I'm happy to announce that we are now live with the new iOS update of Cribbage Pro that brings all the new features found on the latest Android release (http://blog.fullersystems.com/2012/05/announcing-contests-for-cribbage-pro-on.html) to bring contests to everyone. This means you can finally challenge your friends on iOS to a contest for Cribbage Pro Gold and cash it out as a real cash prize (1 Gold = $1 USD)!
Cribbage Pro is the first and only real cash prize contest system of any kind available on mobile devices like Android and iOS for the iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch. Please read the link above from the Android release for further details or view the "Contests" section of the game web site and tell your friends.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Announcing Contests for Cribbage Pro on Android
Today, after months of work and testing I am proud to announce the release of Multiplayer Contests in Cribbage Pro for Android (the Apple iOS version is coming next).
Contests in Cribbage Pro are tournament games of skill (not gambling) with an entree fee and a chance to win Gold you can cash-out. Yes, you heard that correct, you can cash-out your Gold where 1 Gold = $1 USD and there are never any fees for cashing out! You can "Buy Gold" using the button at the bottom of the new "Contests" tab in the Multiplayer section of the game, or select the bottom information bar on that same screen for more options.
The following are some key rules and limits on contests, but for the full limitations and terms please view the full Terms and Conditions user agreement and the other contest information provided on the game web site as this list is not, and should not be deemed as being in any way comprehensive:
Contests in Cribbage Pro are tournament games of skill (not gambling) with an entree fee and a chance to win Gold you can cash-out. Yes, you heard that correct, you can cash-out your Gold where 1 Gold = $1 USD and there are never any fees for cashing out! You can "Buy Gold" using the button at the bottom of the new "Contests" tab in the Multiplayer section of the game, or select the bottom information bar on that same screen for more options.
The following are some key rules and limits on contests, but for the full limitations and terms please view the full Terms and Conditions user agreement and the other contest information provided on the game web site as this list is not, and should not be deemed as being in any way comprehensive:
- When the contest completes, the winner is immediately awarded the prize based on the entry fees collected.
- Each contest has the entry fee amount required to play set by the contest creator up to a current maximum of 25 Gold per contest.
- If you choose to participate in a contest, you must have sufficient Cribbage Pro Gold (CPG) in your account in order to join the contest.
- All contests are always considered rated games (for points).
- When the first game in the contest starts, all entry fees are removed from the players accounts for processing.
- All contests must be fully completed and a winner declared for any contest prize to be awarded.
- If you re-match a contest, the same entry fee will be used again and the same rules apply as if it were a new contest.
- If there is ever a disconnect or drop of a player in a contest, that contest will be saved and scheduled to complete later. An email will be sent with the scheduled time and other details and limitations.
- A player with a gold icon in the players list indicates they are able to play in contests.
- Each contest participant must read, agree and periodically review the full Terms and Conditions user agreement.
- To participate in a fee based tournament contest you must be of legal age in your respective jurisdiction (again, see the terms and conditions).
Friday, December 2, 2011
Cribbage Pro Multiplayer Points System Revised
After a lot of analysis, quite a few good debates on skill versus luck, and a lot of feedback from many of the regular players of Cribbage Pro Online, we are happy to announce a completely new points system for multiplayer games that is now live effective immediately. This new points system is a lot different compared to the old system, and as such probably needs a little explaining so that everyone can have confidence in what to expect when they play.
At the heart of the new system is points being given out based on how dramatically you win against your opponent. Points are awarded based off of the cribbage board position, and more specifically based on the "block" or 5 point section that the losers peg is in relative to the winning player (which on a game played to completion is always the last block with the peg out hole of course). We calculate the difference between that winning peg and the losers peg and determine how many "blocks" or sections on the cribbage board that peg is away from the winning peg. Next time you play, pay attention to which score block you are in, as each 5 point score block section will change the points awarded or taken away, so every time you get a block ahead of your opponent, you stand to get more points awarded for winning. If you are losing, then trying to get to that next block before the game is over could save you a lot of points as well.
Before we get into specifics, another big change is that the same number of points you can win is the same that is lost by the other player. With that, pictured in the table and chart below is the breakdown of points awarded by that "block" mentioned above (there are 24 blocks plus a final hole for 121 on our game board).
