Multiplayer games - Not Enough of a Reward!

[The Chosen]

Hi All,

After a few really tough speed game multi-player wins recently, it got me thinking about the points reward formula.

If you play head to head (1v1) with someone and you are better than them (especially at a more specialised map), it is quite easy to beat them and take their points... however, if you add another couple of players into the fight, the difficulties of winning multiply massively.

A 1v1 game might give you 10-20 points for 15mins easy(ish) work, but a 4 player multi-player game on the same map with the same settings might take 90mins and (if you win) give you 30-50 points.

So... my proposal for discussion is this:

The formula for the points gained in multi-player wins should be changed to allow for the relative difficulty it takes to win them.

Maybe a change to: (losers score/winners score) *22

What do you guys think? Maybe this has already been discussed at length before. If so, sorry.

TC.

[Bruceswar]

Your logic makes no sense...

If one player is worth 10-20 easy points, then 3 players of the same caliber will be worth 30-60 points. Seems perfectly fine with me. If the first player was sooo easy at those point levels adding 2 more people should not be a problem. Want to make a suggestion... Here is a much better one... play better players and thus win more.

[OliverFA]

I agree with The Chosen in the problem diagnostic.

The "problem" is that multiplayer games take longer to finish and are more difficult to win.

Using his example, let's suppose that you are playing an 8 players game against 6 unskilled players and a top skilled player. The likely outcome is that the most skilled player will get all the points.

If you player 7 1v1 games, you would probably get the points from the 6 unskilled players, and then lose part of them to the skilled player. But the overall result would no doubt be positive. In an 8 player game, the result will be negative.

What seems more fair to mem is that the wining player would get the most points from the game, but that the other players (second, third, etc) would also get a smaller quantity of points.

Right now, the skill demonstrated in being the second player in the game is not rewarded at all. Ande ven more, it gets the same punishment as the player that was eliminated right after the start of the game.

[Bruceswar]

That is why they are MUTLI player games. You have to beat everybody in them! With 1 vs 1 games you have factors such as dice, drops, etc that play a more important roll in the game. Suck it up cupcake. If you want to win more games get better and focus on wins and no points. You focus on winning the points will come.

[Mr Changsha]

While such a change would probably benefit me a great deal (I rarely play a game with less that 6 players and am strangely crap at 1vs1 anyway), an 8 player game win should net you a lot of points even if your rank is fairly high. The reward is good enough. A friend of mine, a measly cadet at the time, managed to win a 2.1 8 player and netted over 200 points. That seemed pretty fair for a month's solid work.

A 6 player singles game normally nets me around 90-100 points and I think that is pretty fair too.

I am also far from convinced that there is more skill to winning large games rather than 1vs1 games. I would instead suggest it is a different kind of skill. I would think a 60% win record at 1vs1 is at least as impressive as a player with a 30-40% win record at 6-8 player games. However, whether ability at 1vs1 is as valid a skill as having ability at larger games is also probably debatable. I would be grateful if the author of the thread could expand a little on these points.

[asl80]

don't forget that in 1v1 you only have the chance of taking one person's points ... in multiplayer you have the chance of taking many peoples points ... i.e. you do get rewarded for the extra challenge.

You might even get rewarded doubly. Firstly, as above, and from a different perspective, when you play 1v1 you take a 50-50 risk, where to stay even with your points you have to win 50% of your games (assuming equal opponents) ... but, if your playing multiplayer, then you may only have to win 1 out of 3 games to stay even. and it gets better the more people in your games ... i.e. 1 from 8 to stay even.

Or, better still, if one person wins against one other person then they get one point, or; if no people win against no other people then they get no points, or, to take the average of these two fine theories; if anyone wins against anyone in any situation then they get any points!!! hehe

[Mr Changsha]

Right now, the skill demonstrated in being the second player in the game is not rewarded at all. Ande ven more, it gets the same punishment as the player that was eliminated right after the start of the game.

