What I think would help bring more people to the site, and motivate them to play is a daily/monthly/annual/all-time scoring system.

If the only way you can ever get to number 1 is winning the most games, then anyone who didn't start playing in December 2009 is pretty much screwed at this point.

I think the thought is that the developers would one day adopt such a system.  Right now I am focused on working on the ranking method.  After we figure that part out, then it will be simply applying it to work with a daily/monthly/annual/all-time format.

On a side note, sorry the progress is stalled at the moment.  Life has taken a slightly higher priority.  

Unless you penalize players for playing the same people over and over, the ranks have absolutely no credibility (including the current system).  And so changing the current system without fixing that problem is pointless.  I hardly consider some dude who had a private tournament between him and his buddy to be the best MULE player. LOL!  And to be honest, I don't feel like sifting through everyones games to find out who is legit and who isn't.  I can just assume that everyone at the top of the list simply doesn't deserve it.     I'm willing to bet that at least 2 or 3 of those players played with each other in a heck ton of games.

Well, you also have to look at the fact that most of us play whoever is available at the time.  I end up playing several of the same guys over again.  It's not like I plan it that way, it just happens.  The sad fact is that this is still a small community of faithful players to a game that is relatively obscure.

I'm sure that there are buddies out there that play mainly each other over and over, but IMHO that's still better than playing the ai repeatedly to boost scores.

Paladinian,  I actually kind of like the idea of points, although it would actually be difficult to calculate a point for beating a higher ranked player on the historic games.  We simply don't have historical ranking data.  Still, it's going to be difficult to make everyone happy with a new ranking system.

I think in the end, if we're going to change the ranking system, then someone will just have to make a decision and roll with it, then perhaps present the candidate systems for a majority vote.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your proposed ranking system, technically you can both play each other until one of you reaches rank #1.

Actually, one can do that today.  You and I can decide to play each other several games a day, as quickly as possible with no regard to scores, and take our turns winning to get ranks 1 and 2.  Going with percentiles and weighing the factors it ensures that players should strive to play skillfully (get the most points).

My original thought was going by sheer number of wins is not necessarily a benchmark of skillful playing.  It just means that you play the game a lot.  The fact that we're talking about ranking players on individual attributes and piling them together in a weighted average means that someone could not necessarily rank #1 by merely winning games or playing a high number of games.  It just means that your scores will not be pulled down as much by playing the highest number of games.

Take a look at the percentiles for number of games played (in the data I have):

1   0.0   (below floor)
2   0.0   (below floor)
3   26.0
4   42.6
5   54.6
6   63.1
7   69.8
8   73.2
9   75.9
10   78.7
...
47   99.0
50   99.2
59   99.4
60   99.6
63   99.8
65   100.0

You can see the more games you go up (or the higher number of samples you have), the more close together the percentiles get, which makes this score less and less important as a deciding factor for ranking, but it is very significant for those who have more samples in their data.

That is why the number of games in my initial proposal has such a high weight.  It is really just a limiting factor to ensure that the number of games to sample data means your average score is more consistent.

I originally didn't factor number of wins because that is a cut down version the more robust average game ranking.  Basically, if you took 1st place 10 more times than I did, that's like getting 10 more 1's averaged in to your average game ranking.  This is the same as percentage of the colony score.  If you are in 1st place, you naturally have the highest percentage.

[overall ranking calculated by the above = 1x]

C64, I respect your thoughts a lot.  You are definitely a serious player, and your stats are top notch in all six categories.  I will create a percentile for the number of games won, and will play with your suggested weights.  The only thing I don't get right off is "overall ranking calculated by the above = 1x"

...
first place wins =1x
first place over total games =2x
overall ranking calculated by the above = 1x
...

Do you mean that we should create another metric for this?  Since we are talking about percentiles, it would basically be the same thing as counting the above metrics again, which would make their overall weights go from 1x/2x to something more like 1.5x/3x.  Did you mean to place more emphasis on the first two metrics?

Paladinian, I also respect your input as well.  Again, the serious players will have the most pull in these decisions.

Here's what we have so far:

• Number of wins is more important than number of games played
• Average AI players ranking is a good thing
• Colony Score should not be important
  Should we consider factoring colony score for players with a higher percentage of the colony score, or just dump that metric altogether?

Questions:

• Using percentiles is a more accurate way to be ranked relative to other players.  Are we in agreement about using percentiles in the key areas for ranking purposes?
• Are we in agreement that the rankings should also take player skill (scoring, percent of colony, etc) into account, and not just the number of wins?
• I think that if we keep number of wins that the number of games played will be a much less important stat.  In this case, do you think we should just remove the number of games played?

