Forums

Search
Forums » Memoir '44 Online - English » Skillscore loss in underdog battles
Show: Today's Posts 
  
AuthorTopic
Axelb9
Junior Member
Major

User Pages
Posts: 25
Registered:
November 2010
Skillscore loss in underdog battles Sun, 28 November 2010 13:57
Hi,

Having just receintly found the online version of this excellent game there is so far just one thing that really bugs me:

It is the fact that you also lose skill when massively outperformed in an underdog battle. It seems to me that the only ever occasion when you gain skill is when you win. War is not like that and IMHO Memoir 44 was neither devised like that. There are many underdog battles some are very lopsided with projected win percentages of under 20%. In case you massively outperform the average but still lose in the end for example with a score of 5 medals to 4 it is very and I mean extremely demotivating to see that you still lost skill. If you outperformed it means that you faired better than was expected and demonstrated good skill against odds. I cant understand why one still loses skill. People will tend to avoid underdog battles whereas one of the beauties of this game is to try your best in historical situations when you know that the odds were not favouring you a bit.

I read in the user manual that the skill score is not a major measure in the game (versus achievements and rank) still I feel that in case it is there it should be used in a fair way. And it should be there as people tend to like to see their skill against a numerical value.

Thanks for listening,

Alex

[Updated on: Sun, 28 November 2010 13:58]

      
Nightrain
Senior Member
Oberstleutnant

User Pages
Posts: 424
Registered:
October 2008
Re:Skillscore loss in underdog battles Sun, 28 November 2010 16:33
i tend to agree with Axelb9,
an outperformance in an extremely-impossible / least-favored maps should be awarded with an increase in skill, because it does take skill to win medals more than average in that map, or at least, no decrease in skill at all even if we lose Smile




      
Axelb9
Junior Member
Major

User Pages
Posts: 25
Registered:
November 2010
Re:Skillscore loss in underdog battles Sun, 28 November 2010 17:01
OK just to illustrate: I have now lost at Sword Beach twice as the allies in each case I gathered 4 medals and the score was 5 to 4. Of course the allies are the underdogs here so everybody and I mean everybody who offers a battle plays as the Axis. Now the nice guy that I am I accept and do my utmost but still lose in the end by a single medal. Alltogether in these two battles I have lost 32 skillpoints as the outperforming underdog.

This should not happen. OK that I do not gain skill only when I win however outperforming underdogs should not lose skill either otherwise it is totally demotivating to play these scenarios as the underdog.

To be honest it makes me so mad now to lose so much skill whereas in reality I am outperforming the average that I really wonder if I will pay money for ingots once the initial batch runs out. Unless it is changed of course.

Alex
      
Rock Shox Lyrik
Junior Member
Major

Posts: 29
Registered:
December 2006
Re:Skillscore loss in underdog battles Sun, 28 November 2010 17:12
I agree - outperformance should be more valuable! I am happy when I outperform when I lose, but it seems that the system doesn't give enough credit for it Smile
      
Yann
-= Crew =-
KS Backer - Skeleton

User Pages
Posts: 2355
Registered:
October 2002
Re:Skillscore loss in underdog battles Sun, 28 November 2010 19:08
Dear Axelb9:

I think you are looking at the Skill system from the wrong way.

Winning will always give Skill points to the winner. "So why would you play an unbalanced battle on the bad side?" will you ask. Because it's a risk vs reward bet. Let me explain.

Consider a base of 64 points. Say you have 33% chance of winning the battle because you are on the "bad" side:

- if you opponent wins, he will get only 1/3 of the points. So he gets 21 pts and you lose 21 pts.

- if you win, you will get 2/3 of the points. So you get 43 pts and your opponents looses 43 pts.

See? It's only fair to win twice as many points when you had twice less chances to win. Maybe now you are starting to think that it is not so bad to play the Allies at Omaha Beach? Razz


The "overperform" and "underperform" modulate a little bit the values. We wanted to reward performance compared to average results.

