Experimental Ranking System

[C64 nostalgia]

I think the current ranking system is meaningless. So, if Planet MULE changes to TrueSkill, all the better. However...

I started reading the background articles. Very quickly, I stumbled on to this, "More recently the XBox system has stated that it's explicitly for matchmaking, with the goal being to always try and match up players at nearly the same skill level. It's also used for hierarchy (or "leaderboards" as it's described in the TrueSkill docs), but that's clearly a subsidiary purpose."[1]

Planet MULE makes no effort to match players, nor does Planet MULE have enough players to warrant trying to do so. If Planet MULE isn't matching, then very skilled players can and will play unskilled players. When this happens large changes in assigned skill values can occur. One of the results of this phenomenon will be highly ranked players will be even more less likely to play new players--they now risk their ranks. Planet MULE is looking for a ranking system. The only thing I see happening by using a matchmaking system is a greater divide between regulars and new players. If anything Planet MULE needs a handicapping system with a ranking component.


Related to the "diminish rating time-factor": I think it's extremely important to keep time since played and number of games played separate. Just because someone plays a lot has no reference to their skill.



1. http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2006/01/ranking_systems.html

[leahcim99]

+2 - Reset all to 0 if we go with new system.

With the recent freeze up issue, some of us have 20+ abandons that we should not have.

[Death_Mule17]

 Anyone know WHEN the ranking system will be reset, as im about to start a new account due to all my abandoneds. Im finding it harder to get people to join my games....i have about 63 abandoneds out of 379games , an i still have never quit or closed a game EVER. But new players to pm probably think im like akire1 or sombody. It would be great to add a DC column so players know the diff between a quitter and a guy who has connection issues from time to time....

ps. I have had no connection issues in 2weeks, ive learned how to adjust router settings from the help of players of pm(thx guys)...so please join my games , there 100% now (lurkers welcome)

Your host with the most..
DM

[Homie The Clown]

May want to check you new ranks system.....


Found something vary vary funny. The know cheaters (Akire1,Uschi,Simpla the Best) somehow get two games for the price of one.

Look up ranks/ akire1  and you will find that the same date/game/time/sector map are listed twice.....?

maybe for other player to, but i find it funny that the  know cheaters would have something like this working for them.

just thought i would let you know.

Homie Don't Play that.......

[Peter]

Look up ranks/ akire1  and you will find that the same date/game/time/sector map are listed twice.....?

It's fixed now. The page previously showed duplicate rows for games with two bots, but it did not affect the skill points.

[Mt-Wampus]

Atleast the new rankings system did get the #1 guy correct ! Kipley should be ranked #1. His winning % and the quality of players he takes on makes him deserving plus he plays straight up! No AI or picking on new guys. No disrespect to Rodz, Rhodan, Brad or the other top guys but they are leading the pack based on the unreal amount of games played and wins as a result. I do rate guys like Rhodan,Rodz and Brad as top players though. Have played them all and they are great players. Just more impressed by a few guys that have played half as many games is all. I do think the new system has dropped the ball on guys like Simpla and Uschi though! No way those guys should even crack the top 500!

[C64 nostalgia]

I think the current ranking system is meaningless. So, if Planet MULE changes to TrueSkill, all the better. However...

Planet MULE makes no effort to match players, nor does Planet MULE have enough players to warrant trying to do so. If Planet MULE isn't matching, then very skilled players can and will play unskilled players. When this happens large changes in assigned skill values can occur. One of the results of this phenomenon will be highly ranked players will be even more less likely to play new players--they now risk their ranks. Planet MULE is looking for a ranking system. The only thing I see happening by using a matchmaking system is a greater divide between regulars and new players. If anything Planet MULE needs a handicapping system with a ranking component.

My above paragraph is muddled. I want to try to be more clear and elaborate.


So far, most commenters are looking at the static qualities of the proposed ranking system. No one has mentioned the dynamic aspects of day-to-day use. The real world movement and change of rankings strongly warrants further study.

Highly ranked players will have a lot to lose when they play much lower ranked players. If they lose in games like these, their rank will be hammered very quickly. MULE being a game with a large luck component; the possibility of losing isn't small. Losing streaks aren't rare. Good players will be even more less likely to want to play bad (low ranked) players. The pool of players will become more segregated and thus effectively smaller. This is very bad for an already segregated and small pool of players.

Additionally, new players who don't play like experienced players will be reviled and avoided even more. The games with unexpected behavior (read: the stuff new players do) are the ones experienced players are more likely to lose.

TrueSkill is about matchmaking. Planet MULE does not have enough players to use TrueSkill for its best and primary purpose.

