Halt_1

Your comments are almost right on target. However the endgame mentality is the failure of game design. When you place a target of 40 levels for players to achieve, a small minority race to that target as fast as possible. Once that is achieved, players who then become aware of that fact, look for ways to mimic that behavior; Which you can see from all the posts in most MMO’s “How do I level faster, to compete”.

There are ways to avoid this, which would include non-level based games such as UO, however they have their own design flaws. The end game in UO was focused around player made content, which overtime became victim to exploits.

WAR has a greater problem in this area as it is an RVR game where high level characters can determine the course of an entire server balance. This breeds an ever greater desire to get to the “endgame”

However, WAR itself is a flawed experience, a step back from the lessons they should have learned from of DAoC, with a vast array of basic design flaws, major bugs and client stability issues.

While I still believe level based designs are predominate in today’s MMO’s for good reasons, WAR is the wrong case study, due to both the combination of RVR and careless implementation.

Will they fix the restroom problem this year by having buckets at each table! :)

Take a step back... and a deep breath. What is the basic argument being put forth? Discipline. One of the most important tools in your toolbox is discipline. This can take many different forms with different people. With some it could be a win or loss min/max before breaking, for others it could be a time limit. The key is to find areas of your game or yourself where you �take control�. Too many players take the path of least resistance and satisfy their lust for action at every turn. Too many players believe they have one more round at the table in them, or that next time they will get that guy when you have a good situation. One of the ways I show discipline is to refuse to participate in last longers. These last longers are counter productive to your main goal of winning in a tournament/satellite (but not going to get into that part of game theory now), however they do feed your need for additional action. Whatever form you choose, discipline can either be an ally and an integral part of your game or an enemy an integral part of your opponent�s game, the choice is yours.

There are two sides to this coin..... For Card Player this is probably a no brainer. To think they are getting permitted to do something ten years ago they would never be able to do. They will expand their readership and profits. They probably get "it" that they should jump on the bandwagon and scoop up all the profits they can, while they can, before the "fad" wears off and their magazine is relegated back to card rooms and magazine racks behind Hemming�s and a Shotgun Monthly. For the online casinos and poker long/mid term this is just another finger being poked in the eye of those that oppose the expansion of gambling in one form or another outside of its current regulated environment. It will bring to a head faster the reasonable and expected concerns of those that oppose the expansion of gambling. Card Player is not in a position to control others and if they did not take this reasonable business step they would just be leaving money on the table. That being said, placing a bet that the current expansion of gambling can continue its unfettered assault on vast majority of society that frowns on the activity is a bad bet.

"Roulette" takes the discussion a little off mark. I doubt very many honest people consider roulette a game in the same sense as poker. The discussion was not comparing poker vs other forms of gambling... it was trying to make the point that poker was "not" gambling, which as we play it, it of course is. Yes skill plays a great part, as does knowledge of the game, and luck. Those elements do not mitigate the central fact that poker is at its heart a game in which you win and lose money. Playing poker for "fun" without risking money is not gambling, add money and it is. Rather than try to find ways to "justify" ourselves, let us just be comfortable with our choice and revel in our clear conscious... until we go broke�.. again ;)

"Roulette" takes the discussion a little off mark. I doubt very many honest people consider roulette a game in the same sense as poker. The discussion was not comparing poker vs other forms of gambling... it was trying to make the point that poker was "not" gambling, which as we play it, it of course is. Yes skill plays a great part, as does knowledge of the game, and luck. Those elements do not mitigate the central fact that poker is at its heart a game in which you win and lose money. Playing poker for "fun" without risking money is not gambling, add money and it is. Rather than try to find ways to "justify" ourselves, let us just be comfortable with our choice and revel in our clear conscious... until we go broke�.. again ;)

Poker is gambling. Trying to rationalize it does not change its nature. Rather than argue the point or try to "justify" your choice to someone all you can do is be satisfied you have made the correct choice for yourself and live with your decision. It is the same with all of life's choices. Justifying one self to others just complicates your personal journey.