I usually like your posts OliverFA and you are obviously an intelligent chappie, judged by the quality of your writing, at least. However, I worry you have seriously misunderstood large Risk games. If I am taking a game, the guy finishing second is often the weakest of the last 3 players with say 5 rounds to go. I would always target the true dangers first and deal with the smallest threat last. Or, I might win a game by effectively disabling 3 players at once (breaking their bonuses). The player 'finishing second' is more often than not one of the weaker players in an 8 man game. Not always of course, but an 8 player game where the last two players are equally matched has been played incorrectly by at least one player. For example, I start pushing for a win once I have at least 50% of the territories and 2-3 players still to kill. If I win a large game by spending the last 3 rounds in a 1vs1 dogfight, I am not happy with my strategy. (as always the disclaimer for our American friends:sequential, flat rate, real risk )

[Robinette]

You know... the same thing happens in the Olympics... all that effort and only 3 people recognized... But in the next Olympics, being hosted in London, they plan to fix that...

[OliverFA]

Right now, the skill demonstrated in being the second player in the game is not rewarded at all. Ande ven more, it gets the same punishment as the player that was eliminated right after the start of the game.

I usually like your posts OliverFA and you are obviously an intelligent chappie, judged by the quality of your writing, at least. However, I worry you have seriously misunderstood large Risk games. If I am taking a game, the guy finishing second is often the weakest of the last 3 players with say 5 rounds to go. I would always target the true dangers first and deal with the smallest threat last. Or, I might win a game by effectively disabling 3 players at once (breaking their bonuses). The player 'finishing second' is more often than not one of the weaker players in an 8 man game. Not always of course, but an 8 player game where the last two players are equally matched has been played incorrectly by at least one player. For example, I start pushing for a win once I have at least 50% of the territories and 2-3 players still to kill. If I win a large game by spending the last 3 rounds in a 1vs1 dogfight, I am not happy with my strategy. (as always the disclaimer for our American friends:sequential, flat rate, real risk )

Thanks for the compliment, Mr Changsha

Obviously, that subject is not an easy one to be solved, or else it would have been solved already and we wouldn't be discussing it right now. I am not claiming that I have the magical formula to make points assignment more fair, but I think it can be interesting to discuss about it, and maybe (just maybe) we could even find a solution.

You are right when you say that the last player to be eliminated does not necessary need to be the second best in the game. But I believe that it is most of the times. A player that is doing well in the game will have a dominant position, and even if other players manage to break his domain, he will probably last longer that a player with absolutely no clue.

To me, Terminator games look like an attempt to address this problem. The premise is "if you are good enough, you will kill someone even if your don't win. So you will get some points". But the problem is when you almost kill someone but get unlucky, leaving all those points for the next lucky player.

How to solve it and find a more fair system to distribute points after the game? I don't know. But let's see if someone has an idea

[Bruceswar]

The System is what it is. Like it or leave it. Multi player games are just as fair as 1 vs 1 games. Practice more on your skill and stop worrying about points. They will come

[OliverFA]

The System is what it is. Like it or leave it. Multi player games are just as fair as 1 vs 1 games. Practice more on your skill and stop worrying about points. They will come

Bruce, with all respects... This could be said to virtually any aspect of this or any other game, and would effectively kill any discussion that could arise about it.

We know you like it. But we can still talk about it. Can we? Maybe you could tell us why the current system is so good, with an argument a bit more elaborate than "if you dislike it is your problem".

[Timminz]

let's suppose that you are playing an 8 players game against 6 unskilled players and a top skilled player. The likely outcome is that the most skilled player will get all the points.

If you player 7 1v1 games, you would probably get the points from the 6 unskilled players, and then lose part of them to the skilled player. But the overall result would no doubt be positive. In an 8 player game, the result will be negative.