The other important factor is the difference in Skill values between the two players. This is classic to any ELO system, and ours is no exception there. If you beat someone much more "skilled" than you, you get more points. If you beat someone less "skilled", you make less points.

To conclude, if you want to make LOTS of points, you should win 6-0 at Omaha Beach playing the Allies against someone who has 500 more points than you. Cool

We worked very hard on the formulae, and I ask you to trust me on this: they work very well and they are very fair. Of course, they are a bit complicated, and so it is often difficult to understand from which dark magic you get or lose this number of Skill points at the end of the game.

In time, we will publish the Skill ranking on the game web site, and the detailed formulae for the mathematically inclined among you. Twisted Evil

My recommendation is this: don't focus too much on this. You should rather focus on your Officer Rank and your Achievements. These tell better about your experience and performance as a Memoir '44 Online player.

Have fun!

Yann

[Updated on: Sun, 28 November 2010 19:10]

      
Axelb9
Junior Member
Major

User Pages
Posts: 25
Registered:
November 2010
Re:Skillscore loss in underdog battles Sun, 28 November 2010 20:14
Thank you for your time responding.

However I beg to disagree in a few points. As you see I am not the only one with my standpoint. People who play online LOVE rankings and competitions, etc. It is a dilusion that the majority will care for the social aspect and the achievements that are unseen for the others. The rank system is totally vague for everybody and the only visible measure for advancement right now is the skill score. This is in the end that defines how good you are for the great majority believe me. I did read your statement regarding that you would want to promote the achievements and the rank vs skill. Believe me this is not what most in any competitive online community care for. Maybe if there was some clarity regarding the ranks it would be different. But as I said it is totally vague for some reason. People like goals, targets, things to strive for. If no one knows how to gain rank exactly then most care for the skill.

I understand what you mean by risk and reward nevertheless the example you brought up is totally unrealistic. There is skill involved in this game (besides a fair amount of luck) and you would want to be properly rewarded for that. If I am sure to lose skill point if I lose in a scenario that has only 20-30% chance of winning most will not play it and especially not against more skillful opponents.

If I outperform in a losing scenario I totally do not want to lose any skill points ever. A commander in a battle who goes in a losing scenario and totally outperforms the odds will not be regarded as someone whose skill should be regarded as less than before the battle event but quite the opposite: he would be regarded as a hero. The current system does not represent this. And believe me when I say I am not alone with this feeling: going in a scenario on the underdog side when you know that you would surely lose skill unless you not only outperformed the odds but rather grossly outperformed the odds by winning is not fun.

Thanks anyways for your consideration,

Alex
      
caroper
Senior Member

Posts: 166
Registered:
April 2004
Re:Skillscore loss in underdog battles Sun, 28 November 2010 23:01
I am beginning to get the impression that the interface has far too many elements that can be gamed. Skill, Honor, Rank, Merritt Badges and variable scenario costs, each with complex and mostly hidden formula.

The focus should be on Playing Memoir'44 as it is played in RL, swapping sides and totaling medals if you want a score, or just for fun with scores ignored if you prefer.

Joining a ladder should be optional not compulsory. I feel that the system will become the object of gaming, more than the game that is meant to be the object.

      
Axelb9
Junior Member
Major

User Pages
Posts: 25
Registered:
November 2010
Re:Skillscore loss in underdog battles Fri, 10 December 2010 23:40
I agree with the previous poster. If the game forced the player to play both sides I would have no objection about the scoring system. Or at least if you could indicate in the lobby that you want two side matches and then the game forced the players to respect it.

Otherwise and I am saying this again: whenever I play the underdog side, eg. with 30% chance and lose by a single medal after 35 minutes battle on sheer luck and then I see that I lost 15-20 skillscore against an equal opponent it makes me soo MAD that I want to break something. And then the opponent happily says by and there is no regame on the other side. I see people with a skillscore of over 1630 who play nothing but first assoult beach as axis and collect the 6 skill to go up the ladder.

Once you get this out of beta to a greater audience you will collect a lot of heat because of this unjust and ignorant scoring system.