Looking at this problem as a 20 year veteran of the Video Game Industry I have seen this battle against the Bots before. Bots have been used in the Video Game Industry by players for over 10 years now. There is no defense against 50% of the type of bots employed except changing the interface in ways that make it more difficult for Bots to operate. The ability of online content providers from Electronic Arts and Sony to Party Poker and Poker Stars to police the situation is complicated by their desire both to not make the issue more public than it is as well as to provide an easily accessible interface to the majority of players. Do not misunderstand my comments. There are defenses against bots. 75% to 80% of all bots can be eliminated today if the online card rooms are willing to take action. This action includes banning accounts, invading privacy (account information), working with legal authorities (not necessarily possible in the US), making changes to their interface, and disabling certain "features" providing both information to them, players and the Bots. Doing what I describe and more will still not defeat all Bots. In the Video Game Industry you see companies doing things from changing the rules of their games to adding "steps" in the process to eliminate the ability of Bots to function, some of these are not possible to implement with poker (such as changing the rules). So what is the final verdict for this situation? Limit games will have the highest proportion of Bots due to the nature of the rules of the game. This could eventually require companies to reduce or eliminate limit games, or possibly just accept the fact that bots could be present and find ways of informing players that player X is a XX% chance of being a Bot. No Limit games due to the very nature of the rules are where Bots will continue to find a more difficult environment to succeed, but succeed they will over the majority of players. In the end while the final outcome is not written, based upon history and the unwillingness of companies to take the drastic steps necessary to attack the problem, the only reasonable conclusion is that the problem will only grow worse with change if and when it comes, coming too late to stem the loss of confidence in all the "Online Card Rooms". Unless they of course act now, look at what has occured in the Video Game Industry and learn the lessons from their mistakes and success. The verdict is out, the public is watching.

Looking at this problem as a 20 year veteran of the Video Game Industry I have seen this battle against the Bots before. Bots have been used in the Video Game Industry by players for over 10 years now. There is no defense against 50% of the type of bots employed except changing the interface in ways that make it more difficult for Bots to operate. The ability of online content providers from Electronic Arts and Sony to Party Poker and Poker Stars to police the situation is complicated by their desire both to not make the issue more public than it is as well as to provide an easily accessible interface to the majority of players. Do not misunderstand my comments. There are defenses against bots. 75% to 80% of all bots can be eliminated today if the online card rooms are willing to take action. This action includes banning accounts, invading privacy (account information), working with legal authorities (not necessarily possible in the US), making changes to their interface, and disabling certain "features" providing both information to them, players and the Bots. Doing what I describe and more will still not defeat all Bots. In the Video Game Industry you see companies doing things from changing the rules of their games to adding "steps" in the process to eliminate the ability of Bots to function, some of these are not possible to implement with poker (such as changing the rules). So what is the final verdict for this situation? Limit games will have the highest proportion of Bots due to the nature of the rules of the game. This could eventually require companies to reduce or eliminate limit games, or possibly just accept the fact that bots could be present and find ways of informing players that player X is a XX% chance of being a Bot. No Limit games due to the very nature of the rules are where Bots will continue to find a more difficult environment to succeed, but succeed they will over the majority of players. In the end while the final outcome is not written, based upon history and the unwillingness of companies to take the drastic steps necessary to attack the problem, the only reasonable conclusion is that the problem will only grow worse with change if and when it comes, coming too late to stem the loss of confidence in all the "Online Card Rooms". Unless they of course act now, look at what has occured in the Video Game Industry and learn the lessons from their mistakes and success. The verdict is out, the public is watching.

Looking at this problem as a 20 year veteran of the Video Game Industry I have seen this battle against the Bots before. Bots have been used in the Video Game Industry by players for over 10 years now. There is no defense against 50% of the type of bots employed except changing the interface in ways that make it more difficult for Bots to operate. The ability of online content providers from Electronic Arts and Sony to Party Poker and Poker Stars to police the situation is complicated by their desire both to not make the issue more public than it is as well as to provide an easily accessible interface to the majority of players. Do not misunderstand my comments. There are defenses against bots. 75% to 80% of all bots can be eliminated today if the online card rooms are willing to take action. This action includes banning accounts, invading privacy (account information), working with legal authorities (not necessarily possible in the US), making changes to their interface, and disabling certain "features" providing both information to them, players and the Bots. Doing what I describe and more will still not defeat all Bots. In the Video Game Industry you see companies doing things from changing the rules of their games to adding "steps" in the process to eliminate the ability of Bots to function, some of these are not possible to implement with poker (such as changing the rules). So what is the final verdict for this situation? Limit games will have the highest proportion of Bots due to the nature of the rules of the game. This could eventually require companies to reduce or eliminate limit games, or possibly just accept the fact that bots could be present and find ways of informing players that player X is a XX% chance of being a Bot. No Limit games due to the very nature of the rules are where Bots will continue to find a more difficult environment to succeed, but succeed they will over the majority of players. In the end while the final outcome is not written, based upon history and the unwillingness of companies to take the drastic steps necessary to attack the problem, the only reasonable conclusion is that the problem will only grow worse with change if and when it comes, coming too late to stem the loss of confidence in all the "Online Card Rooms". Unless they of course act now, look at what has occured in the Video Game Industry and learn the lessons from their mistakes and success. The verdict is out, the public is watching.