[rodz]

after some thought on the matter (yes it hurt) i feel some changes need to be made if we change to this new ranking system, they are

1. all stats reset to 0 (except hosting reliability %)
2. no land auctions in round 1 ( more luck than skill to get one)
3. no land win/loss before round 4 (again luck not skill and can dramatically affect game outcome)

other than that i feel the game is as perfect as you can make it and thank all those involved for the great work you are doing.

ps. don't worry piete if i ever have the pleasure of playing you again i will get my woolly friends to double the lag you get lol

[C64 nostalgia]

after some thought on the matter (yes it hurt) i feel some changes need to be made if we change to this new ranking system, they are

1. all stats reset to 0 (except hosting reliability %)
2. no land auctions in round 1 ( more luck than skill to get one)
3. no land win/loss before round 4 (again luck not skill and can dramatically affect game outcome)

other than that i feel the game is as perfect as you can make it and thank all those involved for the great work you are doing.

ps. don't worry piete if i ever have the pleasure of playing you again i will get my woolly friends to double the lag you get lol

Replied to in Changing the game to accommodate a ranking system dishonors M.U.L.E. (I really do need to tone down my sensationalist thread subjects. Please forgive me.)
http://www.planetmule.com/forum?topic=1128.0

[doktorbuzzo]

As long as we're making suggestions about the new ranking system, how about incorporating it into the initial turn-order determination in games? The order can still be randomly determined, but don't use a uniform probability distribution to draw the starting order. For example, use player ranks to make individual draws on differently parameterized probability distributions thusly:

1. Let each player's unit-variance normal distribution be centered about a mean value that increases with improved player rank (so a player ranked 3rd will have a distribution centered about a higher value than a player ranked 33rd).

2. Draw a small "fudge factor" value from a fixed (identical for all players and for all games) uniform distribution with a range of, say 0 to 0.1 (this range should be fairly small) for each player. Call this value U(player).

3. Draw one random value from each player's normal distribution (1 above, normal). Call this value N(player).

4. Add the two random values to obtain the rank ordering for all players

R(player) = U(player) + N(player)

5. The game's starting order is then determined according to the descending order of R(player) values. So the player with the highest R(player) value starts in first, the player with the next highest R(player) value starts in second, etc., like so:

1. Player1, R(Player1) = a
2. Player2, R(Player2) = b < a
3. Player3, R(Player3) = c < b
4. Player4, R(Player4) = d < c

Ideally this system will serve as a meaningful but not entirely predictable (or pre-ordained) handicapping system to "seed" players into a starting order before a game. Players of similar rankings will see the greatest amount of variation in their starting positions, while players of widely varied rankings will mostly find themselves ordered with the lowest ranked player starting fourth and the highest ranked player starting first. The addition of the U(player) value should prevent the system from becoming too rigidly deterministic and avoid unduly penalizing highly ranked players.

[GambitTime]

I don't mind a new ranking system per se, however awarding people points for 2nd and 3rd place has a MAJOR flaw:

I would make certain plays during games to win or bust.  Sell a plot of land late, buy stite @108, etc.  Sometimes I take major gambles to WIN, not to play it safe and hope to come in second.  I have finished last many times when I could have just played it out and finished 2nd.  

I won a game last week making almost no ore or stite, but instead took all 4 river plots and won with food and energy; against very good players ranked in the top 100.  If a statagy like that bombs on me and I finish 4th and lose ranking, where is my motivation to try to experiment with something new?

The basic premise is wrong, the 4th place player is NOT nessessarily worse than the 2nd place guy and maybe even played better.  

If there is a new rating system, still award points for winning and nothing else.  Don't reward a player for just being the first loser.

One way to do it is by rewarding the winning player extra points for how much he wins by.
Winning by 5000 is a lot more impressive than winning by 500.  Although frankly I am happy with the ranking system the way it is.




 

[GambitTime]

My post above is my intellectual argument.  Here is my emotional one:

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, do not go to a Truskill type of ranking system.  I have played other games that use it and I can't stand it. 

It especially will not work in MULE because the sample of games isn't nearly large enough.

MULE is about winning people!

WINNING!  I don't want to feel good about coming in 2nd.

[Chuckie Chuck]

Replied to in Changing the game to accommodate a ranking system dishonors M.U.L.E. (I really do need to tone down my sensationalist thread subjects.  Please forgive me.)

I am in agreement with C64nostalgia.  I like the idea of the new ranking system, but I don't believe the game should be changed to accomodate it to that extent.  The idea here, was to make the game as close to the original version as possible, and I'd like to see the ranking system reflect based on that design, not based on a intentionally predictable stategy due to strict game parameters that make random events less random.

I say, thumbs up to the new ranking system, thumbs down to changing the game.

I disagree with Gambit about giving 2nd and 3rd place points though.  Yeah, gambling is part of the game, but here is a thought, this ranking system should also show to some extent how successful a gambler you are.  Sometimes, I make a mistake early on that I can't gamble my way out of, but I do my best to try, and if I get 2nd at the end, I'd like to get credit.  If I gamble and loose, well, it was a bad gamble!   So I didn't get any new points, wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen.

Reset stats to zero when the new ranking system is finalized, I think is just common sense.  Let's work out the ranking system first.

[Chuckie Chuck]

Gambling skill

In a casino enviroment, in Vegas, when you loose a hand, do they say, you get to keep your bet?

[Intergalactic Mole]

IMO there should be no "ranking system" at all for MULE, only a high score list.. just like most other games from the 80s.  I think it creates too much animosity.