You will see that special consideration is given to the "Double Skunk", "Skunk" and if you lose by only one point (designated as block "25").
Along with this new system for determining the points to be awarded when you win, or that are taken away when you lose, is a new "Maximum Points Possible" calculation. This is a bit more complicated, but the picture you should probably have in your mind is that of a bucket of points that each unique opponent you play has to share points with you. This maximum is based on each match-up you have, each opponent you play against, and is calculated based on two different systems.
The first maximum score limiting system is used when you have played 10 games or less against the same opponent. For those first 10 games you play against someone, when you win we determine what I'll call a "game win delta" or a maximum number of games you have won more than the other player - your "play advantage" if you will. So if you have won 7 games against them in the past, and they have only won 2 (a total of 9 games), your advantage is 5 games (losers games of 2 won subtracted from winners 7). The breakdown of that maximum points possible in your match-up is as shown below.
So, if you are really beating up your opponent game after game, there is now a diminishing return on your wins. What this really is doing is gauging your skill relative to that specific opponent and awarding you less if you are already the most likely winner and it will subsequently award you more if you were being trounced before but finally manage to get a win (as your delta or advantage will be negative).
That system of maximum points for 10 or less games will be the one that most people will encounter as they play because of the numerous people playing and possible opponents you will face. However, for those that play more than 10 games against the same opponent, there needs to be consideration given beyond just a "games advantage", and this is where a percentage based system becomes more relevant and that is what is used.
Here is how the percentage system is used to calculate your maximum points possible.
As you can see, we calculate the win % of the person who lost the game (prior to adding in that loss) and use that to determine a maximum number of points won or lost. If the loser wins 46% or more against the winner, then all the points are available, but from 45% on down that maximum will slowly drop all the way down to 5 points maximum if the winner wins nearly all the time (85% or more of the time to be exact). So again, if you are always winning against that person, then it is expected that you will continue to win and there is a diminishing return on that win as you continue to prove yourself superior.
UPDATE: Also note that after the first 10 games you play against someone, all "skunks" will count as 2 games and any "double skunks" will count as 3 games when calculating this maximum points possible (not in your game stats or anywhere else, only for this purpose).
I'm sure there are those that will ask why we did all this, and why it is so complicated. Well, we really didn't want to make it this complicated, but we were forced into it by simply examining the system we use today and coming to an understanding where it was simply not being fair to everyone. Too many people were forced to play only certain levels of other players or risk being docked huge amounts of points for losing. Similarly, someone who only plays their spouse may be able to accumulate points rapidly if they were a cribbage expert and the spouse not so much.
Is this new system perfect? No, I highly doubt it is perfect, but I do believe it is a good step in the right direction. What that means is that this will probably not be the last change you see to the points system, but hopefully it means that future changes will just be tweaks here and there.
If you have comments, thoughts or suggestions on this new system please let us know in the comments or email us at support@fullersystems.com
At the heart of the new system is points being given out based on how dramatically you win against your opponent. Points are awarded based off of the cribbage board position, and more specifically based on the "block" or 5 point section that the losers peg is in relative to the winning player (which on a game played to completion is always the last block with the peg out hole of course). We calculate the difference between that winning peg and the losers peg and determine how many "blocks" or sections on the cribbage board that peg is away from the winning peg. Next time you play, pay attention to which score block you are in, as each 5 point score block section will change the points awarded or taken away, so every time you get a block ahead of your opponent, you stand to get more points awarded for winning. If you are losing, then trying to get to that next block before the game is over could save you a lot of points as well.
Before we get into specifics, another big change is that the same number of points you can win is the same that is lost by the other player. With that, pictured in the table and chart below is the breakdown of points awarded by that "block" mentioned above (there are 24 blocks plus a final hole for 121 on our game board).
You will see that special consideration is given to the "Double Skunk", "Skunk" and if you lose by only one point (designated as block "25").
Along with this new system for determining the points to be awarded when you win, or that are taken away when you lose, is a new "Maximum Points Possible" calculation. This is a bit more complicated, but the picture you should probably have in your mind is that of a bucket of points that each unique opponent you play has to share points with you. This maximum is based on each match-up you have, each opponent you play against, and is calculated based on two different systems.
The first maximum score limiting system is used when you have played 10 games or less against the same opponent. For those first 10 games you play against someone, when you win we determine what I'll call a "game win delta" or a maximum number of games you have won more than the other player - your "play advantage" if you will. So if you have won 7 games against them in the past, and they have only won 2 (a total of 9 games), your advantage is 5 games (losers games of 2 won subtracted from winners 7). The breakdown of that maximum points possible in your match-up is as shown below.
So, if you are really beating up your opponent game after game, there is now a diminishing return on your wins. What this really is doing is gauging your skill relative to that specific opponent and awarding you less if you are already the most likely winner and it will subsequently award you more if you were being trounced before but finally manage to get a win (as your delta or advantage will be negative).
That system of maximum points for 10 or less games will be the one that most people will encounter as they play because of the numerous people playing and possible opponents you will face. However, for those that play more than 10 games against the same opponent, there needs to be consideration given beyond just a "games advantage", and this is where a percentage based system becomes more relevant and that is what is used.
Here is how the percentage system is used to calculate your maximum points possible.
As you can see, we calculate the win % of the person who lost the game (prior to adding in that loss) and use that to determine a maximum number of points won or lost. If the loser wins 46% or more against the winner, then all the points are available, but from 45% on down that maximum will slowly drop all the way down to 5 points maximum if the winner wins nearly all the time (85% or more of the time to be exact). So again, if you are always winning against that person, then it is expected that you will continue to win and there is a diminishing return on that win as you continue to prove yourself superior.
UPDATE: Also note that after the first 10 games you play against someone, all "skunks" will count as 2 games and any "double skunks" will count as 3 games when calculating this maximum points possible (not in your game stats or anywhere else, only for this purpose).
I'm sure there are those that will ask why we did all this, and why it is so complicated. Well, we really didn't want to make it this complicated, but we were forced into it by simply examining the system we use today and coming to an understanding where it was simply not being fair to everyone. Too many people were forced to play only certain levels of other players or risk being docked huge amounts of points for losing. Similarly, someone who only plays their spouse may be able to accumulate points rapidly if they were a cribbage expert and the spouse not so much.
Is this new system perfect? No, I highly doubt it is perfect, but I do believe it is a good step in the right direction. What that means is that this will probably not be the last change you see to the points system, but hopefully it means that future changes will just be tweaks here and there.
If you have comments, thoughts or suggestions on this new system please let us know in the comments or email us at support@fullersystems.com
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Android Market Takes A Page from Amazon - Fails
For our regular readers, this post is quite different from normal, but it is something we have decided we can not ignore and that needs more attention from everyone who is a fan of Android, or Google in general.
Just recently (7/12/2011), Google started to release an update to the Android Market for devices 2.2 and above (a vast majority of devices). This update includes a complete redesign and a lot of great new features that could help everyone participating in the market. However, there is one change that is very negative all around for consumers and developers/publishers that will offset any of those positives in my opinion, but has not been discussed much. This change is in how they are now choosing to try and "rank" user reviews of apps, and in many cases only show 20 of such reviews that they are deeming "worthy".
In theory, trying to find the most relevant and meaningful reviews on something is a great idea. This is in fact something Google does really well at with it's PageRank and searching of the web on Google.com It is an idea that is very much needed to help filter out the "spam" and make reviews meaningful in any App Store (sorry Apple, that is a generic term). Amazon does this quite well with their regular products (to be determined on their own "Appstore"), and now Google is trying it out on their Android Market on devices and on the web version of the market as well (it has been on the web version for a little while now).
So, what is the problem then? It is a great idea, they are trying to do it, and that is all good, right? The problem is that their attempt is currently a clear failure and I can demonstrate this not only with the free version of our game Cribbage Pro, but more pointedly with Google's own self published apps as well. They are making the reviews system irrelevant, unreliable and at best completely useless to the consumer and at worst a huge negative hit for many developers.
Let's take Google's "Gmail" app available on Android. This app is clearly one of the best implementations of Gmail on any mobile device, and arguable the best email app for mobile devices period. Every app has some haters, so it is would be expected there are a few negative reviews as well. To be fair, if you have the full list of reviews on your older Android Market still and take a look, you will indeed find some bad reviews and people complaining about features they want and giving a lower rating as a result. However, the app still has an overall 4.5 star rating with nearly 113,000 reviews as of this writing. It is also one of the top rated in it's category (number 3 in the "Communication" free category). It has a very good ratio of positive star ratings to negative star ratings as well, which is all to be expected for a great app. So what do the reviews say? Well, that tells a very different story. The first three reviews are always what is shown by default for each app without clicking "More" or "Read all reviews" (which does not let you read all reviews, more on that later), so let's start in.
The first review shown for Gmail as of this writing is 3 out of 5 stars by "Adam" on June 21, 2011 (nearly a month ago). As that star rating would indicate, it is a mediocre review, but actually it is not a review at all. It is instead instructions on how to fix a problem that he was having with the app to help other users who may have a similar problem. Good on you "Adam" for trying to help your fellow man, but this is not a review that will help you decide if this is a quality app or not in nearly all cases, and it really can't be argued to be the most relevant review in that regard either. Let's go on to the second review shown and see if that will help us out.
The second review for Gmail is a 1 star out of 5 by "mark" on Jun 4, 2011 (getting even older now). He seems to have had a problem with an update released around that time and decided to ding the app with a poor rating in response. This kind of thing happens quite often in the Android Market, and is a fair review, but does the app still have this issue? Did anyone else around the same time complain of similar issues? Sorry, there is absolutely no way to know here. It is a 1 star negative review, with no context and no way of knowing if it is still a problem or if more recent reviews may have stated it as resolved. Again, a useless and likely outdated review that is very negative for what as stated earlier is nearly universally accepted as a great app. We move on to the third and final review shown on the main app page.
The third review for Gmail is also a 1 star out of 5 review, this time by "Erion" on March 28, 2011. Yes, you read that correctly. March 28th and today it is July 14th. Much older and more dated, and also a negative review of a great app. He is complaining of a missing feature to download attachments, which seems to be a reasonable complaint. So, is that still a problem nearly 4 months later? Who knows, it might be, it might not be. There is again no context of other reviews, no recent reviews showing this and no revision history by date that one could even try and use to divine that understanding. In fact, this could just be a user error and there may have been a response from another user just moments later saying so but you have no way of knowing that.
We will stop there, as things only get worse and you can view what Google says is all their reviews by clicking the "Read all reviews" for yourself. The next review as shown today is from way back in October of 2010 believe it or not and also negative, and the trend continues on for a while. Interestingly, Google Gmail gives itself 4 pages of 10 reviews each that you can look at for it's app, where as nearly every other app will max out at 20 (two pages of 10; like their own published Google Search app is limited to).
So without even using my own app as an example (feel free to take a look, you will see the same trends and some very old reviews), or the many others who are impacted, we see that this new "ranking" of reviews has a few critical issues. I'll outline them here for clarity.
Please Google, let's admit there is a problem here and fix it. I realize some apps don't have this problem for whatever reason the secret black box ranking is choosing better reviews (or at least not yet), but for those where it exists it really needs to be fixed. In fact, some apps that have very poor overall ratings, now are showing only positive reviews. So this problem is cutting both ways. Your changes here are hurting us, your developers and your customers, and now that you are rolling this out to devices world wide this problem is about to explode.
If you have been hit by this same issue, or you disagree and want to tell us why we are just a bunch of whiny developers, let us know in the comments. We would love to hear from you.
Just recently (7/12/2011), Google started to release an update to the Android Market for devices 2.2 and above (a vast majority of devices). This update includes a complete redesign and a lot of great new features that could help everyone participating in the market. However, there is one change that is very negative all around for consumers and developers/publishers that will offset any of those positives in my opinion, but has not been discussed much. This change is in how they are now choosing to try and "rank" user reviews of apps, and in many cases only show 20 of such reviews that they are deeming "worthy".
In theory, trying to find the most relevant and meaningful reviews on something is a great idea. This is in fact something Google does really well at with it's PageRank and searching of the web on Google.com It is an idea that is very much needed to help filter out the "spam" and make reviews meaningful in any App Store (sorry Apple, that is a generic term). Amazon does this quite well with their regular products (to be determined on their own "Appstore"), and now Google is trying it out on their Android Market on devices and on the web version of the market as well (it has been on the web version for a little while now).
So, what is the problem then? It is a great idea, they are trying to do it, and that is all good, right? The problem is that their attempt is currently a clear failure and I can demonstrate this not only with the free version of our game Cribbage Pro, but more pointedly with Google's own self published apps as well. They are making the reviews system irrelevant, unreliable and at best completely useless to the consumer and at worst a huge negative hit for many developers.
Let's take Google's "Gmail" app available on Android. This app is clearly one of the best implementations of Gmail on any mobile device, and arguable the best email app for mobile devices period. Every app has some haters, so it is would be expected there are a few negative reviews as well. To be fair, if you have the full list of reviews on your older Android Market still and take a look, you will indeed find some bad reviews and people complaining about features they want and giving a lower rating as a result. However, the app still has an overall 4.5 star rating with nearly 113,000 reviews as of this writing. It is also one of the top rated in it's category (number 3 in the "Communication" free category). It has a very good ratio of positive star ratings to negative star ratings as well, which is all to be expected for a great app. So what do the reviews say? Well, that tells a very different story. The first three reviews are always what is shown by default for each app without clicking "More" or "Read all reviews" (which does not let you read all reviews, more on that later), so let's start in.
We will stop there, as things only get worse and you can view what Google says is all their reviews by clicking the "Read all reviews" for yourself. The next review as shown today is from way back in October of 2010 believe it or not and also negative, and the trend continues on for a while. Interestingly, Google Gmail gives itself 4 pages of 10 reviews each that you can look at for it's app, where as nearly every other app will max out at 20 (two pages of 10; like their own published Google Search app is limited to).
So without even using my own app as an example (feel free to take a look, you will see the same trends and some very old reviews), or the many others who are impacted, we see that this new "ranking" of reviews has a few critical issues. I'll outline them here for clarity.
- Reviews Are Old & Not Tied to a Release
- The most glaring issue that will first hit you is that the reviews being shown are almost all very old reviews in the context of how many reviews this app is getting every single day. All apps we looked at that are impacted by this problem had this very same issue. Since these reviews are not tied to a release of the app in any way (say like Apple does), and have no other reviews around them from the same time, we have no context in which to decide if this is helpful or not.
- Reviews Are Heavily Negative
- This is a great app, with many great reviews. I can't link to those here because the web version now only shows these old reviews, but if you have an older Market on your device you can easily go there and see for yourself. How can an app with such high star ratings overall, and such quantity of great reviews have such an overwhelming amount of negative reviews being selected for showing in the market?
- "Read all reviews" Does Not Let You Read All Reviews
- The option to "Read all reviews" is misleading at best. In fact, it just shows more of a filtered and ranked list that Google has chosen to show you using it's magical black box algorithm (Google seems to like this idea of ranking things using complex formulas). There is no way to see all the current reviews, no list showing the most recent or tied to this version, and no way to rank up or down as helpful or not helpful those same reviews that have been filtered by Google. So if you don't find the current list helpful and you "down vote" them as "Unhelpful", you will have a very hard time finding a positive one to "up vote" as "Helpful", and good luck finding a recent one at all.
In the old market these things were much less of an issue as all reviews were always shown from the dawn of time and sorted by most recent first. You had a natural context from other reviewers around the same time. If someone mentioned an update causing a problem for them, you could find others possibly later saying the problem was fixed, or responding to the comment with clarifications or help. People could leave reviews with helpful hints, or responses to other reviewers who claimed to be having issues, but in reality possibly failed to follow instructions correctly (say for an app that needs root, or a widget that can't be moved to SD card, etc.)
Please Google, let's admit there is a problem here and fix it. I realize some apps don't have this problem for whatever reason the secret black box ranking is choosing better reviews (or at least not yet), but for those where it exists it really needs to be fixed. In fact, some apps that have very poor overall ratings, now are showing only positive reviews. So this problem is cutting both ways. Your changes here are hurting us, your developers and your customers, and now that you are rolling this out to devices world wide this problem is about to explode.
If you have been hit by this same issue, or you disagree and want to tell us why we are just a bunch of whiny developers, let us know in the comments. We would love to hear from you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)