As you may have gathered from the other threads, the way overall score is calculated is a bit broken; and the fix that we put in was, similarly, incorrect.

Here's a proposal for overall score, on which I'd like feedback on whether it's a good idea, or whether there are better ideas out there...

Overall Score for a player should simply be a calculation of the sum of the position rankings across all the specific score categories.  The player with the lowest aggregate ranking is the Overall top ranked player, and the player with the highest aggregate ranking is the Overall lowest ranked player.

By way of example (and assume we only have three scoring categories - Attack, Defense & Trade... to keep the example brief):

Player A ranks 1st in Attack, 4th in Defense and 23rd in Trade.  1+4+23 = 28

Player B ranks 3rd in Attack, 2nd in Defense and 19th in Trade  3+2+19 = 24

Player B has the lowest aggregate ranking and is therefore ranked higher - in Overall Score - than Player A.

This would give all categories of score an equal weighting to Overall Score (which, btw, we want to do.  I'm not interested in getting into arguments as to whether Attack Score is more 'important' than Defense or Trade versus Diplomacy).  It would also provide complete transparency as to how Overall Score is calculated, and make it very straightforward for players to see where they should put efforts into improvement.

Where aggregate rankings for a player are equal (eg 1+3+8 vs 2+6+4) then the players will be equal ranked.

So... this is our proposal for calculating Overall Score.  

Comments welcome.  Alternate proposals welcome.

Regards,

SC

 

1. It forces you to get a good scoring in all categories

2. It does not consider how well you did in the category compared to others

The first is bad in my opinion because Illyriad is a game were you could play a lot of different ways (and more important the way you like most) and still be successful. With the change you would need to be a "Jack of all Trades" and do everything equally - i don't like that.

The second point needs more explaining. It contains two similar downsides:

a) In the new scoring place 1+99 would be as good as 50+50. It is a LOT easier to achieve the second one compared to the first one. Top 10 in most categories are quite hard to get and would not get rewarded with the new system.

Attack/defense: Has to be done on the map against certain NPC's, or defending certain sq's.

Diplo: Steal them from NPC's but then they can be stolen from you.

Trade: Simply buy them from NPC's or players 

etc

Then each player has to stock pile them in their city or alliance hub (perhaps have personal points and alliance points).  But your alliance/player/city gets a real benefit from how many they have reduced tax rate for trade influence for example.  

This would give players something to really fight over for a benefit rather than just destroying enemy cities.    

Why not just make the points % of top ranked player in each category. 

Position       Cat Score         Overall Score 

1st place            10000 100%

2nd place             2000                20%

3rd place              1000                10%

4th place                500                05%

You want to change the scoring system after 8 years. I would expect one to have an extremely good reason to do so after such a long time. I do not see an extremely good reason. What do you mean by "a bit broken"? Thundercat said in the other thread:

"We consider it a surprising outcome that if you gain score in a category it can cause a player ranked higher than you to gain more score than you for doing nothing."

Based on the old formula, I do not find this surprising. He gave examples of the point changes, but I think that's the wrong way to look at it. So what if the other guy gained overall points for doing nothing? If he keeps doing nothing, he will eventually be overtaken, then start losing those points for doing nothing. A better way to look at it, is what I think you all did at the start; create a formula with a mathematical idea of how you want people to be ranked. If the outcome works well, do these points matter? Keep in mind that points and ranks in each category aren't changing, just the magic calculated meaningless overall number. (Edit: Suggestion: make this overall number hidden, just display the overall rank)

Furthermore I find the old formula to actually be quite brilliant. You mention not wanting to argue over which category is more "important". With the old formula, that "arguing" is done automatically via the points that people gain. If one category is easy to "cheat" and gain tons of points in for doing nothing (ahem...magic), then that means lots of people can do it, and the percentages will balance themselves out. The complexity adds a nice extra bit of fun to anyone chasing ranks.