Make it at leat so that only matches and rematches count as a skillscore while single matches are just there for practice purposes.

Alex
      
Phread
Senior Member
Stiff Upper Lip

User Pages
Posts: 1778
Registered:
December 2008
Re:Skillscore loss in underdog battles Sat, 11 December 2010 09:57
Get over it people.

I don't play for the skill ranking, it is nice but that's not why I'm paying and playing.

The medals and rank interest me as well as an opportunity to play against a lot more people when I can. I don't have to set up or pack up my board & pieces.

Play on McDuff and stop complaining.

Phread
      
Axelb9
Junior Member
Major

User Pages
Posts: 25
Registered:
November 2010
Re:Skillscore loss in underdog battles Sat, 11 December 2010 13:32
Who are you? And really why should I or anybody unhappy about the skill calculation care about your preferences?

Skills are there for a reason. If DOW chooses skill to be a representative measure they might as well do it properly and in a fair way. My post has nothing to do with players like you so please move along.
      
A_Canadian_eh
Member
Total Victory

User Pages
Posts: 99
Registered:
December 2005
Re:Skillscore loss in underdog battles Sat, 11 December 2010 14:57
Axelb9 wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 06:32

Who are you? And really why should I or anybody unhappy about the skill calculation care about your preferences?

Quote:

It is a dilusion that the majority will care for the social aspect and the achievements that are unseen for the others.


May I suggest that the reason you should care about other's preferences is the fact that your messages repeatedly (and in rather arrogant terms IMHO) presume to instruct DOW as to what the majority preferences of the gaming community are??

      
rasmussen81
DoW Content Provider
Designer's Oath

User Pages
Posts: 7190
Registered:
July 2007
Re:Skillscore loss in underdog battles Sat, 11 December 2010 16:37
Axelb9 wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 16:32

Who are you? And really why should I or anybody unhappy about the skill calculation care about your preferences?


Wow, Axelb9...any chance you could cool your jets a little bit? Granted, Phread wasn't particularly polite either, but maybe you could defuse the situation instead of escalating it. Smile
      
Axelb9
Junior Member
Major

User Pages
Posts: 25
Registered:
November 2010
Re:Skillscore loss in underdog battles Sat, 11 December 2010 17:10
rasmussen81 wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 16:37

Axelb9 wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 16:32

Who are you? And really why should I or anybody unhappy about the skill calculation care about your preferences?


Wow, Axelb9...any chance you could cool your jets a little bit? Granted, Phread wasn't particularly polite either, but maybe you could defuse the situation instead of escalating it. Smile


No buddy I am not going to. If you have any sense of justice in you you will see that I was not the one who instructed anybody here to 'stop complaining' in a rather arrogant manner. I do not care about his gaming preferences and I am not expecting anybody to care about mine either. I am not propagating in any of my posts that people should particularly care about skill, achievements, rank or whatever. What I am saying is that the current skill calculation is ignorant, unfair and totally inappropriate for this game (and we are totally equal here voicing our opinions as I am also a paying customer for the company, online and boardgame). What I offered was a simple criticism during a beta stage that was even asked for. It referred to an aspect of the game which is part of the current feature set. A nobody coming and arrogantly telling me basically to shut up and go away and that I should rather care about what she finds important (that he does not need to unpack???) is not what the company asked for during a beta. This is not the final version yet but a beta. Offering criticism is in line with the requirements. Arrogantly telling someone to stop complaining about a wrongly implemented feature is not. Now it is not clear for me whether you represent DOW here either so if not then please refrain in the future from giving me advice. If you are then please either fix the skillscore system or remove it.
      
rasmussen81
DoW Content Provider
Designer's Oath

User Pages
Posts: 7190
Registered:
July 2007
Re:Skillscore loss in underdog battles Sat, 11 December 2010 18:56
Quote:

Now it is not clear for me whether you represent DOW here either so if not then please refrain in the future from giving me advice.