What seems more fair to mem is that the wining player would get the most points from the game, but that the other players (second, third, etc) would also get a smaller quantity of points.

It seems to me, that you might enjoy terminator games.

[Mr Changsha]

The System is what it is. Like it or leave it. Multi player games are just as fair as 1 vs 1 games. Practice more on your skill and stop worrying about points. They will come

Bruce, with all respects... This could be said to virtually any aspect of this or any other game, and would effectively kill any discussion that could arise about it.

We know you like it. But we can still talk about it. Can we? Maybe you could tell us why the current system is so good, with an argument a bit more elaborate than "if you dislike it is your problem".

Fair point OliverFA, discussion is always a good thing. Bruceswar might possibly be a little tetchy about this subject because, I imagine, it isn't the first time it has been brought up. But who knows, maybe something new and interesting will come from this thread...

As I made clear, I don't think the points system should be changed. However, if there is a general consensus regarding the number of players vs skill in winning, though I am far from sure there is one, couldn't CC merely reveal this stat on our player screens? No reward as such, but possibly another pointer towards ability.

i.e Mr Beijing. So many wins. Something something percentage*. 5.3 players per game (on average) Simple enough to do I would think and useful to know as well.

Is there not some reward there, for those of us who brave the large games? We could have a stat that ALWAYS makes us look good!

*I've refused to think about mathematics since I scraped through my GCSE at 15, hence the rather shameful lack of numbers in my Mr Beijing example. Could I have done the percentage? Probably. Did I have any desire to unearth a calculator? None at all, I'm afraid...

[Bruceswar]

Nah I could care less about the points. I would rather win the games. Anyhow with that being said, the scoring system works great. If you want to get a better rank / score then learn to play the game better. No slam on anybody in this thread, but that is the facts. We were all at one time or another low ranks. Some of us took a bit of time to learn the game better and thus improved our skill. With skill comes wins and with wins comes points.

Like I said this is not a slam on anybody in this thread. It is just how the system works. A higher ranking person beats say 7 people in a game and wins 70 points.. Lower rank beats the same people in the same game... Wins 150 points. Seems even to me.. Just numbers I used as a point.

If I win a 1 vs 1 with a cook it is say 4-6 points, and if he wins he gets 70 - 85 points. Now is that fair? Sure it is, and that is part of the game. The scoring system works well.

[The Chosen]

Hmmm...

Seems this topic has legs after all.

One of the reasons I brought this up, was that a while back I encountered a Lieutenant who had absolutely mastered the Rail USA map. He would set up the game and wait for some unsuspecting corporal (who will remain un-named) to come along and think "oooh a chance to beat a Lieutenant... if I'm lucky", they would then start the game and, (because the map is a complete nightmare unless you have a compass and hungarian phrase book), would then be thrashed and stripped of 14 points before he could say "Hi, have a gg".

So, why not just master an unusual map and sit back and wait for the chancers to fall into your trap?

This just illustrates with a degree of hyperbole, the simpleness of winning 1v1. However, if you are playing a 3 or 4 player game and the less sure about the map realise that the spider has them in his web, they turn against the said arachnid and can usually by luck, judgement or sheer weight of numbers overpower him... thus making a win that much harder and (in my opinion) more worthy of a larger share of the points.

I agree that the 2nd placed player is not necessarily the second best player of the game.

TC.

[Bruceswar]

Is this anything new? People farm the system all the time. Can't fault someone for learning a map better than 99% of the people who play. They wish to do it that is there time. They can do as they please.

I think the scoring system is fine if you ask me.

[The Chosen]

Hi Bruceswar...

Do you remember the Peanuts comic strip?

The one where Snoopy is sitting on top of his kennel answering "Pet Problems"?

The one where every answer he gives is "Take your pet to the vet! Idiot!"?

...

[gdeangel]

BTW, just to point out that the issue the OP has is only valid for speed games.

Otherwise, 1v1 and multi-player are more about how regularly people check their account than the nature of the game itself.

