On 12/31/24 18:12, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote: > On 12/31/24 5:55 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > >> I think I would object to this on principle. My expectation was that >> contests would be, well, contests, rather than arbitrage on the spendy >> -> candle conversion rate. > Even with the double risk element (risk that another participant wins > instead, and risk that *no one* wins)? > > I could understand objecting to something that was a direct arbitrage > without risk -- that's why I built in the without 2 objections > requirement. If players can't come out ahead in expectation, though, > that really dampens incentive to play contests at all. (If I can get X > radiance directly, or X in expectation but with a risk, why wouldn't I > just take the direct X in most cases?) >
I mean, that's certainly better, but I guess I was imagining some form of skill being required. These were pitched as minigames or small tournaments. I'll think about it, I guess (and it's moot if nobody else would object anyway). -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor
