Some help in game design from the experts

ohnevo

ohnevo

New Member
Hi Forum Members,

I am lead game designer of a new online BJ Tournament in one of the biggest online gaming companies. I am finalizing my design documentation and recommendations soon and expect that in 6 month the product will be out there. It should be a lot better then the ones out there right now. Be sure that I read your reviews on other applications and I have drawn conclusions. I have been planning this for quite a while and I need some tips from you experts.

About advancing from level to level. I have a problem understanding what is the best way to take X amount of registered players and build a tournament tree (Levels and number of tables). Here is some question examples:
How many people you think should advance from a 6 people table? Is 2 OK? is 1 too little? Is 3 too much?
How would you organize a 13 people tournament? 1st level will have to be 4, 4, and 5 people in each table. How many more levels? How many should advance from a 4 people table?
Let's say that in a certain tournament there are 5 tables in the first level, should there be 2 more levels? 3 more levels? What is too many levels? How about 7 tables in the first level? How many more levels are needed to supply both fun and advancement based on skill?

One more thing, what is more common to use as the amount of money need to be paid to register to a tournament? Buy-in or Entry fee?

Would you guys be interested in a scheduled tournament that all players get the same cards? no one sees each others actions but the true winner will be based more on skill than luck. Is this kind of tournament a gimic or is it actually intersting?

Thanks for taking the time to read my questions,
I'll post updates on our development and will be happy to give post some creative sketches when ready to get your opinions.

If you have more tips, questions or anything else, please write in this thread and I will try to comply.

Thanks again,
Ohnevo
 
Another question

I actually had one more questions.
How do you guys feel about ranking players? Would you like to have us (as the application) rank you guys according to how well you played in the tournaments? Would you like to know it? would you like other players to know what is your rank? Will you play more if you knew that the leader ranked player every month gets a big money prize?

Would you like some sort of one on one games where you play against people from your ranking level?
Would you like special tournaments for high rankers?

Any other idea or wishes? Please let me know,

Cheers mates,
Ohnevo
 
Curious...

Reading your questions, I get the feeling that your experience playing BJT is limited.

Mind you, one of your ideas (same cards to everybody) is very imaginative and deserve more thought. Off hand, I would say it would transform radically the actual game (a betting game) and make it more closer to a card game like duplicate bridge. It would surely be a novelty.
 
Ohnevo,

There are SEVERAL members on this board who are VERY qualified to help you. Then there are people like ME, who will give you lots of answers.

I would LOVE to help you if you answer this ONE simple question - Will your site be open to US players?
 
Archie said:
Reading your questions, I get the feeling that your experience playing BJT is limited.

Mind you, one of your ideas (same cards to everybody) is very imaginative and deserve more thought. Off hand, I would say it would transform radically the actual game (a betting game) and make it more closer to a card game like duplicate bridge. It would surely be a novelty.
Click to expand...
Hi Archie,

I admit that my experience as a player is limited. I have been watching some BJT's in Vegas and have been playing a lot in the existing applications. My vast experience is online game product development and that is why I need a some cosuling.

Same cards game will definetaly be a separate game from the regular BJ and will be more of an extra feature in the application.

A bit more about this idea:
The game will be played exactly like regular BJT, players could see their competitors bets but couldn't see the cards they draw. (because they would draw the same cards). Actions, like split, double, hit or stand will be shown but naturally without the results. After everyone played their hand, the cards and results will be shown.

The question is do you think it will just be a betting game regardless of the BJ or will it actually be a more accurate BJ Skill game?
 
fgk42 said:
Ohnevo,

There are SEVERAL members on this board who are VERY qualified to help you. Then there are people like ME, who will give you lots of answers.

I would LOVE to help you if you answer this ONE simple question - Will your site be open to US players?
Click to expand...
Hi fgk42,

I am designing the game for a gaming software provider, not a gaming operator. I know some of operators do not open thier games to US players but at this point I cannot know. I am sure you guys could play my designed game in the future. There are a lot of operators that allow US players to register.
 
ohnevo said:
Same cards game will definetaly be a separate game from the regular BJ and will be more of an extra feature in the application.

