所有案件
Open Face Chinese Poker 的案件
#149620: "Please give us customisable Point and Hand limits"
rejected: 開發者認為這並非好主意,或投資報酬率過低
1
這是關於哪方面的案件?
發生什麼事? 請從下方選擇
建議:依我所見,有些調整將大幅增進遊戲完成度
細節描述
• 請簡明精確地解釋你的建議,以便讓人一目了然。
Is there any chance we could have an option to start the game with 0 points and scores go into the negatives so we can play the entire game out in its entirety? I'm not a fan of the game ending in half the turns because someone has had a strong start, not giving the opponent a chance to come back from it. (This can be a relatively common occurance in Lowball if you can stay in Fantasy Land a couple of times)
I would also like to ask for a customisable hand limit, i'd love an endless mode or the ability to have a limitless 50 - 100 hand session with friends, but I see this has been addressed a rejected before.
The 12 hand game would be sufficiently long without the 100 point cap though if it were possible.
Thanks in advance!• 你的瀏覽器是什麼?
Google Chrome v131
案件沿革
2024年12月15日 21:08 •
2024年12月16日 1:33 •
FrankJones • 開發者認為這並非好主意,或投資報酬率過低:
2025年 6月 6日 16:30 • Why was this rejected?
Playing this game for 6 hands is a joke. It's obviously a high-variance game where the better player often loses. That's why only 2 players are above 300 Elo.
If a 12-hand match is agreed upon by both players, the match should go 12 hands.
100 units is the minimum buy-in in any setting, not the maximum. Playing 12 hands with 100 units makes no sense. Not when individual hands can be 50-60 points.
What would be the big deal about allowing the game host to set the game to simply play 12 hands, and the higher score wins, without having the "bankrupt" setting end the game early?
I understand not wanting to bother making a setting for longer than 12 hands, since that is already only 10% of the games. But this post is suggesting eliminating the bankrupt feature, which for me, ended a 12-hand game on hand 4. That doesn't make sense.
Don't we want a game where the better players can actually win consistently?
Playing this game for 6 hands is a joke. It's obviously a high-variance game where the better player often loses. That's why only 2 players are above 300 Elo.
If a 12-hand match is agreed upon by both players, the match should go 12 hands.
100 units is the minimum buy-in in any setting, not the maximum. Playing 12 hands with 100 units makes no sense. Not when individual hands can be 50-60 points.
What would be the big deal about allowing the game host to set the game to simply play 12 hands, and the higher score wins, without having the "bankrupt" setting end the game early?
I understand not wanting to bother making a setting for longer than 12 hands, since that is already only 10% of the games. But this post is suggesting eliminating the bankrupt feature, which for me, ended a 12-hand game on hand 4. That doesn't make sense.
Don't we want a game where the better players can actually win consistently?
為本案件添加內容
任何可能重現這項錯誤或了解你的建議之相關資訊,都請在此填寫:
- 其他同樣狀況的桌號/步數
- 按 F5 是否解決了這個問題?
- 問題是否發生了好幾次?每次都發生?時好時壞?
- 建議將此錯誤的螢幕截圖上傳到 Imgur.com 並轉貼連結。