Proposal for a new ranking model

[rommager]

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.  

[Rhodan]

I think the point system is a good basis to start from. One point awarded for each human player in the game minimum of 2 players to rank a game. Everyone receives points if they finish the game. I would even take away one point from players who abandon the game.
Example with 4 human players starting the game         
      1st 4 pts
      2nd 3 pts
      3rd 2 pts
      4th 1 pt
      Abandon -1 pt     
3 human players
      1st 3 pts
      2nd 2 pts
      3rd 1 pt
      Abandon -1 pt

This would encourage people seek out 4 player games to achieve more points per game played.   
Hopefully loosing a point for abandonment will keep players who care about rank in the game.

[Big Head Zach]

Would you want to assign more reward for games whose endings are better? Would you not award points if the $60,000 minimum isn't met?

[piete]

I would reward the winner at least one point more, just to make the victory more attractive and important.

And penalty for colony under 60000, for sure I don't know about rewarding good colonies since it's quite easy to manipulate the colony score. An earned high colony score should be enough reward.

[Rhodan]

Awarding points for overall colony score is questionable because its like awarding points for the best team and not the best mule player. High individual scores by a player does tell you that player is skilled and should be included in the rankings somehow.

[Big Head Zach]

However, if there is no incentive for the group to score as high a score as possible, if I know I am not going to win, I will knowingly sabotage the game so the colony fails.

At least, that's what the average anonymous internet s**twad will do.

There needs to be a reason why I should try to maximize the colony score even if I won't make 1st...this would simulate the real-life motivations of the planeteers, if we put ourselves in their shoes. No one IRL would willingly suffer starvation and death simply because they didn't end up with the most money.

[piete]

Zach, if you get more points being 2nd than 3rd or 4th, you would be really stupid to sabotage the colony... Sabotaging would take you almost certainly to the last place

[maskdbandt]

unfortunately the way mule works it will always be first and not first in my eyes... colony score is good but only if you are winning or close... otherwise, let's say i end with 12k and the colony is 120k+... i really wouldn't care because i know that i was doing sh$tty in the game

[trouba]

Tell me, what good is to reinvent a wheel? There's a good ranking available... TrueSkill. It's a bit complex, but it's based on a solid mathematic model.
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/trueskill/

[Big Head Zach]

Zach, if you get more points being 2nd than 3rd or 4th, you would be really stupid to sabotage the colony... Sabotaging would take you almost certainly to the last place

I know - the point I was making is that if I am in the business of preventing the 1st place player from advancing in score, and the game will penalize / award fewer points for a failed colony, I'm going to fail the colony.

The original game's premise is that a score of less than 60,000 is a failure, and that higher totals are "better" than making the required minimum. From a gamer perspective, if the game doesn't recognize the 2nd-4th players for helping the colony achieve a higher level of success (even if it means letting the 1st place player win), what motivation is there to let the 1st place player get their points?

From a real life perspective, no one would do that. But if I'm John Q. Internetgamer and I'm well behind the leader with no hope of catching up and advancing to a better position, I'd rather see no one score points (or score fewer points), reducing the lead in the rankings the others will achieve.

The ranking system needs to account for that kind of behavior.

[Big Head Zach]

unfortunately the way mule works it will always be first and not first in my eyes... colony score is good but only if you are winning or close... otherwise, let's say i end with 12k and the colony is 120k+... i really wouldn't care because i know that i was doing sh$tty in the game

Well, you bring up an interesting point - what if points were awarded based on the percentage of the total colony score that you contributed to?

...With an obvious scaled bonus for coming in 1st,2nd,3rd, and 4th too.

If this were implemented, there'd be huge incentive for people to attempt to come as close as they can to winning, even if they don't. It would also reward the players who do manage to pull out ahead - they would get a larger portion of the "stake", as it were. In either case, if this was combined with greater rewards for better endings (and bigger penalties for worse failures), it'd put your average minmaxing munchkiny powergamer in the right mindset for a game of this type.

[maskdbandt]

yeah Zach, that sounds pretty good... you're right, that would make some incentive to get highest score even if not 1st...  i just don't think there is going to ever be a possible ranking that will solve all issues but i guess we can come close!

[Mega Byte]

I think a "Daily Top" would actually encourage more people to play.  People want recognition.  It encourages more people to play, so they can have their name seen in lights.
-S

[C64 nostalgia]

After reading the posts and thinking, here is my current position.

I still really want the following stipulations concerning AI's. AI's make it far too easy to win. Show me a player with a high win/loss ratio without AI's in their games, and I see a player that deserves respect. Winning those games required skill and talent. MULE is predictable and stale with AI's. Only humans perform complex planning and execution, in an effort, to win. This human ability makes a relatively simple game addictive. Humans make MULE a classic.

Make games starting with AI's unranked
Make games concluding with less than 2 human players unranked


I like the graduated points for first, second, third: something like 4, 2, 1, 0. Giving 2 more points to first keeps outright winning the importance it deserves. Additionally, to keep fourth trying and to give the colony score a little weight: 0.25 points given to all players with a "Comfortable ending"; 0.5 points given to all players with a "Elegant ending"; and a full point given to every player with a "Luxury ending".

The only thing lacking in the point system is weight given to wins against better players. I would really like this element included in the ranking system. This could also address AI's (assuming my stipulations are not included) -- giving severe penalties to playing with AI's.

Last, abandons... I feel abandons are a subjective quality. Something not to be included in a more objective system. I operate under the assumption if a person bails, their internet connection was the cause; or something important came up. I know, in reality, this is not accurate. If we had more active players, we could simply avoid the "bailers". This would be my ideal solution. However, since we pretty much play with first available players, I propose giving allowances -- something like 3 a month. If a player goes above that threshold, all their games till the end of the month are given half-credit; If more than 6, only quarter-credit; if more than 9, eighth credit...


And finally, thank you rommager for taking the time to improve the ranking system.


[edit: changed a word to improve clarity.]

[Mega Byte]

Well, Piete has virtually all 4 human players in his games...  and he's the current #1.  So do you... and you are current #2, so what is your point about the ranking system exactly???