Arriving at this page late, I seem to have missed the start of the conversation. I simply became aware a couple of days ago that I was earning much lower points for the same performance.

Then I noticed that the Champions' rating page had disappeared. I started wailing about it in the old WW feedback thread till I was alerted to this page.

Is there an earlier link that will explain the changes, so I can get up to speed? I realise that the changes have been made, and won't be unmade, but I'd love to know something about the rationale for my own peace of mind.

It's part of a total overhaul of the hourly games, discussed in a number of game-specific threads.

The Easy game (Piece of Cake) was the first to switch over. Here's the discussion:

http://www.funtrivia.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/1217355

I guess with the new scoring system, any advancement in the Upgradeable Challenges are now out of reach since the time penalty is much more unless the scoring penalties get readjusted to the old level as was the case in the other games that have been converted.

"I guess with the new scoring system, any advancement in the Upgradeable Challenges are now out of reach since the time penalty is much more unless the scoring gets readjusted as was the case in the other games that have been converted."

Hmmm it wasnt intended to change the scoring system. How has it changed?

Instead of a -1 point per second, it is higher now so what would have normally been a 1451 game completed in 49 seconds, the score for the same game is now 1402.

My mistake

Who's the Smartest and Mixed Game have always subtracted 2 points per second. That being said, Word Wizard appears to have gone from 1 point per second penalty to 2 points per second which is going to make it harder to get letters. In the past if you got 2 wrong in 150 seconds or less, you scored 1150 and got a letter. Now if you get 2 wrong, it needs to be in under 75 seconds which is significantly more difficult.

The other games were def 2 seconds each. WW does appear to have changed... I'm not sure I'm against making it more difficult to get letters though.

It still appears to be sufficiently easy to get them, looking at scores.

Okay Terry, just wanted to let you know that WW had changed like Easy had at the start. I also see that because the upgrades are based simply on time, not score, there is no impact there either.

I don't really agree. Please change it back to the way it was. There's no reason to change how it is scored.

Like Gracious, I don't agree. Changing the Word Wizard to make it harder only hurts those of us who are not speed demons.

You don't have to be a speed demon to get a letter - I just trundle along, get my 15 correct in whatever time, and (barring a technology issue) get a letter. Hasn't changed, although my scores may have. Since I only play the game to grab a letter, I don't even look at them. I can even get one wrong and still get a letter. If I get two wrong, I never expected to get a letter, anyway - I would have spent so much time dithering over the choices and unable to find a logical basis for choosing the right response over the one I finally selected that I only expect to learn a new usage and move on.

Well, with the change in scoring, the games is spoiled for me now. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

It sounds like The Everything Challenge is now just a little bit harder, which doesn't seem fair on those who are still trying for the crown (Level 7).

"Well, with the change in scoring, the games is spoiled for me now. "

My goodness, SERIOUSLY?

I mean..... EVEN WITH THE MINOR SCORING CHANGE:

Last hour, 51 out of 61 players received a letter, which is pretty typical for this game. That's 83% of players in any given hour.

Frankly, THAT is way too high, and if I were rebuilding the game from scratch I'd probably make it even harder, so that, say, 30% of players got a letter on average.

But you know what, I'm here to give you all what you want.

If "trophies for all, everyone wins!" is what is wanted, then that's what we can do.

On Monday I will change the time penalty back to how it was because if that's what is needed for people to be happy, that's what I'll give you.

Terry, I think when you read a dramatic comment like the first one I quote above it forms a natural reaction like your reply, but I think if you look at it what the commenters are saying makes sense.

In my mind, the two point penalty is for games that are more challenging where times become long enough to bring researching the answers into the equation. Word Wizard has no such problem, as you state above, players are so quick (and there are a whole bunch of phenomenally quick players) that doubling the penalty makes little difference to them. So in word Wizard this change only really penalises the slower players and as samak says has the additional side effect that it will amend the difficulty of the Everything Challenge.

A game that really could do with a two point penalty, and I've mentioned this before, is Pot of Gold. A game where I see some of the super amazing players, who are capable of super quick times, taking upwards of 200 seconds and able to finish top of a set. Why are they taking so long?! Hmmm. But that's a different conversation.

I am all for making the letter requirement tougher in Word Wizard. Perhaps just up the score required a bit instead? It's, what, 1150 now? Take it up to 1200.

I see it as fairly pointless changing the penalty in a super fast game like WW

I would genuinely prefer to see more games on the site with a higher difficulty curve. I honestly have no interest in playing games that are only designed to be 'super-fast'. I'm by no means a fast player (I'm even slower on mobile, which is where most of our new users seem to be coming from). Trivia, I've always figured, is about what you know and not how fast you can click it and scroll.


I will make the same comment I make on every thread that ends up devolving to "change it back because I don't like it". It's not a matter of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." If we do not try new things, the site is going to stagnate. We will see less and less people playing the games and we will struggle to generate new content. Change is inevitable and necessitated.




