| Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
KillerPoodle
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853
|
Posted: 05 Mar 2010 at 21:00 |
|
Data Extract would be great - let me know where to post thoughts.
|
 |
naive
New Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 30
|
Posted: 05 Mar 2010 at 02:58 |
|
a much larger (zoomed out) map would be great for the short term. but at some point i'd love to see the entire world. the detail would not have to be impressive, just point out where everyone is.
|
 |
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820
|
Posted: 04 Mar 2010 at 17:49 |
|
Think we can prolly discuss the details elsewhere (if there's enough interest in third party apps) - as I don't want to derail this thread too much!
|
|
|
 |
GM ThunderCat
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 11 Dec 2009
Location: Everywhere
Status: Offline
Points: 2157
|
Posted: 04 Mar 2010 at 17:42 |
Hi naive
We will look into it - although there are 4,004,001 map squares - so the entire world might be a bit big? Perhaps a large local area might work better?
|
 |
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820
|
Posted: 04 Mar 2010 at 17:39 |
naive wrote:
i'd like to see a meta map of the world (the entire world). perhaps just dots to denote cities.
in line with this, currently there is a no capture bot policy, could this policy be revised to allow for third party tools, such as a meta map?
|
Hum, yes and no. We definitely won't allow capture botting (as this is often a quick way of bringing a server to its knees). But we do think the idea of a meta map of the world is superb - and want it to happen. However, the dev team is short of time - lots of content to add over the next few weeks / months, ranging from new spell schools to new quest categories (and new quests), NPC interactions, reports etc etc etc. So, we're very approachable about the possibility of releasing some slightly time-delayed "official" data, perhaps in some sort of XML-web-servicey-thingy for third party developers to use in designing their own Illyriad applications. This would also be able to avoid many of the pitfalls of using a capture bot method such as changes in page design and player-specific map data. If there's someone (or multiple people) out there who might be interested in designing third party apps against Illyriad datasets, then let me know in this thread. If there's enough interest I'll set up a dedicated "Illyriad tech" Forum category for us all to discuss the idea further and get down to the nuts and bolts of what data we could provide.
|
|
|
 |
GM Gryphon
New Poster
GM
Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 60
|
Posted: 04 Mar 2010 at 15:02 |
Well then just weight them. There's nothing wrong with fair weighting of points, as long as it's balanced and stays consistent. The other thing you can do is use the Relative increase in points by category to move the overall total score weighting over time (ie take the historical data from month 1 and then compare to month 2 and if, say trade goes up, then trade becomes more important in the overall score...). That way the means of calculating the overall score tracks with player behavioral trending...
Thoughts?
|
 |
naive
New Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 30
|
Posted: 04 Mar 2010 at 02:57 |
|
i'd like to see a meta map of the world (the entire world). perhaps just dots to denote cities.
in line with this, currently there is a no capture bot policy, could this policy be revised to allow for third party tools, such as a meta map?
|
 |
GM ThunderCat
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 11 Dec 2009
Location: Everywhere
Status: Offline
Points: 2157
|
Posted: 03 Mar 2010 at 23:27 |
GM Stormcrow wrote:
So a single successful trade might give you a heck of a lot of trade points, and you might leap up the trade rankings. Whereas a single combat might only give you a small amount of combat points.
In your formula, you're assuming that single point in one category has the same relative weight as a single point in another category, which isn't the case.
I still think relatively "easy" (by which I mean, "relatively risk-free") ranking points like trade get over-emphasised in that formula.
Or I might just be being dense...
|
We can have the categories auto balance based on the levels - might confuse the players why they go up and down though...
|
 |
GM ThunderCat
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 11 Dec 2009
Location: Everywhere
Status: Offline
Points: 2157
|
Posted: 03 Mar 2010 at 23:25 |
GM Stormcrow wrote:
I just think the overall ranking should be an alpha of the relative weighting of *all* the categories, weighted by the individual's score (relative to the total score) in each category. ie what "we" as Illyriad/GMS/devs etc think is important and should contribute to the overall score may *not* be what the playerbase thinks is important. And the overall score should be weighted by what the playerbase does, in some formulaic way. <-- GM ThunderClap, sirrah, help me out mathematically with what I'm trying to say here. I know you can!
Thoughts?
|
Hmm... I'll put together a gfx of a mathematical formula post it here shortly then just for you I'll let you take a peak at and have a mild scare at the code. Should be fairly easy though.
Just tarting up the main site pages atm...
|
 |
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820
|
Posted: 03 Mar 2010 at 23:25 |
|
Hum, thinking further about it...
The points you get for each category are weighted themselves when they get calculated.
For example, attack and defence points are basically the sum of the unit gold upkeep that you killed during the engagement.
Or, as another example, the trade points you get are (arbitrarilty) weighted as: Wood, Clay, Iron, Stone, Food = 1 point per unit traded Gold, Horses, Livestock, Books, beer = 2 points per unit traded Swords, Bows, Spears, Leather = 4 points per unit traded Saddles, Chainmail etc = 8 points per unit traded
So a single successful trade might give you a heck of a lot of trade points, and you might leap up the trade rankings. Whereas a single combat might only give you a small amount of combat points.
In your formula, you're assuming that single point in one category has the same relative weight as a single point in another category, which isn't the case.
I still think relatively "easy" (by which I mean, "relatively risk-free") ranking points like trade get over-emphasised in that formula.
Or I might just be being dense...
|
|
|
 |