Proposal for a new ranking model

[Pescado]

My suggestion? Toss the ranking system entirely. Even HAVING a ranking system only introduces a system that detracts from the actual playing of the game for FUN, as people quickly aim to game the ranking system rather than playing the game. You can continue to track individual games, but without a global ranking system, people don't have anywhere they can really paint their name on, or plaster themselves with a flashy number to make themselves look good, so meh.

[piete]

FYI for Mr Piete because he has my respect as a player of our beloved game.

Thank you Mr. Rhodan, the respect is mutual

I envy your possibility to play Mule as much as you do. My wife was quite tolerant before our son was born, but now it's very difficult for me to play more than 1 game per day, some days not even that. At least during Christmas holidays I could pursue the no1 ranking, but not without some arguments.

So now the life has other priorities, I cannot complain since our son brings so much joy to our lives that nothing gets even near. And after a few years I'll teach him the basics of the game, and everything gets even better!

[Who is Your M.U.L.E.]

Here's my take on a ranking model:

Assumptions:
- game on central server (to avoid ping and kick issues)
- majority rules for kicking player (to remove ignorant players)
- a kicked player does not count as an abandon for points up for grabs (to avoid penalizing players for playing respectable game)
- 2 player game, no kicking
- for a game to be counted for points: at least 50% of players have recorded 2 or more finished games, whether training or real (to avoid new player exploitation)


1) Each game is worth Maximum of 100 points: 1st = 50%, 2nd = 30%, 3rd = 15%, 4th = 5%.

2) Ending (live) Players Factor for Maximum points: 4=100%, 3=66%, 2=33%, 1=1%


Examples with no abandons:
4 start, 4 Finish = 100 pts x 100% = 100 pts  as follows 1st=50, 2nd=30, 3rd=15, 4th=5
3 start, 3 Finish = 100 pts x 66% = 66 pts as follows 1st=33, 2nd=20, 3rd=10, 4th=3
2 start, 2 Finish = 100 pts x 33% = 33 pts as follows 1st=16, 2nd=10, 3rd=5, 4th=2

Examples with abandon:
4 start, 4 Finish = 100 pts x 100% = 100 pts  as follows 1st=50, 2nd=30, 3rd=15, 4th=5
4 start, 3 Finish = 100 pts x 66% = 66 pts as follows 1st=33, 2nd=20, 3rd=10, 4th=3
4 start, 2 Finish = 100 pts x 33% = 33 pts as follows 1st=16, 2nd=10, 3rd=5, 4th=2
4 start, 1 Finish = 100 pts x 1% = finishing player gets 1 point

3 start, 3 Finish = 100 pts x 66% = 66 pts as follows 1st=33, 2nd=20, 3rd=10, 4th=3
3 start, 2 Finish = 100 pts x 33% = 33 pts as follows 1st=16, 2nd=10, 3rd=5, 4th=2
3 start, 1 Finish = 100 pts x 1% = finishing player gets 1 point

2 start, 2 Finish = 100 pts x 33% = 33 pts as follows 1st=16, 2nd=10, 3rd=5, 4th=2
2 start, 1 Finish = 100 pts x 1% = finishing player gets 1 point


Hopefully simple and effective...
Cheers,
WIYM

[Rogue Cat]

Greetings, I'm a bit late to give my idea about rankings. I always liked the way many RTS games used to score based on the difficulty settings, so I propose something like this:

PlayerScore = ((5-PlayerPosition)*(NumberOfHumanPlayers-1))*100 / 12

Or if you prefer it based on the "cooperative spirit" for the colony (as the Federation would have expected from them):

PlayerScore = ((5-PlayerPosition)*(NumberOfHumanPlayers-1)*ColonyBonus)*100 / 21

Colony bonus multipliers would be:
0 = Total starvation
0.25 = Debtor's prison
0.5 = Failure, left behind
0.75 = Living in tents
1 = Minimum standards
1.25 = Comfortably life
1.5 = Elegant estates
1.75 = Luxurious retirement

If you prefer a more precise calculation, to avoid giving the same score for a 60.000 colony than for a 79.999 one, use this one instead:

ColonyBonus = ((ColonyScore*100)/60000)/100

You should change 21 for 32 for the new calculation. This one would give higher scoring than the previous one. A luxurious retirement would give a multiplier bonus of x2 instead of x1.75 like in previous one. Or more, if the colony score is higher than 120.000. However, this one would surpass 100% for a player winning first place VS 3 human players and getting more than 120.000 total colony score.

Both calculations would give a measure of the success rate of the player. We should just crop it to two numbers after the comma... Then, just summing all of them and dividing by the number of played games would give the overall success rate of the player. (2 numbers after the comma again.) Due to many technical issues, abandoned and kicked should not count toward the total score. Just keep counting them separatedly. (Played games, abandoned games.)

Adventages I see:
-Getting both their value as players, and their value as workers for the Federation.
-Rating the players for their achievements more than the time they spend playing. (Medals or badges could follow the example somehow too.)
-No more easy scores for 3AI games, as they are just not the same. The major penalty is the AI player bonus, so even if they spent several games playing VS the AI, the score for playing a single game with 4 human players would still be higher. Unless you play with apes.

Alternatives or changes for my idea?


* EDITED: Added the third calculation for ColonyBonus based on real colony score rather than its "quality".

[Mt Wampus]

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.

Thats a bunch of BS !!!!!!! I have never QUIT a game of MULE in my life but have 3 negatives(abandoned) to my credit! 2 times the HOST stopped the game and i received a abandoned credit and the other time our power flickered off and i couldnt get back to the game in time to continue. When a outside force like a Host stops the game or it crashes dont give me a ABANDONED game on my record! I do agree on showing a persons abandoned stats if the system works properly but not when outside forces beyound my control do it!