I'm sorry, but this is empty rhetoric-- and yes, I know that people have responded since-- and I really get frustrated with it. This is far from the first time that similar comments have been made regarding games, badge changes, authoring activities, and design changes from you specifically. It's amounted to "there's a change on the horizon? Well that shouldn't happen because. Change is bad."

I get it. Change can be daunting. But we can't go without it. A couple of days ago, Terry was asked to keep a really weird, dated gif on the Gold Member Madness game-- something that doesn't even affect the game. That image is nearly twenty years old on this site alone and looks like it was made to appear on Windows 3.1. That's insane. I honestly don't understand how that affects site experience that much. It's currently the only hourly game without a consistent or cycling photo, and in vertical orientation on a mobile device, it appears like the others, but because of how narrow it is, it only fills up the left strip of a screen, jankily splitting off the game instructions from the division info (in landscape, it spreads out as the table should on desktop because there's space, but in vertical there's no room, so it has the aesthetic of a burp in the middle of a sentence).


Sorry to vent. But this is frustrating, and I'm honestly quite worried about creating anything new for fear that I won't be able to change it somewhere down the line.
I don't mean to suggest that constructive feedback isn't helpful or necessary and I honestly thank those of you who are giving justified reasoning behind your concerns. But I honestly don't know what to do with "I don't like it; change it; other people also probably don't like it." That gets us nowhere.

Thanks. That means I won't have to worry about adjusting the Everything challenge, a whole slew of Ascension stages and whatever assorted other things that depend on the time penalty in this game

Not to have this devolve into something totally off-topic, but I see both sides to this issue. Change is of course inevitable in life but that doesn't mean that it has to be changed for no reason. Making the Word Wizard -2 points per second seemed like an unnecessary one and as Wes points out it would cause several other things to be adjusted. If too many people are getting letters in the Gold Member game then as nasty_liar recommended maybe up the threshold to get a letter. Speaking of Gold Members, I think it is important to remember this. Gold Members are your customers, paying members of the site that help keep it running. Like with any business there will be feedback from customers that seems petty or insignificant but it is the feedback from your client base. I feel that it is paramount to listen to that base and act accordingly. Of course that doesn't mean acceding to every demand but at least to have a constructive response to it. I for one feel that there is way too much content on here for non-paying members of the site but that is another discussion. This is the best trivia site by far on the internet, it's not even close. Maybe there are more ways to bridge the player base/administration/editing side of things to generate new content and keep the site fresh and fun. I'm happy to help however I can but admittedly feel that suggestions are not even acknowledged at times.

I completely agree, and my concern isn't that we're receiving feedback that shouldn't be acted upon. In fact, I think many bring up good points about the penalty given.

My concern is that receiving feedback equating to the word 'no' with no substance isn't constructive, and I think my frustration (not speaking for Terry) stems from the recurring tendencies in this board (and in others and in personal messages) to either ask for changes to be reverted on the basis of personal nostalgia or unexplained criteria or, simply to put out an opposing point (which I don't think is the case here, but I've discussed this elsewhere as well). I am more than open to discussion. I am also fairly passionate about the site in general, keep in mind, so-- and I admit I was a bit harsh in my last message-- when I look at feedback, I'm looking with a mindset of "what's going right, even if something here is going wrong." and there are cases where it doesn't appear we can please people it gets a bit tough to strike the balance between appeasing existing players and drawing in new ones.

FWIW, I agree that we have tons of stuff for GMs and non-GMs alike, but without the changes that are being made in games, I think that a LOT of our competitive content is very, VERY difficult for new players to break into. As others have said, many of our games require speed. New players are not going to have that knack that players on here for 20 years are going to. We need to work at solutions. Not every solution is going to be a winner, admittedly.

Apologies if anything is coming across as aggressive or cruel-- not the intent. The dailies/hourlies really aren't my bag in terms of specialty around here, but investing in progress around here is.

Triviaballer also mentioned raising the threshold for obtaining a letter. I'm not sure, but I vaguely seem to recall that it was higher than 1150 originally (maybe 1250?). If that's the case it was probably lowered because when the game was new not enough players were earning letters (or several were complaining). Just throwing this out there, I'm fine either way.

“It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new." -- Niccolo Machiavelli

With that in mind, I would like to state my appreciation for the changes Terry has been making to improve the hourly games. Using actual game data to separate players, instead of an arbitrary level that has little correlation to skill in that game, is a great step towards improving the experience for everyone. We may all quibble about actual implementation details, but change is, in general, a good thing, as long as errors are quickly fixed and existing challenges built on the games, such as Daily Challenges and the AQ, are properly integrated into the new model.

Thanks eyhung - that's exactly what I was going to say - apart from the learned quote, of course. The changes have really livened the site up, Terry. Great job!