How works the Hi-Scores?

[maskdbandt]

penalties should be enforced for closing games you start prior to the end as well as abandoning rather than being kicked... that would at least ensure ranking would be appropriately diminished for people doing this to keep their stats up

[poobslag]

I don't know what exact algorithm ELO uses, but I like what you're describing about it, Mole. I think 2nd place should receive a slight reward if four human players are playing, but receive a penalty if two human players are playing. i also think fourth place should get a greater penalty than third place. Does the ELO algorithm fit these criteria as well?

Additionally, I think dropout players should automatically record a loss, and replacement players (when they're supported) should not have their rank change - with an obvious exception where you're replacing yourself - then you can receive a fair ranking.

[Intergalactic Mole]

I don't know what exact algorithm ELO uses, but I like what you're describing about it, Mole. I think 2nd place should receive a slight reward if four human players are playing, but receive a penalty if two human players are playing. i also think fourth place should get a greater penalty than third place. Does the ELO algorithm fit these criteria as well?

I believe the [modified] ELO system they use at Asobrain would work best for MULE.  It does not allow a ranked game to begin with BOTS in it.  The game must be started with all human players in order to be ranked.  However, if someone drops from the game, they are replaced by a BOT.  Unfortunately, this directly affects the possible increase or decrease in ranks for the rest of the remaining players, unless the BOT only plays 25% of the game (see below).

Additionally, I think dropout players should automatically record a loss, and replacement players (when they're supported) should not have their rank change - with an obvious exception where you're replacing yourself - then you can receive a fair ranking.

Asobrain also has a mechanism to deal with this as well.  What they do is require the player to participate at least 75% of the total game time.  In other words, if their connection dies or some legitimate reason they have to leave the game, they can still be ranked as long as they played the majority of the game on their own.  If more than 25% of the game was played by a replacement AI, then they would not get ranked at all (and, unfortunately, the other players ranks could increase/decrease less than they would have if the human player had played at least 75% of their game). 


For more information about Asobrains ranking system, check the FAQs on their web site http://games.asobrain.com.  If you like Settlers of Catan, this is a great place to play it (they call it Xplorers).  If you've never played Settlers, I highly recommend you try it.  It's a really fantastic board game.

[poobslag]

For more information about Asobrains ranking system, check the FAQs on their web site http://games.asobrain.com.  If you like Settlers of Catan, this is a great place to play it (they call it Xplorers).  If you've never played Settlers, I highly recommend you try it.  It's a really fantastic board game.

I'm quite familiar with Settlers, I think it's OK. I've played about two, three dozen games of it. I prefer my games without dice but i got nothin against settlers

[rommager]

Why not keep multiple (ok, two or three) individual rankings?  I am in favor of a simple [score] / [games played].  I also would like to see a ranking on average placement (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th versus 1st and not 1st).  A third ranking could be a simple average colony score for all games that a player finished.  The overall ranking could be figured out by weighing all three of these together.

As far as rankings for user accounts from the same IP or games with computer players, I agree there should be some type way to adjust for these.  As to what adjustment exactly, I will leave that up to others.

Is there a database that can be queried to work out ranking scenarios based on existing game data?  It would be a very useful tool for developing the best ranking.  I would even settle for an XML dump of all the game data. 

[data2008]

@rommager:

I just asked myself the same question in the other thread: Sportsmanship
as the fight over first rank may be too harsh for some players 

[maskdbandt]

i think going for first place makes sense... this also prevents collusion

[rommager]

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!   

[maskdbandt]

right now, no one gets credit for the victory! heh   perhaps this will be fixed in the next version

[Peter]

The game's won issue has been fixed and all the games you have played and won now show up in your score.

[egrutt]

@ machinus


No, I play League of Legends which is a 5v5 game and they use ELO

[Paladinian]

I am curious... is there a reason why the "Games Played" statistic appears to actually only show "Games Finished"?  It appears one's "Ratio" can be artificially high by simply abandoning any game you aren't likely to win.

For example, I've seen one profile that has Played: 24, Won: 14, Abandoned: 20, for a ratio of 58%.  From those numbers I would think Played would actually be (24+20)= 40, for a ratio of 35%.

Its certainly not a huge issue, but if this is in fact the criteria expected, re-labeling the field to "Games Finished" would make it more clear, I think.

Again not a big deal, just curious. 

[Govt Mule]

It used to be the case where abandoned games were not counted in the win/total ratio.  The 1.2.3 update changed this:

    * The store starts with 8 smithore again.
    * A game must have two human players with different IP addresses to be ranked. This means that you can’t have two accounts and play against yourself to gain higher score. If a player abandons the game it will still be ranked if it started with two human players with different IP addresses.
    * The game displays a warning if two players have the same IP address.
    * The speed of trades in the auction increases faster and has a higher maximum speed.
    * Moving behind the buyer or seller line in the auction doesn’t slow down the timer.
    * A bug which sometimes made it impossible to sell to or buy from the store has been fixed.
    * Some issues with the Linux game client have been fixed.

[Paladinian]

Ahh, I hadn't noticed the update on the main page.  Thank you Govt Mule, I appreciate being so enlightened. 

[rommager]

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!