The New Point System

[Mag!cGuy]

Really purple? Damn, you ain't gifted level oO
Stop using veggies

[Ser Purple Wolf]

(02-22-2013 08:47 AM)W1cked21 Wrote:  Really purple? Damn, you ain't gifted level oO
Stop using veggies

I did, but it was too late! I use adorables and scallies when i started a win streak and got demoted on the third win.

[CombatEX]

(02-22-2013 07:38 AM)phineas94 Wrote:  So what do people think of the new point system? After a quick skim through OSN (I love that site!) it seems that in most divisions there isn't a runaway leader (especially if you discount players who have been recently promoted, who I think should start in their newly promoted division on 0 points or at least in the lower order) as feared by those voicing their concerns about activity points. I know I'm not nearly as active as the top 2 in my division but I still remain hopeful that I can pip them to the post - probably won't though

Top 200 ranked players all seem to be near the top so it is going some way to show skill ( The ST divisions are a little more mixed but there seem to be a lot of relatively inactive players for whatever reason - friendlies, tourneys, poor matching with opponents, or maybe they're just dead). The points attributed are a lot more pleasing and understandable than the last system. It would be interesting to hear other opinions though.

I still find the previous system the best thus far. Eijolend commented that it only really showed who was improving and not really who was currently the best. However, though non-ideal, I still feel it is better than activity points. The players who are improving will tend to end up at better hidden-rating than the players who are not as time progresses (within a league especially).* At any rate, it's certainly better than the current system which favors activity. Have things improved in the past 2 weeks? Let's take a look.

*The main issue is that players started at 0 so it was easy to end up back at 0. If we go back to the old system at some point players should start at 1000 or some similar number.

(02-07-2013 12:40 PM)CombatEX Wrote:  Top 8 by True Skill (points in parentheses)

1. poweewee (300)
2. joelduque (115)
3. Terenceshiu2005 (39)
4. Alvendor (0)
5. burnodrod (516)
6. pokhs (24)
7. garcia10000 (58)
8. blueswimmer95 (62)

Top 8 by Points (true skill rank in parentheses)

1. alanthefast (59th)
2. bunbum2442 (22nd)
3. burnodrod (5th)
4. stunknaps (83rd)
5. mastercaster (18th)
6. awpertunity (13th)
7. niwlehn (34th)
8. DukeDynasty (27th)

It should be apparent that there is essentially no correlation between points and hidden skill. In other words, don't worry about your points if you only care about your skill.

Here is what it is now:

Top 10 by True Skill (points in parentheses)

1. poweewee (345)
2. joelduque (115)
3. Alvendor (48)
4. Terenceshiu2005 (38)
5. burnodrod (621)
6. pokhs (24)
7. garcia10000 (106)
8. LER4T (216)
9. blueswimmer95 (85)
10. el*tabasco (0)

Average points across top 10 players in true skill now: 159.8
Average points across top 8 players in true skill 2 weeks ago: 139.625


Top 10 by Points (true skill rank in parentheses)

1. bunbum2442 (22)
2. burnodrod (5)
3. awpertunity (13)
4. exzachtlee (37)
5. mastercaster (17)
6. willythewile (92)
7. Porceveer (71)
8. pharmafan (26)
9. niwlehn (31)
10. kingtomi13 (48)

Average rank across top 10 players in points: 36.2
Average rank across top 8 players in points 2 weeks ago: 32.625
Ideally we want this to be: 5 (for top 10)

So what has changed? Overall points have gone up while the skill represented by points has not. In fact, the true skill of the top players based on points has actually decreased (~33rd to 36th true skill). This means that at least at the top level the new point system isn't becoming any more reflective of skill. In fact, you even have the 92nd ranked player in true skill all the way up at 6th in points. Also notice the 71st ranked player in true skill is 7th in points. The system doesn't seem to be effective at least at least in Super-Titan. I understand that this is only part of the picture, but it's something to consider. That combined with the fact that you still gain many more points for a win than a loss doesn't look very promising. I gathered all this data listed above, but really it isn't even necessary. Common sense dictates that with the way points are currently given, they will favor activity greatly over skill.

(02-03-2013 06:09 AM)phineas94 Wrote:  

(02-02-2013 01:27 AM)CombatEX Wrote:  Or is this just another idea directed towards OML?

---

Do you appreciate how offensive this sounds or was that your intent?

I do not appreciate "how offensive [it] sounds". How could asking if you were presenting an idea to OML as opposed to responding to an earlier post possibly be offensive?

I had to sit back and think about it for a few minutes, but I think I *might* have figured it out. Correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps you read my comment with emphasis on *just* as if I were disregarding your statement as something trivial in an 'eye-roll' kind of way.

