The New Point System

jaxxinjr · (This post was last modified: 01-31-2013 06:04 AM by jaxxinjr.)

Activity-based:

Because I have been playing a lot since the update, I have shot from ~20th in my league with ~115 points to 3rd with 257. First and second place are remaining around 340, so my trajectory leads to 1st within days. Fun points??? I guess so...

Willythewile · 01-31-2013, 06:28 AM

The old point system bugged the crap out of me because my losses always cost me more points then I gained from wins. I could win four games and lose one game and still have less points. That being said, I feel this new system has swung the pendulum the other way and now it serves no real purpose at all. Very confusing to my slow-witted brain!

**TheQwertiest** · 01-31-2013, 06:34 AM

before the update came I was at the top of the division with about 80 points above the 2nd in the division. the day after the update i was at 14th in the division 300+ points behind the 1st

Willythewile · 01-31-2013, 06:40 AM

(01-31-2013 06:34 AM)TheQwertiest Wrote: before the update came I was at the top of the division with about 80 points above the 2nd in the division. the day after the update i was at 14th in the division 300+ points behind the 1st

Yep, pretty strange and confusing!

CombatEX · 01-31-2013, 08:13 AM

(01-31-2013 05:44 AM)zoraster Wrote: Why would a couple of weeks change the fact that the points are net positive? Has anyone yet seen a game where someone's lost more points than the other person gained?

Assuming that it is net positive for playing a game, is there any other possibility than it's an activity-based system?

Because Alex said that's how it works. There is some 'delta' value that changes over time so in 2 weeks the currently ridiculous point gains and losses may not persist.

daHsu · 01-31-2013, 10:58 AM

(01-31-2013 04:24 AM)CombatEX Wrote: Precisely. Perhaps this is a case of the vocal minority, but I haven't seen a single advocate of "fun" points and only people voicing their desire for skill-based points. In fact, many even wish to go a step further and just display hidden-rating, though I think that's a bit too far. Either way though, the point stands that "fun" points don't seem to actually be all that fun for people. Instead they are unintuitive and do not provide useful information.

Remember that people on the forums are a biased sample... we may all want skill-based points, but people out there playing for leisure, whose opinion is not well represented here, are the ones enjoying the "fun" points.

Before season 2, everyone was complaining that activity boosts your points... I am now also. +20 versus -2 for win/loss means anyone very active will rise in points faster than a good player who is not as active.

To balance this, I think people should have a hidden "multiplier" based on their hidden ranking, where higher ranking will result in a higher multiplier on score changes, both positive and negative. This would mean weaker players can steadily climb up (which seems to be the goal, since Alex keeps referencing that 50% of players have 0 points), and strong players will have to play smart to avoid dropping fast, while also able to jump up points very fast if they win consistently.

CombatEX · 01-31-2013, 11:08 AM

I did consider bias, but actually many of the people I've seen complaining about "fun" points are new to the forums (few posts, just registered, etc). For this reason I don't think forum bias is that large a factor. It seems there are quite a few people who wouldn't normally bother with the forum but have gotten confused with the point system so they registered to inquire about it.

As for assuming that there are people playing for leisure who are enjoying "fun" points, well, how do you know they exist? As mentioned above it seems like quite a few of those people you are referring to have disliked the system so much that they came to the forums just to register and voice their dissatisfaction or confusion.

daHsu · 01-31-2013, 11:13 AM

You could be right... which is why I, for one, am advocating for points to show skill. But imagine, say, a 40 year old guy who plays Outwitters once or twice a day, hanging around the low-end fluffy league. If he knew how bad he was compared to the rest of the population, he would probably move on to some other game that made him feel better, since the game is such a tiny part of his life.

jaxxinjr · 01-31-2013, 11:22 AM

I'd be interested to see some market research for Outwitters. I suspect these target "leisure" players are at least one of the following: 1) a myth 2) will never pay 3) will not stick with it long term. Imo Outwitters is NOT a leisure game -- like chess, it takes a lot of investment to get pretty good. Lots of intricacies, strategies, musing over turns, etc.

A "leisure" game as it sounds like oml is defining it (and incorrectly tweaking outwitters as, imo) is a mindless but addictive game to play for a sec while in line at Starbucks, such as Letterpress. ;-)

GoHeat 3 · (This post was last modified: 01-31-2013 11:36 AM by GoHeat 3.)

(01-31-2013 11:28 AM)alexjiang1 Wrote: ^Excuse me, but chess is not a leisure game, it takes even more investment to get pretty good, there is just as many intricacies, strategies, and musing. Please dont be ignorant

That's what he was saying. He said chess isn't a leisure game.^_^

Bump*