[Bruceswar]

Hi Bruceswar...

Do you remember the Peanuts comic strip?

The one where Snoopy is sitting on top of his kennel answering "Pet Problems"?

The one where every answer he gives is "Take your pet to the vet! Idiot!"?

...

I do not remember this comic strip, but no matter what system you use someone will always be no happy...

[Stroop]

BTW, just to point out that the issue the OP has is only valid for speed games.

Otherwise, 1v1 and multi-player are more about how regularly people check their account than the nature of the game itself.

I think the mention of the duration of the game was mainly to illustrate how hard it was to finally win, so it would apply for casual games as well. At least, I hope the OP realizes that length is no measure for quality.

I think there's nothing wrong with the scoring formula, an average of 20 points per player per game isn't bad at all. Besides, isn't playing for 90 minutes part of the reward that you get from playing (and winning) a 4-player speed game?

[frankiebee]

O yeah, that's why we see on the top 100 of CC so many players who only plays 1 vs 1

[oVo]

A 1v1 game might give you 10-20 points for 15mins easy(ish) work, but a 4 player multi-player game on the same map with the same settings might take 90mins and (if you win) give you 30-50 points.

OMFGawd! 90 minutes to finish a multi-player game! That's just insane isn't it? Maybe the time it takes to complete a game should be included in the points awarded formula or maybe point hors should just stick to 1v1 speed games.

[OliverFA]

Hi Bruceswar...

Do you remember the Peanuts comic strip?

The one where Snoopy is sitting on top of his kennel answering "Pet Problems"?

The one where every answer he gives is "Take your pet to the vet! Idiot!"?

...

I could have not said it better

[OliverFA]

Hmmm...

Seems this topic has legs after all.

One of the reasons I brought this up, was that a while back I encountered a Lieutenant who had absolutely mastered the Rail USA map. He would set up the game and wait for some unsuspecting corporal (who will remain un-named) to come along and think "oooh a chance to beat a Lieutenant... if I'm lucky", they would then start the game and, (because the map is a complete nightmare unless you have a compass and hungarian phrase book), would then be thrashed and stripped of 14 points before he could say "Hi, have a gg".

So, why not just master an unusual map and sit back and wait for the chancers to fall into your trap?

This just illustrates with a degree of hyperbole, the simpleness of winning 1v1. However, if you are playing a 3 or 4 player game and the less sure about the map realise that the spider has them in his web, they turn against the said arachnid and can usually by luck, judgement or sheer weight of numbers overpower him... thus making a win that much harder and (in my opinion) more worthy of a larger share of the points.

I agree that the 2nd placed player is not necessarily the second best player of the game.

TC.

You make a very valid point here.

One can master a particular setting (map + rules) and then play only games with that setting. He will probably tend to gain points and climb the scoreboard. But... will his score and his place in the board trully reflect his skill? Not sure about it. Probably there are some cooks there which are better players than him, but who are not afraid to play different settings, because they enjoy the game and not the score number.

Maybe the problem is that the variety of maps and settings is so big that is very easy to cheat the system only playing the kind of games that suit you. Yes, I know that people who do that won't call it "cheat the system". They will call it "learn the rules" and say "if you don't like the game don't play it". Following that logic, I suppose that site owners could close the Suggestions forum.

[The Chosen]

OMFGawd! 90 minutes to finish a multi-player game! That's just insane isn't it? Maybe the time it takes to complete a game should be included in the points awarded formula or maybe point hors should just stick to 1v1 speed games.

Hi Odo.

A couple of things...

1. It is simply stunning that you have made Colonel in less than 160 games.

2. I have no idea what you just said (above);
(i) Why is 90mins to finish a speed game insane?
(ii) Why should the time it takes to finish a game be included in the points score - with deadbeats, adjacent fortifying, larger maps etc... in the equation.
(iii) What is a "point hors"