I am not representing DoW...I'm just a lucky player who got to play this Online game starting in Closed Beta, and now I'm enjoying Open Beta just like you! Smile However, I will continue to ask you to be polite on the forums!!

Axelb9 wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 20:10

No buddy I am not going to. If you have any sense of justice in you you will see that I was not the one who instructed anybody here to 'stop complaining' in a rather arrogant manner.


True, Phread's post was not very constructive and I thought about saying something about the forum being a place for open discussion, but since nobody was responding I figured it was better not to draw attention to it. In retrospect I should have posted something directed at him as well. However, you had a choice in the tone of your reply and instead of defusing the situation you chose to engage in a line of posts that will only end in name-calling and this thread being locked down by an admin....something that nobody wants! Smile

Quote:

I do not care about his gaming preferences and I am not expecting anybody to care about mine either. I am not propagating in any of my posts that people should particularly care about skill, achievements, rank or whatever. What I am saying is that the current skill calculation is ignorant, unfair and totally inappropriate for this game (and we are totally equal here voicing our opinions as I am also a paying customer for the company, online and boardgame). What I offered was a simple criticism during a beta stage that was even asked for.


You absolutely have a right to your opinion and if you look through some of my posts you'll actually find that I agree with you to some extent. I think the ranking system needs some work and I hope that one of the many suggestions thrown out there result in an improved system!

Quote:

This is not the final version yet but a beta. Offering criticism is in line with the requirements. Arrogantly telling someone to stop complaining about a wrongly implemented feature is not.


This kind of topic and this line of discussion (the Ranking Skill system) is exactly what beta is for and I'm sure that DoW staff members are following your thread and all of the others that are making suggestions for improving the game. My point is still that this thread has taken a downhill turn and you aren't helping with your aggressive posts...neither is Phread! Laughing

[Updated on: Sat, 11 December 2010 19:19]

      
rasmussen81
DoW Content Provider
Designer's Oath

User Pages
Posts: 7190
Registered:
July 2007
Re:Skillscore loss in underdog battles Sat, 11 December 2010 19:24
Phread wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 12:57

Get over it people.

I don't play for the skill ranking, it is nice but that's not why I'm paying and playing.

The medals and rank interest me as well as an opportunity to play against a lot more people when I can. I don't have to set up or pack up my board & pieces.

Play on McDuff and stop complaining.

Phread


Phread, this kind of post is not helping cultivate an open discussion about the online game or ways to improve it. I focus on the medals and military rank system like you, but some people want to be able to track their progress through a Skill system and I agree that the current system does need some work.

The forums are designed for this kind of 'thinking out loud' and telling people to get over it and stop complaining is only going to upset people (as we've seen). I don't think your post would have bothered anyone if you had simply talked about what you enjoy playing the game for... Confused
      
Phread
Senior Member
Stiff Upper Lip

User Pages
Posts: 1778
Registered:
December 2008
Re:Skillscore loss in underdog battles Sat, 11 December 2010 20:02
Hello again.

My post was not intended to offend anyone - and as I appear to have offended people I offer a sincere apology.

My point, poor composed and badly written, is that the focus on the scoring/ranking system within M44 online can be considered - by some like me - to be a secondary issue.

I forgot that for some it is a primary issue. For those who play to increase their skill rating or gain rank I again apologise. I did not intend to denigrate you or your posts in this forum.

Find me online and shoot up my units. Defeat me in play and increase your skill and/or rank. Make me pay for my transgressions.

rasmussen81 thanks for your thoughtful and insightful posts.

Regards to All
Phread the phoolish.

[Updated on: Sat, 11 December 2010 20:03]

      
eldonion
Senior Member
Minesweeper

User Pages
Posts: 159
Registered:
December 2007
Re:Skillscore loss in underdog battles Sat, 11 December 2010 20:46
Hi all

As I only bought the game a week ago,I thought I'd throw in a few points regarding the above from the perspective of a new player.
(At least to this particular game)

Your skill score and ranking are important but it's not the only reason I'm here.

