How works the Hi-Scores?

[Prez]

I dont know why I am in the 9° position today.
Prez

[mikman]

I can't say for sure, but I think it's loosely based on % of games won, with a bit of overall score and number of games played thrown in...  Dunno the exact calculation tho sorry :-(

[Prez]

Ok,

may be someone have posted the "rules" of hi-score inside the forum.

Thanks anyway,

[data2008]

currently, the ranks are calculated each 24 hours upon the following data:

games won, ratio, games played, hi-score.

If anyone has a good idea how to make the ranking more fairly balanced or interesting for new players (like a weighted system between games won, ratio and highest score and probably colony score), we like to hear it!

[Robbie]

This ^^^^  is meant for High-Score in Tournament?

Because if i take a look at the High-Score of Training games i cant see such an order... ?

[GabrielPope]

currently, the ranks are calculated each 24 hours upon the following data:

games won, ratio, games played, hi-score.

If anyone has a good idea how to make the ranking more fairly balanced or interesting for new players (like a weighted system between games won, ratio and highest score and probably colony score), we like to hear it!

Personally I think that using average score (total score / games played) would be a much better way to rank players than using highest score. Actual score numbers are very vulnerable to factors outside a player's control (random events, willingness of other players to cooperate), so taking all of a player's scores into consideration gives a more balanced view than just looking at their highest. Also, it provides an incentive for players to stick with a game through the end even if they're not winning in order to maximize their score, instead of dropping out or playing the spoiler card.

[Intergalactic Mole]

Without getting into the mathematical details of it, I would recommend an ELO type rating system similar to the kind used on games.asobrain.com for their Xplorers game.  It eliminates a lot of possibilities of cheating the ranks.  For example, they don't allow ranking against computer opponents.  Also, they reduce points gained for playing against repeat opponents.  Players from the same IP address are not allowed in ranked games.  Etc. etc.  More details about their ranking system is on their site if you wish to take a look.  Their Xplorers game is a Settlers of Catan clone, if anyone is interested in that.

As a reference, ELO ranking makes a calculation of ranking points based on (some of) the the following parameters:

Diffence in current ranking score
How thick you have beat your opponent
How many times you already played against your opponent

However, IMHO, competition in MULE is really unique to each individual game played.  I'm not sure there is any fair way to calculate who the "best" player is.

[machinus]

Without getting into the mathematical details of it, I would recommend an ELO type rating system similar to the kind used on games.asobrain.com for their Xplorers game.  It eliminates a lot of possibilities of cheating the ranks.  For example, they don't allow ranking against computer opponents.  Also, they reduce points gained for playing against repeat opponents.  Players from the same IP address are not allowed in ranked games.  Etc. etc.  More details about their ranking system is on their site if you wish to take a look.  Their Xplorers game is a Settlers of Catan clone, if anyone is interested in that.

As a reference, ELO ranking makes a calculation of ranking points based on (some of) the the following parameters:

Diffence in current ranking score
How thick you have beat your opponent
How many times you already played against your opponent

However, IMHO, competition in MULE is really unique to each individual game played.  I'm not sure there is any fair way to calculate who the "best" player is.

ELO is a very good system but it only works for 2 player contests. It doesn't even really make sense in multiplayer games.

currently, the ranks are calculated each 24 hours upon the following data:

games won, ratio, games played, hi-score.

If anyone has a good idea how to make the ranking more fairly balanced or interesting for new players (like a weighted system between games won, ratio and highest score and probably colony score), we like to hear it!

Is the formula a secret?

[Intergalactic Mole]

ELO is a very good system but it only works for 2 player contests. It doesn't even really make sense in multiplayer games.

On the contrary, it works quite well for Settlers of Catan, which is a 3-4 player game.  They use it at http://games.asobrain.com and people seem happy with it.  They also do not allow multiple users from the same IP to play ranked games. FYI.

[machinus]

ELO is a very good system but it only works for 2 player contests. It doesn't even really make sense in multiplayer games.

On the contrary, it works quite well for Settlers of Catan, which is a 3-4 player game.  They use it at http://games.asobrain.com and people seem happy with it.  They also do not allow multiple users from the same IP to play ranked games. FYI.

I've played xplorers a lot, but I don't think their ranking system works very well and as such I don't use it. I'd like to play xplorers with some mule people though!

[Intergalactic Mole]

No matter what ranking system you use, there will be people who like it and people who don't.  However, if you don't put certain safeguards in place then ranking has no meaning anyway.  For example, allowing multiple players from the same IP to be in ranked games together, or allowing someone to gain rank by playing the same opponents repeatedly, or allowing players to drop from a game without penalty.

[piete]

I've played too much to reach (at least temporarily) the no1 ranking.

I can't continue at the same pace, so for me to have any hope to have a shot for no1 in the future, there should be more ranking points available from games with higher-ranked players.

Also, playing with human players should give more ranking points, and there should be some way to tell if for example two players start a game with two A.I.'s and another player drops out immediately when the game starts. Then its effectively a single-player game.

On the other hand, people drop out due to technical problems, so to be considered a four-human game there could be a threshold round, like round 6, that would determine how many human players were participating. Or then a strict limit, all human players need to finish. This may lead to some arguments and one may only want to play with players he knows so that there wouldn't be any last-round disconnections...

All in all, very difficult subject. Maybe the ranking system could be based on some sports like tennis. Then old games would drop from your score, in tennis they stay for a year but here the cycle could be shorter, like a month.

Just some of my thoughts, I know I may wake up already tomorrow and see my ranking dropped again with the current system...

[Intergalactic Mole]

Asobrain also has a mechanism to deal with players who drop out of games. The requirement is that the player participate in at least 75% of the total game in order to be safe from penalty.  I think that is fair.

[maskdbandt]

i've never tried asobrain rankings and just play the free 1 time games of settlers

i think the 1 out of 1 people should at least be taken out of the ranks.  Perhaps have people ranked once they play automatically once they play at least 5 games for example or 10.  This way if someone does happen to win their first 10 tournaments on here, they will be up in the ranks.  I have absolutely no idea how to rank these people fairly though like if one person won 20 out of 100000 games and another won 19 out of 20 games, but right now it would rank the 19 out of 20 lower than the other.

I'm definitely going to be impressed with whatever magic formula you all come up with!  I was trying to think how i'd code it and came up empty-idead

[data2008]

I have absolutely no idea how to rank these people fairly though like if one person won 20 out of 100000 games and another won 19 out of 20 games, but right now it would rank the 19 out of 20 lower than the other.

That shouldn't be the case, because Rank is ordered by:
games won, ratio, games played, hi-score

so only for games won=0, the ratio is also 0%, and the number of games apply, so someone who played more would be ranked higher.

if games won is >0, the ratio comes before total games, so someone who played less and still won the same amount will be ranked higher.

So all piete needs to become number one is one more game won than the second place.

We know this is not near perfect score, but we could finetune this much more with the suggested abandon rate adjustement (taking into account round number where the drop out occured), etc.