A bit more about this idea:
The game will be played exactly like regular BJT, players could see their competitors bets but couldn't see the cards they draw. (because they would draw the same cards). Actions, like split, double, hit or stand will be shown but naturally without the results. After everyone played their hand, the cards and results will be shown.
Click to expand...
This is a very interesting idea (and one which was discussed here a few months ago), but I don't see any way to offer it safely online. Collusion takes on a whole new meaning when one player could tell another player exactly what card they'll be getting. I would not play this online.
 
KenSmith said:
Collusion takes on a whole new meaning when one player could tell another player exactly what card they'll be getting. I would not play this online.
Click to expand...

How about if the value of the next card is shown as soon as it is dealt, which must be after everybody has specified their action?

E.g.
  • Hand is 8,8
  • Player A hits
  • Player B splits
  • Player C stands
  • The next card is then revealed, a 4.
  • Player A stands on 20
  • Player B has to decide what to do with his 8,4, before going on to play his second split hand.

Is there a scenario in which this approach cannot work?

Wong describes 'Blackjack Matchplay' in his book. He says it's a two-player game, which suggests there might be a problem scenario with more than two players. But I can't think what it would be.
 
Idle thoughts

I can envisage two variants of such a game.

In one, all you see is your own hand and the cards (if any) you draw to it. You might try to second-guess what your opponents are doing with the same hand (e.g. should you hit 12 vs dealer 4, in the hope of a swing against someone following BS and standing? Might they be doing the same thing against you? :confused: ). Only when everyone has played the hand to completion do you get the big revelation and see the new BRs.

In the other, you see everybody's hands develop one card at a time. There's no concept of right-to-left action. In the 12 vs 4 example, you still don't know what the others have done until everbody has acted. However, if you hit and an opponent stood and you are still on a stiff total, you now have the knowledge that you could stand to match their result or hit again to try for the swing.
 
Replying

Thanks for the tip Ken. Actually, collusion can prevent this kind of tournament from succeeding.

Another solution for this would be that only the first 2 cards of everybody is the same. Once a player hits, the next cards are different. Therefore collusion will not help because after you made your decision the cards are different.

This solution will still be skill orientated and will prevent fraud.

About my other questions, guys, how many people would you like to see progressed to the next level from a 6 table game? Would you prefer more levels (progressing many each time) or less levels (progressing small number of people from each level)?

Thanks,
Ohnevo
 
The fewer the better

Too many levels, I've experienced, makes the game too long (e.g. UBT freerools regularly get between 300 and 1200 entries. I've been in a game there lasting close to 4 hours and that is too much unless the prize at the end is worth the effort). Keep any regular game under one hour (at most 90 minutes).

Unless the number of players warrants it or the Prize Pool makes it a game players won't want to miss, I would try to keep it to a maximum of 3, exceptionally 4 levels, with a minimum of 2 players advancing (tables of 5 players or less, in my mind, should not have more than two players advancing). Three players advancing is interesting when you have at least 6 players at the table : it's fun right off the bat because everybody thinks they have a really good chance of getting to the next level.

Whatever you do, don't introduce wildcards (this gimmick produced collusion and stalling on one very good site who offers, otherwise, an excellent product and excellent service).

The tree at Bet21 is pretty good in my mind (e.g. under 14 players, they make it a two level game, 3 players advancing; you could go to three levels by making 2 tables of 5 and one table of 4, two players per table advancing in the first round, then three per table advancing to the final table in the second round).

I'm pleased to help you in any way I can.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Archie that the tree the Bet21 uses is pretty good. However, their maximum table size is 7 players and I got that by your context that you were using a maximum table size of 6. Given a max table size of 7, here is what Bet21 uses (54 plus is just speculation)

Code: 
Players  Starting   # to advance 
            Tables        Rd1    Rd2   Rd3

8-14        2             3
15-21      3             2
22-28      4             3        3
29-35      5             4        2 (7,7,6 in rd 2)
36-41      6             2        3
42-47      7             2        3
48-53      8             3        3      3
54-59      9             2        2   
60-65      10           2        2

The gener rule is that 2 or 3 should advance with 2 being the general preference. Most players seem to dislike rounds where 1 advance.
 