There is nothing majorly wrong with the proposed ranking system in this thread. It should also work fine...IF it was put into place at the very beginning of the game. Any scoring system in any game isn't going to be a perfect way to rank players by skill or intelligence or dedication or whatever. They merely set a goal to strive for, and that goal alters how they play the game. In a way it makes the game. If you change it now, essentially you're changing the game.

One final point against the proposed new method. Consider the defense ranking. Malek holds #1 spot with a score well above the #2 spot. With the old system, this gives him a well-deserved healthy percentage boost over the #2 guy, with the proposed system, not so much, he only gets a lousy ranks reduction of 1.

I don't know how long the current system was in place for, but it was evidently good enough for the two years that I'm playing and presumably a long time before that.

I think the real question here is, should we reward specialists (players who ace a certain category) and how... 

By just summing up positions, there will be no reward for players who are leading a category by a huge margin, as detailed by Thirion in his post above.

It would be fair if the points scales for each item were approximately equal but the magic scores are vastly bigger than the other scales.

Top current scores

Magic 1.9bn

Trade 711m

Attack 54.2m

Research 33.4m

Defence 22.7m

Diplo  7.2m

Quest 3.8m

Build  1.4m

Just adding scores will barely shuffle the magic score!

I'd like to see something where inactive players are not reward for not playing, yet it appears they often go up in rank due to the activity of others.  

Just because someone gets 1000 points in a category shouldn't mean anyone else gets points.

I admit not fully understanding the ranking system currently in place.  I think it is based on the top player in each category.   I really don't understand the pie-chart and I like them in business for sure.

Thanks to all for whatever you and the devs come up with.

Following is a breakdown of mana crystal enchantments. The table shows score gained and mana mineral spent and its ratio. You get more bang/score from lesser crystal then larger ones, with little to no difference in work put into it. 

I think it's apparent that the introduction of the new magic school combined with the way certain magic items are scored has had unintended effects.  It would seem pretty straightforward to correct for this (although it might disadvantage specific players who based their play around this quirk).

Scores in various categories have always been subject to some degree of manipulation; trade scores previously were most often manipulated, such as by buying and selling between alts.  There can be good cases made for the advantages longtime players have in accumulating score (because of time elements to accumulate points in various ways). At the same time, it's easy to ignore advantages that have accrued to relatively newer players by virtue of the game changes that have occurred within the past 5 years vs. the first 5 years of the game life (introduction of trade hubs, the hyperinflation caused by the gold exploit, the relative abundance of basic resources and addition of additional harvestable resources and crafting, the ability to trade prestige). Overall, it has always been possible, as many have demonstrated, for new players to use the score system in order to rank up relatively quickly.  Personally I see this as an advantage.  However, hopefully this ranking up involves some sort of relatively meaningful game interaction. While fun is in the eye of the beholder, I want to cite one of Illyriad's guiding principles, as laid out by the developers:

My question for the devs is: Is there a particular reason for the ratio Rajput noted that favors lesser mana infusions in creating score? Or is this an unintended consequence.  If it is unintended, can it be reversed?

How is the scoring system now, and as you propose it to be, related to your guiding principles?  How does it promote depth and "participation" (meaningful player interaction).  If the current construction doesn't do that, are there changes that can be made to promote these values?

Thirion wrote: Illyriad is a game were you could play a lot of different ways (and more important the way you like most) and still be successful. With the change you would need to be a "Jack of all Trades" and do everything equally - i don't like that.

Deathdealer 89 suggestions are interesting but I would prefer Raj's summation

rajput wrote: Actually I think current overall/ranking scoring system was spot-on and was not the issue... 'I think', Devs made a boo-boo with scoring scale for new enchantment magic school...

A re examination of the Scoring scale for the enchantment magic seems to be needed but the existing "8 year  old" overall ranking system should remain.

Kind Regards

Ossian II

Chief Statistician to the Thane of Clan Moedagh (r'td)