To do:

• Create a percentile for number of wins
• Create a percentile for wins ratio
• Create a percentile for abandons

Just to clarify, my original proposed weights were merely a starting point, so don't take them as final.  Thanks for your input guys!

I do have another thought on this.  The final ranking will also probably take abandonment ratio into the ranking as well.  That way, abandoning a game will be able to negatively affect player ranking.  Should abandonment negatively affect player ranking?  There is one note here - if all players abandon a game, then the game would not be ranked at all.  That way if a player drops out, there would be no penalty for all players quitting and restarting a new game, if desired.

[weighted average]

Hello all,

I have been researching existing games for about the past week, and have been coming up with some new metrics for creating a new player ranking method.  I have identified several key areas in which players can be comparatively rated, and now I would like to share what I have found.

First off, let me explain how the ranking works right now.  It's a simple system - Basically, the more games you take first place in, the higher your ranking.  If you tie with other players on your number of wins, then your ratio is used as the tie-breaker.  If you tie both categories, which is extremely rare, then the sort order goes to the player with the highest score, etc, etc.

Using the current system, players who play most frequently are most rewarded.  While this is an important factor (no player should rank high with just one or two freak games), it does not reward players who play the game with the most skill.  You can theoretically win 26 games with miserable colonies rankings and still take a top 10 place (as of this writing).

Currently, there are 6 key areas on which the new proposed ranking model is built:
1) Average Player Score
2) Average Colony Score
3) Number of Games played
4) Average Game Ranking (whether you place 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th)
5) Average Percent of Colony Score (similar to ranking - higher ranked players have a higher percentage of the total colony score)
6) Average Number of AI players you play with per game, also counting players who abandon as ai (higher percentiles means fewer ai players)

Each one of these factors are broken down into a percentile, so each player is ranked relative to all other players.  For instance, if you have an average score percentile of 95.6, then that means your average score is higher than the average score of 95.6% of all other ranked players.

The only percentile which is modified is the number of games played.  Due to the extreme high number of players who have played only 1 or 2 games, the minimum number of games played to rank in this percentile is 3.  Players who play only 1 or 2 games will be in the 0.0% percentile of number of games played, which limits the ability of players to rank high with just 1 or 2 games.

The final ranking is determined by averaging together your six percentiles in a weighted average to come up with the composite ranking percentile.

The proposed weights of these six factors are as follows:
average score = 3x weight
average colony score = 3x weight
number games played = 6x weight
average ranking = 2x weight
average percent of colony = 1x weight
average ai players ranking = 1x weight

Now, a quick note about the number of ai players: remember that you are always ranked relative to all other players.  We all have problems with players bailing from games, and the numbers show that those players in the low percentiles are players who consistently play with 2 ai players.  Playing consistently with too many ai players can drag your ranking down, but the weight of this is also only 1/16 of your overall ranking.  Please keep this in mind before complaining about other players abandoning and dragging rankings down.  Nearly everyone has played games where other players have quit before the end of the game, so long as you don't consistently play with 2 ai players, there is almost no penalty.

As far as which games are counted, any tournament game finished by at least one human player is counted in ranking, and only the final round 12 results are counted.  I have been contemplating disqualifying any tournament game that did not finish with at least 2 human players, but have not worked this into my calculations yet.

Anyway, this is your opportunity to voice your opinions.  Do you feel like there should be other metrics involved?  What are your thoughts on the weights of the player metrics?  Do you have more detailed questions?  Let me know!

Thanks!

Oh, and mods, can we get this thread merged in to http://www.planetmule.com/forum?topic=677.0

Thanks!

While working on ideas about how to update rankings and stats, I thought about the problem of cheating.  My thought is perhaps we can build a log parser that verifies that game totals add up correctly in the log.  Only once the logs go through said parser, would the be "validated" for rankings.  It can also flag users who try to cheat so they can be warned/banned whatever punishment is acceptable.

Of course developing such a parser might take some time.  Peter, you think a system log that simply outputs check messages can be implemented into the current engine without a major overhaul?  There has been talk of an event/console log.  This could be a variation on such a log.

Apparently the host might have been using a cheat engine.  I guess it can happen out there, but at least this game was abandoned.

The funny thing is a fire in the store can quickly fix the 800 stock problem.   

I have been analyzing the data of the games and have been making some interesting observations.  Stay tuned - I plan to post a new topic tonight about what I recommend for rankings.  It will take a little time to write, so I may not get it posted tonight, but it is on the way.

