The New Point System

harvarnold · 01-31-2013, 11:36 AM

^I believe he was saying that outwitters is like chess in that it takes a lot of investment to get pretty good. I don't believe he was saying that chess is a leisure game.

GoHeat 3 · 01-31-2013, 11:36 AM

Bump.

alexjiang1 · (This post was last modified: 01-31-2013 01:07 PM by alexjiang1.)

O, my horrible reading comprehension and hypocrisy is revealed in that post. Please pardon me while I awkwardly back out.

I thought he meant outwitters isn't a leisure game, like chess is. Should've realized that if he meant that, it should be "unlike".

phineas94 · 01-31-2013, 11:26 PM

A league is a place where teams of a similar skill level battle it out. If the most skilled team loses to the least there is no difference in points gained/lost and at the end of the season, when everyone's played the same number of games the league champions are there in black and white.

I personally think the new point system is a dramatic improvement over the last system which to me had descended into a random number generator. I think I read this on the forum that it'll take a couple of weeks for the new point system to mature, so lets see what happens then.

I know the hidden skill rating is taken into account in the new system but to a much lesser degree so we do seem to be approaching a fixed point win/loss system that I've advocated on other threads. The whole " they've played more games than me boo hoo" argument can be resolved by multiplying your own score by the highest number of games played and dividing by your own total. So someone who's played 20 and won 10 will come out on top of someone who's played 100 and won 40. Have a minimum entry level to official recognition of say 20 games finished and voila! I understand that points will be harder to get (and easier to lose) the more skilled you are so this may mean a lesser skilled player moving up through the ranks may end up on top - but hey, they've had the best season, fair play. I'm always one for the underdog Smile

It seems, from all your concerns, that there are players out there who will, to the detriment of their hidden rating, forfeit games just to elevate their league position. This would dispose of that problem. Perhaps this sort of behaviour is a failing in the game in that not enough emphasis is given to the hidden rating either in the initial blurb or tutorial. I know my interest in this amazing game was enhanced by my inclusion in the top 200. Perhaps a top 500 is called for? Also, as mentioned previously this strategy would surely lead to dropping skill rating and dropping in rank which, as we know, is pointless. I could go on ... Ok , I will.

On being promoted to the next tier I think it only fair if you were to start on the same points as the lowest scoring player. What would you rather be? A #1 Master or a #48 Super Titan? On being demoted I think taking all your points or fraction of would be palatable.

Your thoughts please

zoraster · (This post was last modified: 02-01-2013 02:32 AM by zoraster.)

(01-31-2013 11:26 PM)phineas94 Wrote: A league is a place where teams of a similar skill level battle it out. If the most skilled team loses to the least there is no difference in points gained/lost and at the end of the season, when everyone's played the same number of games the league champions are there in black and white.

I personally think the new point system is a dramatic improvement over the last system which to me had descended into a random number generator. I think I read this on the forum that it'll take a couple of weeks for the new point system to mature, so lets see what happens then.

I know the hidden skill rating is taken into account in the new system but to a much lesser degree so we do seem to be approaching a fixed point win/loss system that I've advocated on other threads. The whole " they've played more games than me boo hoo" argument can be resolved by multiplying your own score by the highest number of games played and dividing by your own total. So someone who's played 20 and won 10 will come out on top of someone who's played 100 and won 40. Have a minimum entry level to official recognition of say 20 games finished and voila! I understand that points will be harder to get (and easier to lose) the more skilled you are so this may mean a lesser skilled player moving up through the ranks may end up on top - but hey, they've had the best season, fair play. I'm always one for the underdog

It seems, from all your concerns, that there are players out there who will, to the detriment of their hidden rating, forfeit games just to elevate their league position. This would dispose of that problem. Perhaps this sort of behaviour is a failing in the game in that not enough emphasis is given to the hidden rating either in the initial blurb or tutorial. I know my interest in this amazing game was enhanced by my inclusion in the top 200. Perhaps a top 500 is called for? Also, as mentioned previously this strategy would surely lead to dropping skill rating and dropping in rank which, as we know, is pointless. I could go on ... Ok , I will.

On being promoted to the next tier I think it only fair if you were to start on the same points as the lowest scoring player. What would you rather be? A #1 Master or a #48 Super Titan? On being demoted I think taking all your points or fraction of would be palatable.

Your thoughts please

We don't even know how many games each player has played, so your "fix" (insofar as it solves any problem at all) won't work. All we have to go on is number of wins, and it's hard to tell how many people had last week versus this week.

Overall I just think the statistics and rankings of the game are underdeveloped in comparison to the very well thought out game balance.

