Just a little praise I think OML needs

Necrocat219 · (06-09-2014 02:14 PM)

I'm going to say this up front and straight: I love Outwitters, I love tilt to live although I didn't start playing it until after the release of Outwitters, and I'm liking how they are handling updates. I've been following customer reactions to their latest patch and suggestions to grant player 1 fewer wits or player 2 more wits to balance first turn advantage and thought that I'd make this thread to praise them whilst speaking out about what I think about how they are going about promoting and updating the game; sorry if I have any information wrong and/or my opinions seem wrong to you.

Think about it: you're loving the game and you've got used to the game and have got a solid strategy. Then suddenly you have found after a patch they've reduced your wits as P1. Whilst some people like change, many also get frustrated when change takes place and OML may lose customers because of that.
Just in case you don't know what I'm talking about: After the last patch there was a mini boom of negative ratings: This was mainly because people who had bought the Uber back expected to get 'all inclusive', but when they didn't get the game limit increase they were frustrated because they felt cheated on, even though financially that was the only way that OML could finance players who wanted more game space. Plus, the free players getting only 5 matches may have increased sales for a short amount of time, but it may have also turned some players away and again, leave negative ratings as some people believe they have a right to play for free, with no understanding of income through adverts and such.
***However they don't want to upset competitive forum users as anyone can access the forums and we are 'the face' of the community. The reason they have been quiet 'may' and I mean 'MAY', because I have absolutely no way of knowing this, is because they don't want to upset us if they can't balance the game; it's almost as if there are two separate communities they are trying to please: The thousands of anonymous players who can leave a negative or positive ratings and choose to spend money on the game, and the hundreds of players posting on these forum which everyone has access to, who are the face of the community that people playing on the app may see.

Finally to finish this off, OML have a reputation they are trying to build up; they could very easily mess up their whole career from one mistake in this game and until they've build up their reputation, expect them to tread slow and carefully with updates. I do want OML to succeed in building one because I love their games so far and for 2 people they've done an amazing job. Smile

EDIT
***Ah, sorry that I assumed that it was to do with business issues, I didn't think about workload.

**TheQwertiest** · (This post was last modified: 09-26-2012 12:16 AM by TheQwertiest.)

im not very good at making long, smart sounding speeches so ill just say I AGREE and THANK YOU OML for doing an amazing job.

worldfamous · 09-26-2012, 01:39 AM

Without a doubt, with all the bugs and the FTA issue, still the best game in the App Store. Good point on the P1 reduced wits. In terms of opening strategies, you'd essentially be back at square one. It may have worked for HA, but Outwitters is a totally different animal. I still say, live with FTA, make FT random, and put the focus of new maps on minimizing FTA.

***oneadamleft*** · 09-26-2012, 01:57 AM

For the record, we read as much of the forum stuff as we can. We're quiet because we work a lot. Replying to everything here, plus emails and facebook and twitter, is practically a full time job.

The FTA problem is on our radar. We're still trying to find time to fix the analytics for the server data (our current analytics don't work for such a large user base), while simultaneously adding and balancing a new team. Once we run the numbers, if we discover it is in fact a huge problem, we'll look at solutions. I know it's slower than most people would like, but there are only two of us, and of those two, only one that can actually do any of that.

Necrocat219 · 09-26-2012, 02:17 AM

(09-26-2012 01:57 AM)oneadamleft Wrote: For the record, we read as much of the forum stuff as we can. We're quiet because we work a lot. Replying to everything here, plus emails and facebook and twitter, is practically a full time job.

The FTA problem is on our radar. We're still trying to find time to fix the analytics for the server data (our current analytics don't work for such a large user base), while simultaneously adding and balancing a new team. Once we run the numbers, if we discover it is in fact a huge problem, we'll look at solutions. I know it's slower than most people would like, but there are only two of us, and of those two, only one that can actually do any of that.

Ah, sorry that I assumed that it was to do with business issues, I'll edit my post. I understand that you must have a lot of work to do in regards with getting updates and improvements developed at a reasonable pace.

Ravernoth · (This post was last modified: 09-26-2012 03:00 AM by Ravernoth.)

(09-26-2012 01:57 AM)oneadamleft Wrote: For the record, we read as much of the forum stuff as we can. We're quiet because we work a lot. Replying to everything here, plus emails and facebook and twitter, is practically a full time job.