I basically will providing the new metrics for ranking using percentiles (so you are ranked relative to all other players), and so what it comes down to is how to weigh the factors.  These factors will be discussed in the new topic for ease of use.

Stay tuned! 

One thing to remember is that LCT may be powerful, but there is still a max cap of up to 8 production per plot.

Personally, I like the EOS rule as it is.  It's simpler concept for the more casual players to grasp.  It's not as easy to grasp when you start talking about fractional units of production.  EOS is also not too overpowered, as it only allows a bonus of 1 extra production per plot.  Even in later rounds, EOS doesn't really increase total production except by maybe 9-10 units, and that's only if all the plots are utilizing EOS.  This of course is looking at the aspect of pure production.

Where EOS actually is useful in the game is in power and food production.  Power and food are typically less valuable, and getting better production from fewer plots allows players to concentrate on the big commodities.

IMHO, if we start messing with EOS or LCT, it makes the game less rewarding (and in turn less fun).  People want to play a game because it's fun to be a powerhouse, not because they have to work at it like it's a real job. 

I have a few more I just came up with:

Fashionably late - Player who ran out of time the most with the most actions done during development
Never on time! - Player who ran out of time the most with the fewest actions done during development
Just in the nick of time - Player who got to the pub with the least amount of time to spare
Mee-tah-boola - Player who stood around idle the longest (pays a little homage back to Will Wright/Sims)
Lazy turd - Player with the most undeveloped plots at the end of each turn
Auction whore - Player who traded the most total units in auctions
Limbo Champion - Player who sold the most goods for the least price
Walk the Line - Player with the most time spent on the auction line with no transactions made
Sell Your Mother - Player who made the most money selling goods beyond their need.

The list can go on and on.  My intent is not to award tons of trophies for each game, maybe just one or two per player.  It keeps players playing to keep collecting new trophies.  Also, I don't see there being a need to call these all the same kind of recognition.  I see some of these being called "Prizes", "Awards", "Trophies", "Ribbons", "Accomplishments", "Advisories", and "Boot to the Heads", etc. 

Hey, I have what I think is a great idea.  I am referring to game awards/trophies.  It can be used in Mule 2010, but I think it could also be applied to Classic Mule too, since it doesn't affect game play.  It's just something for a bit of added fun.  The trophies can be awarded at the end of the game.  The trophies could be fun things like:

Git 'er Done! - Awarded to the player who performs the most actions during development over the entire game
Compulsive Gambler - Player who has the most total unused development time over the course of the game/Player who wins the most money in the pub
Big Game Hunter - Player who caught the wampus the most
Wampus extortion - Player who won the most money by catching the wampus
Free Willy - Player who set the most mules free right outside of town (or right outside of their plot if their plot is right next to town.)
Butterfingers - Player who let the most mules go within a close distance of one of their own plots (mutually exclusive to Free Willy for a single player)
Mountain man - Player who owns the most mountains (not mountain plots)
Farmer's Daughter - Player with excessive food plots (they have to produce more food than is necessary)
Unlucky Bastard - Player who was most affected by negative events
Lucky S.O.B. - Player who had the most good things happen to them
Price Driver - Player who excessively drives up auction prices
A friend in need - Player who sells the most to other players in need
Just a little mischevious - Someone who dances just a little in auction, set just a few mules free, etc.  not sure of exact criteria
Stock chaser - Player who buys excess stuff, and then sells for a hefty profit, making the most money
Fat Greedy Glutton - Player who has the most total food spoilage
RUN, FOREST, RUN! - Player who covers the most ground during development
Enron Executive - Player who has the most total energy spoilage
Federation Extorsionist - Player who makes the most money selling Smithore
Fred Astaire/Dancing in the Stars - Player who dances the most in auction (carries a rank/sportsmanship penalty?)
Cookie Monster/Om Nom Nom - Player who bought the most excess, leaving other players in shortage (unless other players could not afford the price).
Oil Baron - Player who assayed the most
Real Estate Agent - Player who auctioned the most land

Of course these are just a few trophies right off the top of my head.  Perhaps make the trophies be awarded when any of these conditions are met in excess, some trophies may be awarded with each game.  Then a stat can be kept on the web site on how many trophies you have collected.  Perhaps, the trophies can also count as achievements, like in other online games.

I don't know about anyone else, but I think this idea adds a bit of fun to playing.    If you think we should move this to the general suggestions board, then let me know.

Technically, collusion is not in the game yet.  All players have every opportunity to jump into the fray, so long as they got de cash!