The thing to understand about casual players is not that they "just wanna have fun." It's that they want to achieve things OR they want really mindless fun. Farmville wasn't a success because nobody cared about whether they won or lost (since you can't "win" that game), it was because you were ever developing. Obviously Outwitters does not lend itself to that kind of thing, but I don't think this hidden system with a dearth of information about game statistics helps (no win-loss record, no showing what % of games you've played as which team, no records indexed by map, etc.).

A suggestion for Adam and Alex to earn more money: Pay a couple of bucks to get detailed statistic information including your hidden rank. Should obviously also reveal other people's statistics.

EkoFox · 02-01-2013, 02:44 AM

I would buy that in an instant.

phineas94 · 02-01-2013, 04:34 AM

Just to clarify my position. I would like a league determined by points gained with only a small consideration of skill level applied ( Which seems to be what we've got now, so hooray!) and a greater range of published rank available to more/all players ( Is this possible CombatEX/ Great Gonzales et al, is that data there and just not published or is it a back-breaking labour of love just to get the top 200 out?).

(02-01-2013 02:30 AM)zoraster Wrote: We don't even know how many games each player has played, so your "fix" (insofar as it solves any problem at all) won't work. All we have to go on is number of wins, and it's hard to tell how many people had last week versus this week.

I didn't intend that we, the players, carried out this equation but rather that it was implemented by the system which must surely have our win/loss data somewhere....doesn't it? Ideally, when you look at your league you would see your points ( after the balancing equation has been applied) and your rank, be you number 1 or number 10000. I know people are now going to shout about the 50/50 win/loss ratio and how that would make the league table meaningless but wouldn't the slight variation in points gained/lost and players, in reality, varying from 60/40 to 40/60 in their win/loss record give us enough differentiation?

(02-01-2013 02:30 AM)zoraster Wrote: The thing to understand about casual players is not that they "just wanna have fun." It's that they want to achieve things OR they want really mindless fun. Farmville wasn't a success because nobody cared about whether they won or lost (since you can't "win" that game), it was because you were ever developing. Obviously Outwitters does not lend itself to that kind of thing, but I don't think this hidden system with a dearth of information about game statistics helps (no win-loss record, no showing what % of games you've played as which team, no records indexed by map, etc.).

I completely agree about better access to the statistics be it through the game or as a paid add-on or even better, all games finished are automatically sent to the OSN - I do believe codepenguin is partial to more stats although I don't know if this amount is within the realms of reality. As for casual players, like you say zoraster, Outwitters isn't for them and I don't think it ever will be. I found it by googling "turn based strategy game" not because I thought the logo was cute. I could go on, but this time I won't Wink

CombatEX · (This post was last modified: 02-01-2013 06:48 AM by CombatEX.)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I'm pretty sure point gain/loss has never been influenced by league or current points and has always been solely determined by hidden rating. Leagues themselves are an extension of hidden rating so though not entirely equivalent (sometimes you can have a higher hidden rating but be in a lower league for a while before being promoted), it would be double counting to factor league into point loss/gain determination.

(01-31-2013 11:13 AM)daHsu Wrote: 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.

Someone who is in Fluffy and plays once or twice a day won't be very high in their division with activity points either =/ In fact, this Fluffy player who plays infrequently might even be near the top with skill points, something s/he has no chance of with activity points.

phineas94 · 02-01-2013, 08:48 AM

So the old point system which used your hidden rating to calculate points won and lost ended up showing us a random mix of players with a random number of points. Brilliant! Player A's been doing well recently, ooh look at player F they're on a bad run at the minute..... It showed very little but recent form and if the holy grail of 50/50 win loss ratio were ever achieved, everyone on 0 points, genius!
So a new system comes along which takes points scored and hidden rating into account and all problems gone away, not by the sound of it.

I haven't played/ got involved with many games but the clashing of the 2 systems seems to be the elephant in the room. You have the ranking system ( top200 and all that) and you have the league both of which are determined by skill. One works one doesn't. So, get rid of the leagues and just play with rank ( like every other game I've played) or keep the leagues and have a fixed point system ( are these "fun" points ) 3 points for a win and -1 for a loss.

Failing that, lets wait a couple of weeks and see what happens to this one. I'm going to turn my phone off till then.

CombatEX · (This post was last modified: 02-02-2013 01:32 AM by CombatEX.)

What/who are you responding to? Or is this just another idea directed towards OML?

Oh I thought by 2 clashing systems you meant the new and old one. Actually you mean hidden-rating vs points/league.

I disagree with the fixed point on win/loss idea simply because that still clashes with hidden-rating which gives players far more hidden-rank for beating highly rated opponents. Waiting a few weeks like you suggested before deeming the new attempt a failure is advisable.