Thread Rating:

gordonm888
gordonm888
Joined: Feb 18, 2015
  • Threads: 38
  • Posts: 2567
Thanks for this post from:
RealizeGaming
April 29th, 2020 at 8:59:52 AM permalink
The new game is pretty good. But by flattening the payouts for straight, flush and high pairs the game has lost some of its fun. No worrying about upgrading a pair to flush, or a flush to a straight. And, at 1 unit, it doesn't seem to matter anyway. The 9 card board is usually 'lousy' with pairs, flushes and straights and so I didn't pay any attention - I mainly searched for possible 3oak's, SF's and Royals.

I don't mean to be critical - this may be your best (most viable) version of a payout table. And the game will play quicker with the reduced complexity.
So many better men, a few of them friends, were dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things lived on, and so did I.
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 108
  • Posts: 6914
Thanks for this post from:
RealizeGaming
April 29th, 2020 at 11:33:41 AM permalink
Quote: gordonm888

But by flattening the payouts for straight, flush and high pairs the game has lost some of its fun. No worrying about upgrading a pair to flush, or a flush to a straight.



Lost most of its fun. Just look for SF, 3 oa K. Rest is mindless. I was up a lot because I hit a mini Royal and quite a few SF's. But having 3 flushes and one straight but losing $6 out of $10 doesn't feel appetizing.

Would not play as presently constructed.
RealizeGaming
RealizeGaming
Joined: Aug 1, 2013
  • Threads: 57
  • Posts: 581
April 29th, 2020 at 3:45:26 PM permalink
Quote: gordonm888

The new game is pretty good. But by flattening the payouts for straight, flush and high pairs the game has lost some of its fun. No worrying about upgrading a pair to flush, or a flush to a straight. And, at 1 unit, it doesn't seem to matter anyway. The 9 card board is usually 'lousy' with pairs, flushes and straights and so I didn't pay any attention - I mainly searched for possible 3oak's, SF's and Royals.

I don't mean to be critical - this may be your best (most viable) version of a payout table. And the game will play quicker with the reduced complexity.



You are not being critical at all, just honest and we appreciate that. We also agree that this might be the best we get for now. Our plan is to get another three card version using just the horizontal lines, possibly a four card version using only horizontal hands, and solidify the math for our 5x3 version. I think these versions will offer great game play with really good pay scales. Look for our updates, gordonm888 as we always value your thoughts.
RealizeGaming
RealizeGaming
Joined: Aug 1, 2013
  • Threads: 57
  • Posts: 581
April 29th, 2020 at 3:47:09 PM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

Lost most of its fun. Just look for SF, 3 oa K. Rest is mindless. I was up a lot because I hit a mini Royal and quite a few SF's. But having 3 flushes and one straight but losing $6 out of $10 doesn't feel appetizing.

Would not play as presently constructed.



We donít disagree with you, but it may be the best we can do for now. Keep an eye out for our others versions which we think you will like much better.
Gialmere
Gialmere
Joined: Nov 26, 2018
  • Threads: 37
  • Posts: 1611
Thanks for this post from:
RealizeGaming
April 30th, 2020 at 8:50:43 PM permalink
I'm still thinking the math isn't there for this one as a stand alone. Maybe you should punt and make it a bonus round for one of your other games.

For example, in a JoB game (with a watered down pay table): A pair of 3s activates one 3x3 bonus play. Two pair (containing a pair of 3s) gets two bonus plays. Three 3s gets three plays. A full house (containing 3s) gets four plays. And quad 3s nets five bonus games. You might have players holding onto a lone 3 in the hopes of pairing it to get into the juicy bonus round. (I'm assuming an earlier 3x3 pay table.)
Have you tried 22 tonight? I said 22.
RealizeGaming
RealizeGaming
Joined: Aug 1, 2013
  • Threads: 57
  • Posts: 581
Thanks for this post from:
ksdjdj
May 1st, 2020 at 4:10:39 AM permalink
Quote: Gialmere

I'm still thinking the math isn't there for this one as a stand alone. Maybe you should punt and make it a bonus round for one of your other games.

For example, in a JoB game (with a watered down pay table): A pair of 3s activates one 3x3 bonus play. Two pair (containing a pair of 3s) gets two bonus plays. Three 3s gets three plays. A full house (containing 3s) gets four plays. And quad 3s nets five bonus games. You might have players holding onto a lone 3 in the hopes of pairing it to get into the juicy bonus round. (I'm assuming an earlier 3x3 pay table.)



Love the idea! I also agree with you that something about the math is just missing in this version. I think using the trade card in this version also causes a ton of math issues, but I also realize the card helps with the "fun factor" for the game. I'm curious to see what everyone thinks about the 3x3 version that will play with just the horizontal lines. I feel the game play will be easier and more straightforward for the player and I'm also thinking the math will be easier to find a very and balanced pay scale.

I'll be back with another version when we start digging into it shortly.

  • Jump to: