It is the time you have all been anxiously waiting for, a new competitive season of Cribbage! Welcome to the Spring 2022 Season of Competitive Matchmaking for Cribbage Pro! Where we are, it is definitely that time of year again, and spring has sprung. I know for many there are a few more weeks of winter weather, but here the flowers are blooming, the bees are buzzing and I am sneezing - it is springtime! The Winter 2022 season has completed, and if you had any bets placed on who was going to be at the top, there were not a lot of surprises this time around. Overall, the Top 50 leaderboard still had some new faces, and the season had more matches played than any of the previous 3 seasons! It was a fairly hard and long battle for many to reach their rankings. As always, continue to tell your friends about competitive cribbage, and take advantage of those prizes! Thank you to all who were once again able to participate in this great game of cribbage! For those who couldn't make the commitment to Winter 2022, I hope you can find the time to join in the fun this season.
In 1st place for Winter 2022, we have "iPeg". Welcome back, iPeg! 2nd place is "Dhrun", and I admit I was kind of rooting for Dhrun this season. In 3rd we have "nob4one", which is someone we have seen around these parts before too, and great to see come up from 13th last season. Other interesting movements in the Top 50 included "hillchem" moving from 15th to 7th, and "Yompopo" who came all the way from 41st to 12th! The next biggest moves between seasons were "Br1Guy" who rose 24 places from 37th to 13th, and "RatKing" from 32nd to 14th!
As with past seasons, everyone who finished the season in the Top 50 ("Recent" list), have been awarded both a special in-game "board peg" as well as Cribbage Pro Gold that can be used in the Cribbage Pro Contests system and then redeemed for cash (awards must be used at least once in a Contest to be cashed out to USDC, see the full terms and conditions for details). The top finisher is awarded the "crown" board peg, and all others in the Top 50 are awarded a "star" board peg. These pegs are shown to everyone when playing in online multiplayer games, and they are permanent, so if you see your opponent has one of them you can know that they have earned it by finishing in the Top 50 in competitive play. The Cribbage Pro Gold awards are as follows (not cumulative):
- 4 Gold for Top 50
- 7 Gold for Top 25
- 10 Gold for Top 10
- 20 Gold for 3rd Place
- 30 Gold for 2nd Place
- 50 Gold for 1st Place
Here was the final Top 50 for Winter 2022:
I would love to see an average of pegging points and hand points per game in a players stats. I think it would help to show players that are playing well but have maybe been unlucky with cards and vice versa. We get the stat after every match so I'd imagine it would be possible.ReplyDelete
Thanks for the suggestion. It is on the list, and as you said, certainly possible. We actually have a lot of stats we want to get added eventually. Thanks for your patience.Delete
Wait, so there's no best of one game match format for the upcoming season and it's still 2 out of 3? I've been looking forward to the new format since it was mentioned the season before last.ReplyDelete
Yeah, I know. It is a bummer all around. I tried, but I want to get a solid product out the door that works more than trying to rush something through. As briefly mentioned, some things far beyond my control were forced on us, and so instead of working on fun new features for the game, we got to work on stuff that pretty much nobody sees or cares about. I guarantee I am at least as disappointed in that as anyone else.Delete
Is it least being planned for next season? It should be a an easy decision. There's a reason why the best of one game matches is clearly the most popular format in Classic.Delete
It is definitely on the list. The decision is definitely not the hard part.Delete
The stats are for games played and wins. It would be nice to wind and losses.ReplyDelete
I had some wild streaks this past season including one where I had my sight set on reaching the top 100 (based on recent success) and then (inexplicably to me) probably lost 40 of the next 50 games. It would be nice to see your record for the last 10, 20,... 50 games, for example.ReplyDelete
I had a very similar experience I moved up to #37 then proceeded to lose 50 of my next 80 matches. Huge losing streaks 11,8,6 in a row and only a best 3 game win streak. Seriously crazy hands!Delete
I had some frustrating streaks as well. 10 or 11 games where I got beat soundly in 2 gamesDelete
We who are not lucky enough to get in the top 50, only competition is to beat our best position each term.so would it be possible to tell us what position we finish each term and is written down on the stats which includes all previous positions,so we have something to aim for and beat each term.ReplyDelete
Thanks for the suggestion. We do keep the history archived for each season, so in theory it is possible. I'm not sure what it would look like to do this, but I'll add it to the list of things to consider for the future. For now, just remember to write down or take a screenshot of the Leaderboard for your records.Delete
Would love to see a totsl ranking --- just add all the individual seasons up and rank or perhaps an average season rank or median or all 3Delete
I just got booted from a game (the system seems to have reset) and it was counted as a loss... what gives? I was winning the second game and I was up 1-0ReplyDelete
Hi, this sounds like a connection problem of some kind. We can take a look and see if you email us at support@FullerSystems.com with the details. Include your username and the approximate time it happened.Delete
Can we have an option to resign a hopeless leg without forfeiting the whole game? When you are way behind with no hope of winning the leg why prolong the agony?ReplyDelete
This is under active discussion and debate. So, the answer is "maybe" for right now.Delete
I appreciate you listening to our comments and suggestions. I just want to add my two cents in hoping to improve the system and provide more competitive play in the future.ReplyDelete
By now, a lot of good players know that it is more advantageous to face higher rated opponents as opposed to lower rated opponents.
I experimented with your matchmaking system during the summer 2022 season. I canceled the matchmaking process using 10 second, 15 second, 20 second intervals, etc. It seems that 15 seconds is the magic number for facing opponents 4000 or higher. Using this system, 98 of the 100 opponents I faced were rated 4000 or higher. As such, if I were patient enough, I would only face the top rated opponents. Unfortunately, this system is very time consuming but it seems this is the only way to remain at or near the top of the leaderboard. It took anywhere from 5 to 15 minutes to find a match. The winter 2022 season was even worse. It took upwards of 30 minutes to find a match. Eventually, I gave up as it was too tedious and time consuming. Not everyone has that much time on their hands, including myself.
My suggestion is for you to prevent players from canceling during the matchmaking process as it allows players to manipulate the system to face only the higher rated opponents. I just don't think this is how you intended your matchmaking system to work. For example, you can allow up to 5 cancellations per day. Any subsequent cancellations would result in a rating penalty.
Hi, thanks for the feedback and suggestions. Ideally, we want the matchmaking to be reliable and only find a good match, but it will take some more time to continue our "tweaks". Know that the timing will change in each season as we adjust those factors regularly, and I agree that we really don't want people constantly canceling out of matchmaking but I would rather have the system be adjusted so that the incentive to do so is simply not there anymore.Delete
I skipped last season in hopes of switching to a best of one game match format that was planned for this season but that didn't happen. I'm trying again but losing interest because matches simply take too long to play and now to find. This season is the worst I've seen so far.Delete
Experienced players know the longer you wait the greater the risk of matching up against a significantly lower CR player. I've already played matches where the difference has been > 1,000.
Maybe the player pool is smaller which would explain the problem. If you want a large pool of players then use the most popular format that players prefer... best of one game matches.
I'm happy to be playing best of three matches and would hate to play matches consisting of a single game. I believe there is too much left to the luck of the cards by playing only one game.ReplyDelete
Yes, that is exactly the problem that is so difficult to manage fairly.Delete
What do you mean by fairly? Luck is involved whether you play the best of one or best of three game matches. Best of one brings in a larger player base. You play more matches so the luck averages out compared to best of three game matches. Matchmaking would be better as well. Just played a game with a 1,200+ CR difference with my opponent. How is that a suitable match-up?Delete
Fairly in particular with respect to the advantage of first dealer and then also the confidence that the win or loss was/wasn't due to a significant luck factor. This goes to how the CR factors are adjusted from a win/loss in a match. Systems like this that are trying to get to a "true skill" kind of ranking are highly dependent on a high degree of confidence in the results being based on skill. Certainly different systems could be used, but they all have various benefits and drawbacks. What may sound simple, is far from it.Delete
It's been my experience that the difference in CR decreases as the season progresses, when as others stated you exit after a time. This is only the first week and I would say the CR level is quite inaccurate. Things always seem to work out as the season progresses. I would suggest an improvement,if possible. I those 4000 an above could have written into the code that they only play those 3800 (or thereabouts) an above after a certain number of matches...say the halfway point of the season or so.By then, they have enough marches to have a goo confidence factor in there CR... theoretically. They then could just let it search for a match without exiting.Delete
The advantage or odds of first dealer is no different in a best of 3 vs. best of 1 game match.Delete
@Uber, the advantage is mitigated by alternating deal. It's not perfect, but it does help.Delete
If you win the deal then statistically you're favored to win the match, no different than a best of 1 game match. I'd rather have a larger player base so CR is more evenly matched and be able to play 2x-3x more matches.Delete
I agree with Paludeja, 2/3 is better. Playing 100 2/3 matches is equivalent to 250 individual games. It would actually take more time to play the 250 individual games because you would be waiting before every game instead of every 2 or 3 games.ReplyDelete
I suspect people participating in a possible single game season would not play as much or as often. Know that whatever we do here, the plan would be to add it as an option and not replace the current one. Again, how this all works out, I don't know yet.Delete
The lengthy waiting to find a match is due to the small player pool because the best of 3 game matches isn't popular so it doesn't bring in a lot of players. This season seems the worst by far and the longer you wait the greater your chances of matching up against a player with a significantly lower CR.Delete
Go to Classic an you can instantly find a best of 1 game match. That's also the format that all the top rated players play. If you filter the games to best of 3 then you'll wait to find a match, just like you do here in Competitive.