The FTA problem is on our radar. We're still trying to find time to fix the analytics for the server data (our current analytics don't work for such a large user base), while simultaneously adding and balancing a new team. Once we run the numbers, if we discover it is in fact a huge problem, we'll look at solutions. I know it's slower than most people would like, but there are only two of us, and of those two, only one that can actually do any of that.

Thanks for the reply Adam, and for creating a great game.

But is there a need to spend some of your limited time and resources analyzing mountains of league data to verify what is obvious - that FTA exists and is very big? Every high level player can confirm this.

It's frustrating to hear that you want to fix the analytics to verify that it is an issue before even looking at it, despite the evidence and what players have told you.

The World Cup tournament alone has enough games to be statistically valid. Whether it's 2:1 or 3:1, it's a big issue.

For comparison, Hero Academy's FTA was about 1.5:1 before it was fixed.

And it takes very little time or resources to allow us to test a mathematically correct balance of 3 additional wits for P2, which will be a big leap in balance.

That said, Harti did say he brought it up on the internal forums and he hopes you and Alex will allow the beta testers to test it next month.

**Harti** · 09-26-2012, 03:38 AM

(09-26-2012 02:38 AM)Ravernoth Wrote: The World Cup tournament alone has enough games to be statistically valid. Whether it's 2:1 or 3:1, it's a big issue.

Haha, sorry. While I'm your side it's false to claim that a sample size smaller than 10- or 100,000 shows a statistically valid empirical result.

Good news is that Alex likes the 8 wit idea.
Sounds like we're testing it next week. =)

Ravernoth · (This post was last modified: 09-26-2012 03:51 AM by Ravernoth.)

(09-26-2012 03:38 AM)Harti Wrote:
(09-26-2012 02:38 AM)Ravernoth Wrote: The World Cup tournament alone has enough games to be statistically valid. Whether it's 2:1 or 3:1, it's a big issue.

Haha, sorry. While I'm your side it's false to claim that a sample size smaller than 10- or 100,000 shows a statistically valid empirical result.

Haha

What I meant by statistically valid was - though I haven't run the numbers, I'm pretty sure the tournament results are enough to show that FTA is greater than say 1.5:1 at a pretty high confidence level.

(09-26-2012 03:38 AM)Harti Wrote: Good news is that Alex likes the 8 wit idea.
Sounds like we're testing it next week. =)

Brilliant

Thanks for making it happen, and to OML for taking it on board!

Necrocat219 · (06-09-2014 02:14 PM)

(09-26-2012 03:38 AM)Harti Wrote:
(09-26-2012 02:38 AM)Ravernoth Wrote: The World Cup tournament alone has enough games to be statistically valid. Whether it's 2:1 or 3:1, it's a big issue.
Haha, sorry. While I'm your side it's false to claim that a sample size smaller than 10- or 100,000 shows a statistically valid empirical result.

Good news is that Alex likes the 8 wit idea.
Sounds like we're testing it next week. =)

Nice! That sounds fantastic and would add an interesting and fair balancing to the game Smile

vivafringe · (This post was last modified: 09-26-2012 04:46 AM by vivafringe.)

(09-26-2012 03:38 AM)Harti Wrote: Haha, sorry. While I'm your side it's false to claim that a sample size smaller than 10- or 100,000 shows a statistically valid empirical result.

This isn't true! It's a common fallacy that you always need a huge sample size to prove things. It turns out our data is so incredible that there is a huge probability that P1 is advantaged even with our tiny sample size. The standard statistical test for this type of data is, as mentioned in the other thread, to look at the ties. In the other thread, there were 17 tied games where the players won as 1p, and 2 tied games where the players won as 2p. Let's say we want to test whether there is an advantage to playing first. A naive view would be that player 1 has a 50% winrate vs. player 2. Let p be the winrate of player 1. We'll do a 2-sided test, even though a 1-sided could be argued to be more appropriate.

Ho (the null hypothesis): p = .5
Ha (the alternative hypothesis): p does not equal 0.5

The number of tied games where p1 follows a binomial distribution with n = 19, p = 0.5. Our p-value is 0.000729. In other words, if the actual winrate was 0.5, we would only expect a result this unusual 1 out of 1372 times.