Forums » General
Or just make the number random and make tickets cost 10000 each.
You bet 1 mill, thats a possibility of you getting one on every number, but doubtful.
You bet 1 mill, thats a possibility of you getting one on every number, but doubtful.
I suggested betting 1-1000 for 2 reasons.
1) It would take forever to make 1000 bets. I believe it takes almost a minute to make each one so it would take hours betting on every number.
2) Even if someone was to go through and bet every number, It would cost quite a bit of money on each number to get a high enough payout to make the bet worthwhile. ie if 3 players all pick the winning number, you would want to be the player with the largest bet so that you would get the biggest chunk of pie (mmm pie). For instance, if Fry dumped 1 billion between all numbers, there is a higher chance that he won't get the full billion back since he will only own a 1 Million share on each number. Making it more likely that I can buy a bigger chunk since I bet my entire savings of 2 million on 1 number. The overall size of the lotto might decrease, but the distribution of winnings will go to more than a select 3 or 4 players.
The idea of having a min/max price sounds interesting, but I fear that the lotto will become boring after a few times of people dumping large amounts of cash in without any return. Or the reverse that the lotto doesn't have a high enough payout to be worthwhile.
Personally, I'd love to hear that a player bets 1 cr and hits for 100 billion cr because they are the only holder of a number. It makes this more like a gamble (reminds me almost like craps or roulette without the side bets) and less of a who has the most money will always win.
1) It would take forever to make 1000 bets. I believe it takes almost a minute to make each one so it would take hours betting on every number.
2) Even if someone was to go through and bet every number, It would cost quite a bit of money on each number to get a high enough payout to make the bet worthwhile. ie if 3 players all pick the winning number, you would want to be the player with the largest bet so that you would get the biggest chunk of pie (mmm pie). For instance, if Fry dumped 1 billion between all numbers, there is a higher chance that he won't get the full billion back since he will only own a 1 Million share on each number. Making it more likely that I can buy a bigger chunk since I bet my entire savings of 2 million on 1 number. The overall size of the lotto might decrease, but the distribution of winnings will go to more than a select 3 or 4 players.
The idea of having a min/max price sounds interesting, but I fear that the lotto will become boring after a few times of people dumping large amounts of cash in without any return. Or the reverse that the lotto doesn't have a high enough payout to be worthwhile.
Personally, I'd love to hear that a player bets 1 cr and hits for 100 billion cr because they are the only holder of a number. It makes this more like a gamble (reminds me almost like craps or roulette without the side bets) and less of a who has the most money will always win.
Hmmm.
The problem with 1-1000 is it will be very rare that two players pick the same # and win. It'll also be rare that _anyone_ wins. The jackpot will rollover often.
The good things about 1-1000 are that it's hard for someone to buy up every #, and if they do, they're unlikely to own a disproportionite share of the winning #.
The problem with 1-100 is that it's easy for someone to buy up every #.
The good things about 1-100 are that it's very likely multiple players will win, and that there will be a winner each drawing.
The same logic can be applied to using 1-10. More winners, more investors".
The crude math here is that the more #s there are to pick from, the more diluted an 'investors' cash will be, but the more likely they are to be the sole winner.
The "influence" of an investor is divided by the number of #s to pick from. If there are 10 choices, a billionare can only "buy" the same influence as 100M on the right #.
I like the odds behind 1-100 better, but it'll be easier to write the UI for 1-10. Hmm.
The problem with 1-1000 is it will be very rare that two players pick the same # and win. It'll also be rare that _anyone_ wins. The jackpot will rollover often.
The good things about 1-1000 are that it's hard for someone to buy up every #, and if they do, they're unlikely to own a disproportionite share of the winning #.
The problem with 1-100 is that it's easy for someone to buy up every #.
The good things about 1-100 are that it's very likely multiple players will win, and that there will be a winner each drawing.
The same logic can be applied to using 1-10. More winners, more investors".
The crude math here is that the more #s there are to pick from, the more diluted an 'investors' cash will be, but the more likely they are to be the sole winner.
The "influence" of an investor is divided by the number of #s to pick from. If there are 10 choices, a billionare can only "buy" the same influence as 100M on the right #.
I like the odds behind 1-100 better, but it'll be easier to write the UI for 1-10. Hmm.
Have it be 1-2000 and the first 2 digits only will be 3rd place, if I get my ticket and the number is 1258 and the 3rd place number is say, 58, then I win that unless I win second or first place.
Second place would be the first three digits (in this case pretending my number is the winning one for all: 258)
First place would be all four digits.
Edit: Fixed some grammar and stuff up.
Second place would be the first three digits (in this case pretending my number is the winning one for all: 258)
First place would be all four digits.
Edit: Fixed some grammar and stuff up.
If we let the lotto roll over once in a while, it will be more like the current powerball mega jackpots because it will grow large if noone wins.
Maybe if we have 1000 numbers, you might want to consider doing a drawing more than 2x per week, possibly daily. This way we should in essense have multiple winners per week.
Maybe if we have 1000 numbers, you might want to consider doing a drawing more than 2x per week, possibly daily. This way we should in essense have multiple winners per week.
But if I run the lotto daily, then most people will be _losing_ daily, and people won't play as much. I could counteract that with a way to "sit" on a number, buying the ticket automatically using your bank account, but then the UI becomes complex.
I do like Lemming's suggestion of giving subprizes to partial matches.
I need to think about these ideas some more. I'm very busy at work right now, so I'm not sure when I'll be able to implement them. I might suspend (and refund tickets for) the next lotto until I can fix it.
Keep the suggestions coming though!
I do like Lemming's suggestion of giving subprizes to partial matches.
I need to think about these ideas some more. I'm very busy at work right now, so I'm not sure when I'll be able to implement them. I might suspend (and refund tickets for) the next lotto until I can fix it.
Keep the suggestions coming though!
Can you make it so that no one can win twice in a row? Because what happened is REALLY unfair.
have the numbers be 1-100 but you can only bet on 4:)
then ppl will win often wo/the flood idea going on
then ppl will win often wo/the flood idea going on
lottery is suspended
It's only suspended until I have time to implement a new game design, using ideas from this thread.
well thats good to know, but what have you decided to go with? are you gonna test each idea or what?
The design I have in mind will allow players to select up to 20 numbers from 0-99, and put as much money as they want on each lucky number. Each number will have to be bought separately, and you'll be allowed to put different ammounts on your chosen #s.
For all credits spent, 60% will be entered in the current lotto, 35% will be set aside for the next, and BountyBot will keep 5%.
A winning # will be drawn, and if no one picked that #, all credits will roll forward to the next lotto.
If one player picked the winning #, they win the whole jackpot.
If more than one player picked the winning #, the jackpot is split between the players that picked at a ratio equal to the ammount each player spent _on that number_.
Those are the rules I'm leaning towards right now. I might tweak them a bit. I might tweak them again after a drawing.
For all credits spent, 60% will be entered in the current lotto, 35% will be set aside for the next, and BountyBot will keep 5%.
A winning # will be drawn, and if no one picked that #, all credits will roll forward to the next lotto.
If one player picked the winning #, they win the whole jackpot.
If more than one player picked the winning #, the jackpot is split between the players that picked at a ratio equal to the ammount each player spent _on that number_.
Those are the rules I'm leaning towards right now. I might tweak them a bit. I might tweak them again after a drawing.