A larger player pool means shorter wait times to find matches, better CR match-up, and a more competitive player base.
The size of people waiting for a match certainly impacts the wait time, but we are not seeing a significantly different amount of total players. We will see how things pan out in the coming weeks.Delete
I agree with the best of 3. It makes it more competitive. If I want a leisurely game I play classic. Just like in person. When I bet it's never a best of 1. Thanks for providing a bit more competitive option than he classic. I like both options.Delete
Agree with Dhrun’s comments on limiting wait time to 10-15 seconds to matchup against stronger opponents. This season it seems like it’s even tougher to find a match within that timeframe. I agree with Paludja and Sawyer on 2 out of 3. Given the dealers inherent 56% win rate for simply winning the cut, one game doesn’t test a players skill level. I would even posit that 2/3 gives the first game dealer too much of an advantage. What about three out of five? That would better test skill. Go to 3/5 and reduce weekly minimum matches to 6. Same weekly time commitment for players. Thanks for the wonderful app and all your hard work!!ReplyDelete
Great suggestion, I'd definitely go for that.Delete
The streaks of this game are out of control. How can you go from getting great cards to nothing for a long time?ReplyDelete
Such streaks occur in live games too. The current points leader in my GrassRoots club has only lost 8 of his last 45 games. Earlier in the season, however, he had a streak of 5 weeks in which he won 25 of 45 games.Delete
There are two related issues with the current format that seem to be causing the most consternation; 1) difficulty in matching with closely rated opponents, requiring repetitive attempts and significant time spent matching vs playing, and 2) unfairness in points added or subtracted following a match between two opponents with a large rating difference. If the app was perfect at awarding rating points regardless of the ratings difference, anyone two available players could be matched instantly, with confidence that rating points would be adjusted fairly at the end of the match. However, it is impossible to determine a player’s true skill level early in the season. A player with a 4300 rating could be an average player and a player with a 2500 rating could be an expert. Later in the season, the matchups are easier to evaluate but still extremely difficult to assess with certainty. I think the current version of the app is great at determining the best players at the end of the season. A few tweaks to the ratings point award formula which probably involves winning percentage, confidence level based upon number of matches played, player rating, common opponent record, etc., may reduce the need for selective matching and speed up the matching process for everyone. As I said, though, the current system is already fun and extremely challenging! Thanks for your hard work with the app!ReplyDelete
I found out that the system was really effective during the first few weeks. With a few thousand players playing, it is actually normal for a 100 or so people to have exceptional luck during the first few weeks. 90% of the top 50 players will not remain in the top 50 by the end of the season. A lot of these players are just average to a bit above average players. Playing these players are just easy points for the skilled player. That's why it's so important to play as many games as possible the first few weeks. The system is less effective during the end of the season (but still better than playing lower rated opponents), but by that time it might not matter if the skilled player establishes a big enough lead.ReplyDelete
As someone who plays a 1000 a season, its always good to get games in.Delete
I believe to really reward the most skilled players it should all be manual counting with muggins but keep the same 10 sec timer.ReplyDelete
That would be intense, for sure!Delete
In person no problems. On an app with old fat fingers....I need a keyboard and bigger screenDelete
The game is available on Desktop computers as well. Just check whatever app store your device provides or use the download section on the game website.Delete
Download options available hereDelete
Yes....just poking fun at myself.Delete
The most skilled players are way past being able to count hands correctly.ReplyDelete
11:40AM PST. I just got kicked out of a match. My home Wi-Fi signal is full strength. Please check your records and determine the cause, if possible.ReplyDelete
Hi, for support issues, please email us at support@FullerSystems.com so we can assist you directly. Include your username and approximately when it happened there as well. Remember, a strong WiFi is helpful, but an internet connection has many hops between you and the game servers and connection problems can still happen.Delete
I was in the game lobby waiting for a match for about 10 seconds and I get paired up against a player with a CR that's 1200+ lower than me. How is that allowed? I'd rather be told no matches are available than have that happen. Not fair to the higher rated players.ReplyDelete
As mentioned in this blog post, the difference allowed "Last season had it around 1000 CR, but we tweaked it up a bit to allow for some broader competition".Delete