In actuality I included 'just' as a simple denominator of contrast. In other words, I was asking a question with the following possibilities:

A. your post was directed at a particular post in the thread with the intention of addressing a statement the poster made
OR
B. your post was just an idea in general that you hoped OML would read

You see how 'just' in this context isn't meant to trivialize your idea at all. Rather, "just an idea in general" as opposed to "a targeted response towards an earlier post".

I'm sorry you found it offensive as that was no where near my intention.

Here is my statement in full context

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

Specifically I wasn't sure if you were trying to respond to something I had said previously or if you were just speaking generally. If you were talking to me, I wanted to respond to you accordingly, but if you were just presenting a new idea then I didn't have anything specifically to respond to. Again, notice the *just* in each of those sentences. They are not meant to have a negative connotation. Looking at this again, perhaps *another* was the word you had a problem with? Here I just meant 'another' as in an 'additional' idea since you had already shared some ideas previously and this was a new one.

---

(02-03-2013 06:09 AM)phineas94 Wrote:  

(02-03-2013 02:29 AM)RandyDogz Wrote:  As a developer, I'd want to make the people playing my game a lot feel good about how they are doing! Activity based points encourages players to play the game, rather than sitting and thinking about the game in fear that one wrong move will drop them back to the bottom of the league. That's sorta how I was feeling under the old system. To this extreme, this could frustrate people enough to quit the game.

Again, exactly.

I think this can do exactly the opposite. Activity based points discourages players too. I've said this before in great detail, so I won't do so again, but here is the essence of the idea (or you can try to find my post where I explain it more completely). Only a few people in each division who play Outwitters religiously will ever have hope of reaching the top in points. This is rather discouraging for casual players who have no chance of reaching the top with activity based points. No matter how skilled you are, if you don't play enough you have no chance of reaching the top. I'd be far more encouraged to play with skill points over activity points because I'd know I don't need to play a bunch to get to the top.* There is also another issue which is the unintuitive nature of activity points. Players assume that when they are ranked highly in their division (which is due to points), that they are getting close to promotion. Really this means nothing of the sort. It can be frustrating for such a player to be Rank 1 (2,3,4,etc any high rank) and yet never be promoted (because in actuality their true skill isn't even close to promotion). In fact, these players can even be demoted. Frustrating and unintuitive. A bad mix. Conversely, you can have a player who is in the middle or lower half of their division and who gets discouraged as a result. A low ranked player by points may even fear demotion and become demoralized. In actuality this player could be nearing promotion or at least improving. These are just a few of the reasons I dislike activity points.

*Note that none of this actually affects me since I have the top 200 list to refer to when I want to see my true skill or the true skill of my opponents. This means that my interest in 'fixing' the point system is purely for the benefit of the player-base as a whole and does not concern me from a personal standpoint. However, back in the original system before I had reached the top 200 I felt the burden of activity points full force. I knew that they didn't really matter, but it was still discouraging seeing players with 1000+ points and knowing that I could never catchup unless I started queuing up a ton of games. I didn't really care though because I also knew these points were absolutely meaningless =P

[Thrutchy]

I hate the new system. The last one was much better. I've been in the top200 for the last several months and now in the 60s. With the previous system, I was #2 or #3 in my division. Others around we're usually in the top200, I sometimes would be matched to them, and I'd notice promotions at the top of my division. Now I'm #12 and nobody above me is in top200 except #2 who is at 200/200. I only play a few games at a time and this isn't favorable to the new system.

The biggest problem is that this new system is clearly not zero-sum. Winner gets a bunch of points and loser loses a tiny. Just that makes it activity-based. On top of this, the change in points is based on the points of the loser, I think? This makes it activity squared - your activity times your opponents activity. This is worse than the original system. At least then you could look at your ratio to wins.

Tournament organizers should no longer use points for seeding. These points are garbage.

[awpertunity]

This is just conjecture, but I think the glitch is that instead of comparing the opponent's skill rating and current number of points to yours, it looks at them by itself. For EVERY game that I have gotten that was properly matched (i.e., less than 2 days), the point breakdown is +24 for a win, and -1 for a loss, which I assume is the cap in both directions for a win/loss.

I don't think that made too much sense but I'm too lazy to elaborate with details right now.

