About this Topic

Tags



PurposeGames.com » Request & Feedback

"gambling" games (19 posts)

  1. tickman

    tickman
    Moderator
    Posted: 5 years ago #

    I was responding to someone who left a comment on one of my games.

    I saw on that person's message board a complaint from someone else about 'gambling' games. Those would be games in which you can't get 100% by skill, only by luck.

    I will not name the person who made the complaint, but the basis of the objections seems to be that such games should be avoided because they hold down your average, and keep you from rising in the leaderboard. (i.e., you get a low score at an 'impossible' game, and you'll never get 100%.)

    The specific game in question was "How Lucky Are You?", but there are others.

    One of them is my own, mis-named game "How Lucky Are You? Quiz-style" (should be "multiple choice-style".)

    Anyway, the person had a point. Games like this should not be considered in the leaderboard rankings. There should be a way to get games like that stricken from the list.

    Yes, on my part for my game, I could reset the high scores, freeing people from low scores in that game. I could delete that game. But it is one of my more popular games, and I don't want to deny somebody their ATH (87%), take the 'number of games played' away from a lot of people, or lose a game that actually does make a point regarding probability.

    And that still wouldn't address the problem of similar games.

    Is there something that can be done about this?

    If not, my apologies to all who have lower stats because of it. (Oh, I'm 0% in that game--not as difficult to get as 100%, but still not likely.)

        
  2. CarpeDiem

    CarpeDiem
    Member
    Posted: 5 years ago #

    I absolutely agree with this. I was actually intending to send David a PM asking if I could have a couple of games removed from my record for this reason.

    If there's some reason certain games couldn't be excluded from Leaderboard eligibility, I wonder if it would be possible to allow people to individually request their scores removed from these games. The downside is that this might be a bit of work for David, but I think after an initial flurry, there wouldn't be many requests.

    I don't want to become a big pain, and I can appreciate this might be a bunch of work for the site. At the same time, it sucks that having played these games in the past are making it impossible for us to ever go after the top few spots. Before the existence of the Leaderboard, having a couple of games below 100% wasn't all that important. The most obvious metric of how well we were doing was things like ATHs. Had we known back when we played those games that there would one day have been this Leaderboard with its current criteria, we never would've played those games.

        
  3. Dal

    Dal
    Member
    Posted: 5 years ago #

    Its funny because I have had the same exact thought too, before reading this topic in the forum. I would also be at 100% if it wasn't for the "luck" games. I played those games based on curiosity but it is statistically unlikely that one can get a perfect score playing them.

        
  4. sarah

    sarah
    Member
    Posted: 5 years ago #

    Everybody must have had this thought at once. I actually sent David a pm this morning about this same exact issue.

    "Yes. You are quite right.
    I'll see what can be done about excluding them.

    Tanks.
    David

    sarah wrote:

    Hi. I was just wondering, wouldn't it make sense for games based on chance and luck to not be averaged into the average score on the player rankings leaderboard?

        
  5. Itachi

    Itachi
    Member
    Posted: 5 years ago #

    I'm currently enjoying the top spot overall thanks to this problem so I have nothing to gain by supporting the removal of these scores from the rankings calculations but I must agree in principle. It's obvious to me that top ranking players with percentages just under 100% must have played a game where 100% cannot be acheived by learning the game.

    I can appreciate Tickman's idea that such games demonstrate probabilistic concepts and have an elegant educational component to them in that way but they do represent games that cannot be won except by chance and so we should not be evaluated based on our performance in such games.

    For what it's worth, I also disagree with the 20+ ATH rule separating Grandmasters from Grandmasters+ but this rule enables me to keep Dalle away from the top spot by pushing him under 20 ATHs whenever he displaces me so I've had a bit of fun with it.

        
  6. BoboLo

    BoboLo
    Member
    Posted: 5 years ago #

    My 'problem game' is the 'Last 5 African leaders' game, which has so many dots that it inevitably freezes on the penultimate/ultimate dot. We had a similar problem recently with the tournament game 'all the world's capitals', but the African leaders game is even more awkward - it's not only extremely difficult, but it doesn't let you complete!

        
  7. Wentu

    Wentu
    Member
    Posted: 5 years ago #

    I agree with tickman. I don't want to spend on avarage 5040 games on 7 ***** dwarfs just to have a clean 100% overall

        
  8. PETO

    Peto
    Member
    Posted: 5 years ago #

    So, aside from these 'unwinnable' games, does this ranking system discourage anyone from trying games on a whim that they otherwise might have played once or twice just to check it out?

    I now regret playing a couple of the "About me" type multiple choice games but am so absolutely bored by them that I can't force myself to replay them and learn how many cats so-and-so has (and I'm sure there are people out there who feel the same about my vocabulary games). Oh well, I accept that I'll never get to 100%... but it is too bad if the quest for perfect stats keeps games from being played.

        
  9. Wentu

    Wentu
    Member
    Posted: 5 years ago #

    You know what, Peto ? actually what you say lingered unexpressed in my mind for a while and now i am conscious of that: yes, at the moment i am restrained from playing some games that i could just try for the sake of curiosity.
    Maybe this is bad, i don't know, but it is surely happening to me

        
  10. smarty_skeleton

    smarty_skeleton
    Member
    Posted: 5 years ago #

    I play alot of games out of curiosity....I have no interest whatsoever being on the leader board if I can't have a few laughs and have some fun just because I might not get 100% I don't understand why you would care so much....every "random" quiz I see I play for kicks cause they are usually funny =) If you are on the leaderboard congrats but dont play boring stuff that you know and see a game and be like "I want to play that.....wait i might bring my average down" HAVE A LITTLE FUN =)

    Sorry if you are on the leaderboard and this in any way, shape, or form offended you =)

        
  11. PETO

    Peto
    Member
    Posted: 5 years ago #

    People have different reasons for being addicted to purposegames, and the competitive element is very attractive to some people. Many people. Okay, I'm cool with that.