That's great feedback

Thank you guys.

I think, using toonces's code, I'll define a new code for my application stating exactly how the tree behaves for each number of players until a certain high limit. A very high number of player's tournament will probably follow these rules:

  • Always try to open as less tables as possible in the first level (max 6 in table).
  • From every table with 5-6 players, there will be 2 or three people advancing
  • In a table with 4 people there will be 1 or 2 advancing
  • In the first levels, less players will advance from each table
  • In the final levels, more players will advance from each table

Cheers guys, good feedback.

Last thing I was asking about:
Does anyone use the term buy-in for a tournament or in BJT the term for the amount of money paid for entering a tournament is always 'Entry Fee'?
 
The Queen's English...

"entry fee" is fine with me, but "buy-in" seems to be the more prevalent terminology on the North American sites I've been on.
 
ohnevo said:
Thank you guys.

I think, using toonces's code, I'll define a new code for my application stating exactly how the tree behaves for each number of players until a certain high limit. A very high number of player's tournament will probably follow these rules:
  • Always try to open as less tables as possible in the first level (max 6 in table).
Online line you may have to go with max of 5 players due to the size.
  • From every table with 5-6 players, there will be 2 or three people advancing
I agree you should ALWAYS advance a minimum of 2 players from each table, throughout the tournament.
  • In a table with 4 people there will be 1 or 2 advancing
See above.
  • In the first levels, less players will advance from each table
Depends on the number of entries and re-buys.
  • In the final levels, more players will advance from each table
See above.

Cheers guys, good feedback.

Last thing I was asking about:
Does anyone use the term buy-in for a tournament or in BJT the term for the amount of money paid for entering a tournament is always 'Entry Fee'?
Click to expand...
Normally it is an "Entry fee" to get into the tournamnets and a "Buy-in" is when the event is using live money. The "Buy-in" is what it cost in live money once at the tables. Then you have the "Re-Buy" which actually is an entry fee for half the original entry fee back into the tournament if you don't advance from the first round.

Very inport to add re-buys to your program, it will offer your players more then one chance to adavnce and build your prize pool up.
 
Re-Buys

Hi TXtourplayer,

About re-buys, I thought a lot about whether to implement this feature and actually decided not to. I'll tell you why and please let me know if you agree with me or not.

In land based casino this feature is of major importance. A person can travel around the country or internationally for a game only to be kicked out in the first level. But in online, if you are out, go play another game in the click of a button. No dramas, just choose another game.

Another reason is that re-buyers go back to the same level they were kicked out of and play the level all over again. They cannot enter a game in the middle, they have to start new tables and play from the beginning again (30 hands all over again). In land based, qualifying players don't mind the waiting, they can go to a bar or rest, but in online everything needs to happen fast. No one wants to wait 20 minutes for re-buyers to finish their rounds.

Therefore I see the importance in land based but not in online.
Maybe very big monthly or yearly online competitions are worth the effort.

What do you think? Is there something I am not seeing? Is there a way to implement re-buy not as I described and have it work?

Please let me know what you think.
Thanks,
Oren
 
Last edited:
Global-Player had great success with them...

I think re-buys dhould be added to you events. Besides the extra chances for players, you add first chances for anyone running late and the and the added prize pool is worth sitting around for, for anyone who advances in their first attempt.

Most online events only last 15 hands, maybe a little longer, nothing to drag the game out to long. So the entire event shouldn't last more then 3 - 3 1/2 hours at most. I think most players wouldn't have an issue with this time frame if the tournamnets were run well and had staff from the casino online for contacting in case of any problems, (Global-Player was great about this).

Of course this all may be a mood point for players in the US anyway, unless the internet gambling ban is lifted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top