One method in rising in the rankings is by playing those higher rted than you. I do not play those too high or too low often, but it does help to keep test the ranking; otherwise, once you reach a rating you could not move up or down very much...or find a match at times. I think you have programmed I well to balance not playing too much out of a person's rating but also allowing a test of that rating. It balances out over the season of many games. I enjoy the addition you added to the program. I do not play the amount of games as ohers and have not risen with the same slope as previous seasons before the change, but have risen gradually. By the end of the season even though my sloped curve is more gradual the downward slope of mismatches is also lessened. Thanks for addressing the issue others have brought up. I do recognize it as I played last season and this.Delete
How is it "competitive" with a 1200+ difference in CR? With that logic then the game should just find the first available player to minimize wait time and disregard CR.ReplyDelete
If anything the gap should be narrowed.
In the first 3 to 4 weeks (where we are now) ratings are highly innacurate. Many rated 3000 to 3800 are very skilled players who have 30 to 60 marches in. It will gain accuracy as the season progresses. I would argue by having some (not a large %) of matches outside of a narrow window will, over time, make the ratings more accurate. Thus, more cometitive. Otherwise,too much focus would be put on the first few weeks of the season.Delete
I don't think the ratings are highly inaccurate, the top 50 players are the usual suspects we see each season. But when a 4200+ CR player gets matched up against a 2900 player doesn't make sense. If that's the case then just have the system find the first available player to avoid wait times.Delete
As a person plays more it gains more accuracy. Thus, it's highly inaccurate since 3 to 4 weeks in there aren't that many marches for a vast majority of players. There are those that are willing to play much more than the 10 required marches. For those it is much more accurate. As a result, playing someone who has played 40 games and is underrated is highly probable at this juncture.Delete
I am constantly being kicked out of a game, resulting in a loss. I contacted you awhile back with my email address, user name, and the exact time I was playing last time my game abruptly ended. The issue has not been rectified.ReplyDelete
Hi, support issues need to be through email so we can assist you directly with whatever is causing your problems. Please reply to whatever our last response to you was about this issue and include any extra details and we will work with you to do whatever we can.Delete
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
Don't know if it's normal but let me know when you're online again so we can play. ;)Delete
I know there's a 10-second timer but some players make it seem like 10 minutes. The opponent in my last match repeatedly exceeded the time limit and never got booted. I even took screen shots but stopped counting after the 6th one. Worst part is it went 3 games and while I won it wasn't a fun experience. I groan every time I play this person. 😫ReplyDelete
Just played a match and at least 7 times I sat through having to see the message pop up for my opponent "Play Time Exceeded - Verifying Opponent Status..." and often the other one for "Opponent Disconnected. Waiting for rejoin". Why isn't the forfeit policy enforced in these situations?ReplyDelete
What happens in these situations is usually that one or both of the players has a slower internet connection and/or device that is compensated for. Everyone has a few warnings as well, so that is probably the most common thing you will see (the other player is warned and then given a few extra seconds to comply with a limit on the maximum number of warnings).Delete
My connection is fast, the issue tends to be with the same players, just like there are players who consistently play fast (dkatz, IPLAYFAST, etc.). If I exceed the time limit, I'm given a warning. After 4 warnings I forfeit the game. If I see a message saying that my opponent has exceeded their play time then I'm expecting a forfeit on the 5th time it happens. This isn't the case though so why bother with those messages if the rules for the time limit aren't in place?Delete
The code and rules are absolutely the same for everyone. No exceptions.Delete
I'm sure they are, my point is that if I get 4 warning messages that I've exceeded the time limit then I forfeit the match the next time it happens. But when you see half a dozen plus pop-up messages saying your opponent has exceeded the time limit and they keep playing, then it seems like something's wrong.Delete
In my last match I played alexb1977. If he's about to lose a match he stalls during the last hand and drags it out. This happens every time I play him. I took 11 screenshots in this match on the last hand that shows every time the Time Exceeded message appeared along with the Opponent Disconnected. In the end he just stall out and you win by forfeit. If he wants to play that way, that's his choice but having to sit through all those pop-up messages is frustrating knowing that I would only get 4 before being kicked.