[Ryzuma]

Most of the games I've been playing I win like 15 and they lose like 10 and vice versa

[phineas94]

@combatex Well I'm glad the "justgate saga" has been clarified, perspective is a great thing and I still read my posts on page 3 of this thread (If you have 10 posts a page like I do) as a continual stream of questionable consciousness. Your post in at number 9 threw me as it wasn't directed at anyone (although contained a quote from daHsu) and to be quite honest I didn't see how it fitted in with the previous posts. Anyhow hopefully that's put to bed. Let's just see.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on which system was better. My take on the previous system was, that while it was more reflective of skill, the point allocation was disheartening. I also commented on the fact that the old system favoured "form" with a example of a player who goes on a 10 game winning streak and ending up near or at the top of their division. Overall though, and I believe you were in my division, a player who is more skilled (70%+ winning average) would be at the top until they were promoted - I felt this had a more detrimental affect on league aspirations than the current one. As has been mentioned many times with regards to several aspects of outwitters if you want to achieve something in your division play more, win more!

As for the "runaway leaders", like I said they're not common and while your stats on supertitans points vs skill data is an interesting read I personally, as mentioned in my previous post, think you can discount the division placement in this league due to the reasons listed. A more telling story is from looking at the fluffy to master level ( or "the player base as a whole"). What is a runaway leader? As a start I was looking at a number 1 player who was 200 pts above the 10th placed player (roughly 10-12 wins ahead- not an insurmountable lead) and, although present they are not rampant. Again, mentioned many times, look to the top 200 list for an appraisal of your skill and look to the division for a bit of "in game" interest.

One aspect that I do think needs addressing is newly promoted players keeping their points and ending up top of their new league. Again, as I've said before, I'd rather be a 0pt rank 48 supertitan than a 794pt rank 1 master. Removing these carried forward points would also eliminate yet more "runaway leaders".

As for the confusion of the whole points scored/ position in league/ promotion/ demotion I'm sort of getting fed up with pandering to the lowest common denominator. Promotion/demotion mechanics are explained in the "in game" help tab (Win lots=promotion, lose lots = demotion). If unsure, read the many threads on this forum, it will sort of make sense eventually.

As always more than 2 sides to an argument, but as a last example of my preference of the new system, I recently played an opponent several places higher than me in my own division (but lower in hidden skill). I came out 3-0 up with the following points +20/-5, +20/-4 & +19/-4. I can follow these points and understand them (It would have been interesting for a loss to be posted to compare) I'm pretty sure that the random number generator of the last system would have left a lot of question marks. Perhaps an increased chance of matching up with someone in your own division would also increase the interest in result/points gained/lost and turn the whole division placement into a competition rather than the procession of the last system.

[RandyDogz]

I am liking the new system. I'd break down players between top 200 players and others. As CombatEX mentions, top 200 gauge progress by the list, and for all intensive purposes don't care about league points. League points don't work overly well for these players, but I don't see this as a big deal. Good casual Master top 200 players don't always rise to the top of the league, but I think these players are working towards a ST promotion not being top of their Masters league.

For the others, the biggest user base, this change encourages activity which is good. I don't think we want every league game to put the fear of dropping to the bottom of their league, which I believe was happening with the old system. Climbing the ranks was a huge grind, winning 12 points, losing 10, then another loss wipes out all points. And for this user base, they don't have a top 200 listing, and probably not getting promoted (I believe the vast majority are stuck in clever/gifted right?) so the only gauge they have is climbing the league ranking. How do they do that? Play a lot. I don't think encouraging activity is bad. If someone's to be frustrated, it should be the casual player not the active player. If you want to excel at anything in life, it's practice and hard work that does it - the attitude of I know I'm better and shouldn't need to work as hard doesn't cut it for me (UNLESS you've already proven yourself, in Outwitters that's making it to the top 200, where I completely agree it should NOT favor quantity over quality!)

I do agree with the point around the false sense of being promoted around being at the top of the league. I think adding an indicator if players are on the cusp of a promotion (or demotion :/) would be really cool and a good compromise between not disclosing hidden rating but giving players a better sense of how they are doing!

Not implying the current system is perfect, these are interesting conversations and we should continue to debate! I respect OML's hard stance on not disclosing hidden ratings. That's proprietary information, and they've obviously worked hard to develop it. But that means league points will never be perfect.

PS - I know some of these points have already been raised, it would have taken me a week to properly quote from those monster posts on my iPhone!

[phineas94]

(02-24-2013 12:33 AM)RandyDogz Wrote:  I do agree with the point around the false sense of being promoted around being at the top of the league. I think adding an indicator if players are on the cusp of a promotion (or demotion :/) would be really cool and a good compromise between not disclosing hidden rating but giving players a better sense of how they are doing

Maybe a traffic light colour system tacked onto your profile page. I like it. Never having been a fan of showing the actual hidden rating this seems to satisfy all ( obviously there'll be some objections )

And you're right. Just did this on my phone hence the over eager deleting . Royal pain!
edited

[phineas94]

(02-22-2013 04:18 PM)Thrutchy Wrote:  At least [in the last system] you could look at your ratio to wins.

Can you explain this to me please?