    I think that a rating system that encourages people to play as wide a variety of games as possible is best, however, while a rating system that discourages experimenting is less than optimal. I was just wondering (since I'm not a speedster myself) if any of the dedicated purposegamers were restraining themselves, consciously or not, as a result of the new rating system.

        
  12. BoboLo

    BoboLo
    Member
    Posted: 5 years ago #

    PETO raises an interesting issue.

    Personally, I like to play as wide a variety of games as possible, although I need a little encouragement to play the Science games (having never passed a science exam in my life!). But I can see why people would duck certain games, especially if there is a large random element involved. My particular bugbear used to be the 'Last 5 heads of state - Africa 2008', which is a complete nightmare of a game - being both exceptionally difficult and also very difficult to complete (due to the freezing of the computer on the last or penultimate dot).

    My suggestion would be to make the threshold 99 or 99.5 rather than 100 percent. What do others think?

        
  13. Wentu

    Wentu
    Member
    Posted: 5 years ago #

    Answer to BoboLo

    I see at least 3 reasons why a game can't be completed:
    - it is random
    - it is so long that it causes software problems
    - it is too hard (but deterministic)

    The last one isn't a real problem in view of trying to get a good ranking (with present rules). Just write down the answers and then play again and follow your notes. You will get a horrible timing but you'll get the 100%

    For the second problem there are no solutions until the bug is found and solved.
    For the first one, there is no sure solution. One should just play and play... quite boring.
    I think that excluding gambling game is a better solution than lowering the threshold. For any threshold you can find there will be a random game that leaves you probably with a lower score.

    I do not personally find the present rules for ranking very good but surely they are intresting and i am trying hard to get the best score I can. I would not ask to change these rules ; i'd prefer to take away possible problems like the unfair fact that some games are not connected to some ability, let alone purpose. I am happy to have random games in PG because they are fun, but I would exclude them for "more serious" part of PG like rankings.

        
  14. Dal

    Dal
    Member
    Posted: 5 years ago #

    Bobolo is correct, if there was a function to round up from 99% or 99.5% to 100%, this would solve the problem.

    Also I understand what smarty_skeleton means, about what is actually the point of getting 100%, but as many others say, part of the fun of this website is being friendly but competitive.

    As speed goes though, I virtually have no all time highs!

        
  15. Wentu

    Wentu
    Member
    Posted: 5 years ago #

    If i correctly understand what Bobolo suggests, the rounding up would occur on the percentage of the game.
    "How lucky are you" has 7 answers, if u make just one error your percentage is 87.5% and the 99% threshold would not count.

    If instead he is suggesting to round the percentage of the ranking, i don't think it's a good idea because there are tons of ppl with percentages higher than 99% and it wouldnt be fair

        
  16. BoboLo

    BoboLo
    Member
    Posted: 5 years ago #

    For clarification: 99 or 99.5 percent would be the OVERALL (not individual game) threshold. This would mean that someone could play the 'How lucky are you' game, score 87.5 percent, but still average over 99+ percent because they had scored 100 percent in the rest of their games.

        
  17. niklas

    Niklas
    Moderator
    Posted: 5 years ago #

    As it is now a player who has played 1000 different games at 100% is rated higher than someone who has played 10.000 at 99.99%.
    I think the current rating system is a bit unfair to long time members who has played a lot of games out of curiosity and never bothered to get 100%. Now they need to find these games and try to get a 100% score in order to improve their rating. If they had known this was to be important they probably wouldn't have finished the games in the first place in order not to get a score lower than 100% on a game they aren't that interested in..
    My idea would be to multiply the number of games played with the average percentage to get a rating.

        
  18. slaaty

    slaaty
    Moderator
    Posted: 5 years ago #

    Knowing some competitive types (and admittedly being one myself) this thread amused but did not surprise me. I'm new here, but already figured out the artificiality of the rankings. I decided early that I have no interest in competing for ATH's as I will never be a speedster, and though I am OC enough, that I often feel compelled to play a game until I get 100%, there is a limit, and with really tough games I'm not going to sweat the occasional low score.

    Knowing all this, I have already been scrolling the leaderboard in search of like minded folks, specifically those who have high but sub-100% averages, and with only a handful of ATH's. A rating system which was adjusted to not discourage experimentation would have definite merit, but on the other hand the current system still identifies players of different types of skills if you bother to evaluate the stats instead of looking only at ranking.

    No insult to you speedsters is intended by my comments; it's just not my gig.

        
  19. Marioman

    Marioman
    Member
    Posted: 5 years ago #

    ыы ляч ыгыдыф ыдфыгфв ывфпг свывнс выфнгвысв ынпвы ыды яыыюыывыгв вы врыпф ыфпвыфвыпрвос выпс вв всыввылфпвыств й влфврыс влврылос сы сылфслсывс вы с ысыс высвлыфсв влфылвысвылыр свы св свысвыфры ф ыфюф ысывсвы с высв

        

Reply

You must log in to post.