What you are describing could be a disconnect/reconnect scenario, but I would have to dig through the logs (ideally from both devices and server logs) to know with any certainty.Delete
I'll send you the log the next time it happens. But again, I'm not saying the system isn't fair, it just appears that way when countless Time Exceeded and Opponent Disconnected messages appear without them forfeiting. If it's a lag issue then maybe just get rid of the message altogether since it doesn't reliably measure whether they've exceeded the 10-second time limit.Delete
It's most often just lag, but I don't mind taking a look. The synchronization of the player clocks is honestly something we haven't prioritized a lot, but perhaps we can in the future.Delete
Dkatz here. Yeah i try to play quick to up the pressure, but have been to vary game speed when trying to break an opponents momentum. Id recommend either 3 warnings per match or 2 per game to be the limit.Delete
Uber Pooch, you may be able to record a game using twitch or similar app to better show what is happening, when one of the known offenders joins your game.Delete
IPhone offers video record w\o requiring an app. Quite helpful in reviewing games, hands, and matches.Delete
FWIW, most Android phones provide screen recording as well. Many simply never look for these features because they don't have a need to use them very often.Delete
For me it's just easier to swipe the screen with my palm instead of leave the game to enable screen recording. It's not that big of a deal, just a pain when playing players like this. I don't mind if a person quits instead of dragging out the game when there's no chance of winning but to deliberately stall out is stupid.Delete
With that said, Fuller support has always been exceptional. They always get back to you and genuinely care about any issues or just to answer questions. This game is fun but their support makes the experience even better.
Thanks @Jason, really appreciate your support for the game. I do my best.Delete
Your support is top notch. BTW, this is UberPooch (I was signed into Google with my non-Cribbage account).Delete
I have the same issue with alexb1977. Every time he's about to lose, he drags it out at the end (sometimes for a few minutes). He maximizes the time on every single move and maxxes out his warnings. If you check his records, he probably does it to everybody. Is it possible to ban this type of behavior? I would hate to lose to someone like him. Luckily, I'm 3-0 against him.ReplyDelete
We can, and do ban players for inappropriate conduct.Delete
Happened to me earlier today, won the first game, was behind on the second but then surged into the lead that placed me in a winning position and then alexb1977 stalled.ReplyDelete
I like the idea others have proposed to provide players with an option to forfeit a game if the outcome is evident rather than play it out or quit and take a time-out penalty. I don't think this would change alexb1977's behavior but perhaps it would help others.
Love the app and the league setup but feel the rating system is somewhat flawed. I know it must be really difficult and complex to get right and appreciate it is ever evolving but it seems unfair on a very basic level currently. For example, I'm in the UK and playing early in the day means that I end up playing most of my matches against opponents that are 500 - 1000 points apart from me. Conversely, if I play in the evening when I guess a lot more of the American players are around then i get matched a lot more closely but this isn't always possible for me. It seems some players therefore have an advantage based purely on the time of day they play. Ipeg is a great player, obviously, but at times he is ranking way higher than players who have a much better win percentage than him and have played more games. He's fallen down the league in the last week or so so the point is not as relevant at this moment in time but it is what made me first bodice this flaw. Surely it can't be right to have played way more games and have a higher win percentage than another player yet still be many places below them on the rankings?ReplyDelete
Many of the top players limit matching time to 10-15 seconds or so, which results in finding matches with similar ratings. This can be a tedious process for top 20 players because few players have similar ratings. It is especially difficult during times when few players are online. As match attempt time increases, the criteria widens and a larger difference in rating is allowed. Top players who consistently try to match only with other top players will typically have a lower winning percentage than top players who match with all players. This is why winning percentage isn’t the whole story regarding skill level in this format.ReplyDelete