing these Pond games would be with different starting values and bonus amounts? It seems to me that if the number of players is fairly small (under 20) that running out of points rarely becomes an issue. If we started with only 1000 instead of 20,000 then play would be different.
I'd like to see changes made to BK so that the creator of teh Pond can set the initial number of points and the value of the bonus.
Rose: Yes this play is not correct. So my suggestion is when a bid is way lower than the lowest bid in the last round (say 200 pts), if this is not almost all they have (say, max 2000 pts left), this bid doesn't count as the lowest (while falling in), the next player with the lowest bid falls also in, and so on till a player ''succeeds'' for these criteria. This way stops that advantagous playing Viking told about, for me that is called CHEATING.
In a rainy pond, I think it makes sense, when more than one person falls out in the same round, for example when there ends up being a 4 way tie for first place, that the true order of finish should be determined by the player with the most points left? That way there would be no ties unless two or more people actually had the same amount of points when they fell in! It might add a bit more strategy to the bidding, and end the multitude of games that end with multiple winners. (or more precisely, no winners and a multitude of people tied for first place)
Rose: well Im sorry but I also see it as colusion and cheating....that wave has been on that game since round 1....How did Rady know WHEN to vote low unless he was in colusion with her....just my 2 bobs worth....and if Fencer dont think it is cheating that is only his opinion, even if he does own the site...
Rose: First of all please refrain from accusations on this board, 2nd Rady is not the first to catch this, 3rd, the waving signal is on many other games about to go to the next round. MY SUGGESTION IS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT!!, I WILL
BerniceC: at first appearance it does, but, however if you look at her message above the game she has an Icon waving, he has done this in at least one other game that I noticed yesterday, so I think that she is showing constistancy in his actions and therefore cannot be considered colusion but rather a good pickup by those that have caught it
no. it starts at round 12, which is the last where pyssso could bid. he bid 922, which is 1 more than the 2nd best, giving him 500. he's left with 882. round 13, the system trys to bids for him again 922, which is more than he's got, so it bids the 882 left. it's the best bid, so he gets 500. round 14 and 15 same story, the system bids 500 which is the best bid. he can't get under 500.