The main reason I play this and other on-line games is that it's quite difficult sometimes to get suitable opponents who have the both the time and willingness to play the type of board games that I enjoy.

Now you have all types of players on-line ranging from those who have been here forever and know all of the tricks to those who enjoy just a good all out frontal assault regardless of the consequences.

Now You can usually work out, based on their rank, skill score and number of games played, just what type of player you might be playing against.

I read with interest Yann's comments and fully agree with them.

Playing as the underdog is or should be a challenge.

Now the reason that you might consider playing as the underdog is that the rewards for a successful result (not just a near miss) are much higher.

Not only does your own skill score go up much quicker but you can get a great feeling by beating the odds!!

(Also remember that the loss to your skill score due to a failure are not as severe when you play as the underdog.)


But if you lose, you should not be rewarded for losing. After all it was your own choice to play as the underdog.

Hope my post was not to long and rambling.
      
Axelb9
Junior Member
Major

User Pages
Posts: 25
Registered:
November 2010
Re:Skillscore loss in underdog battles Sun, 12 December 2010 08:27
I am glad we are getting back to the topic here and dear Phread I am absolutely ready to take on your challenge. You or anybody can find me quite regularly online with the exact same username and a 5 star honor. That means I am playing anybody on any terms but nowadays I prefer playing two games one after the other so that there is a fair comparison of skill. Losing the a underdog side with 1 medal, losing 20 skill and listening to the opponent saying gg and bye just does not cut it anymore really. So invite me ( any of you and I am there) I am as big of a fan as anybody the type who was ready to work months on converting the game into 10mm model scale so that my soldiers are not twice the size of my tanks...

Concerning some of the opinions here: I understand the preferences regarding achievements and the like. Also understand the suggestion to select opponents who help someone up the skill. Both arguments fail to convince me on several accounts.

First of all you cannot see the achievements at all in game - I mean the achievements of others. Rank progression is obscure at best and so it does not represent any good measure regarding whether you really progress in the game or not. By progressing I mean that most like to see whether they are getting any better at all at a hobby they are devoting their free time to or not.

On the other hand the skill system is very much in your face in the game. At one side they downcommunicate the importance of it here on the forums on the other side after each and every battle they push in your face that you gained or lost this many skill. No I have not lost any skill in the regular sense of the world if I lost Omaha with one medal as Allied. Skill is a prominent feature of the current beta whereas achievements are not. It should be a fair measure or as I suggest should only be applied if there were two games played one on each side as the original board game was designed. Using ELO scoring for a lopsided scenario where the players are not forced to equal out their original chances by playing for both sides is a misuse of ten system and creates the many criticism you can read on these forums in many threads.

Regarding the suggestion that one is free to go into a battle with a calculated and measured risk reward proportion I once again need to contest this thinking. I usually either reply to invites or enter into open games. Once you are there there is no way to check either the skill or the honor of the opponent. Most people usually post battles on the favored side. Once I enter the game lobby Then as opposed to some speculation offered here you can not work out mostly anything about your opponent as skill, honor, played games, etc are all hidden and not accessible. Many a time I have fallen this trap and then found myself playing against Johnny as the other have left after his first tank was blown to bits.
      
Boca
Junior Member
Major

Posts: 25
Registered:
November 2010
Re:Skillscore loss in underdog battles Sun, 12 December 2010 17:09
I have no issues with the skill system and prefer to play the underdog, as victory is all the more satisfying.

[Updated on: Sun, 12 December 2010 17:12]

      
Yann
-= Crew =-
KS Backer - Skeleton

User Pages
Posts: 2355
Registered:
October 2002
Re:Skillscore loss in underdog battles Mon, 13 December 2010 21:51
Dear players:

Please note that we opened a new thread on this topic:

http://www.daysofwonder.com/en/msg/?goto=203191

Make sure you read the intro message and the related PDF.

Thanks,

Yann
      
    
Previous Topic:Suggested change to ranking system calculation
Next Topic:Scenario cost analysis
Goto Forum: