Print Page | Close Window

25AUG11 - Overall ranking and score

Printed From: Illyriad
Category: News & Announcements
Forum Name: News & Announcements
Forum Description: Changes, patch release dates, server launch dates, downtime notifications etc.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=2314
Printed Date: 03 Dec 2020 at 11:03
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: 25AUG11 - Overall ranking and score
Posted By: GM ThunderCat
Subject: 25AUG11 - Overall ranking and score
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 01:19
Back in March 2010 I said I'd post how overall scores were calculated. After extensive searching I seems I never followed up - so to complete the circle...

We use a dynamic relative scoring system. A players total score is calculated as follows:







As a player's score (playerTotalScore) is relative to the server total score (totalScore) a player who does not add to their score is likely to drop in total score as the server's combined score increases.

Each category portion of a player's score is a ratio of the player's score in that category (popScoreplayer) to the top player's score in that category ( max(popScore) ).

e.g. 
  • If a player has the top score in that category the contibution from that category is ( n/n ) = 1 
  • If a player has half the score of the top player in that category the contribution is ( 0.5n/n ) = 0.5
This means if you had the maximum score in all categories the bit in the brackets above the line would sum to 8. This bracketed calculation is then multiplied by the total score of the server across all categories. 

We then divide by 8000 - which is 8 x 1000. The 8 is to reduce normalise the eight contributions and the 1000 is because the numbers were getting too big Wink

A consequence of this is if you push your score up, you can push another players score down. If a player is scoring higher than you and their contribution is only from a few categories you can overtake them by adding to your score from other categories etc. 



Replies:
Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 01:39
i fail math so ...
i agree whit you.


Posted By: Leungarific
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 03:37
I know how you feel Confused




Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 04:55
Calculating the ratio against the top player's score allows just one person to skew up the whole ranking system (Trade Rank 1 - we never see that guy in the market. Nobody else's trade score matters much because of the same reason)


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 05:12
lol Leungarific, good one.

And the top trade scores are held by someone who trades with his/her alt.


Posted By: fluffy
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 05:50
not that it really matters, I heard that when Tv2 comes out, they are resetting the trade scores.



Posted By: <Squill>
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 05:51

Originally posted by Ander Ander wrote:

Calculating the ratio against the top player's score allows just one person to skew up the whole ranking system (Trade Rank 1 - we never see that guy in the market. Nobody else's trade score matters much because of the same reason)

Oxoxen and King Bhany.... Billions in trade, everyone know there trade rank is not a true indication of there trade/economy. Perhaps the GM's should find ways to insure that rank/score is not just a number but actual an indication of strength in a particular field. 



Posted By: surferdude
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 06:37
Originally posted by Ander Ander wrote:

Calculating the ratio against the top player's score allows just one person to skew up the whole ranking system (Trade Rank 1 - we never see that guy in the market. Nobody else's trade score matters much because of the same reason)
Trade scores are being reset

rank-vs-score-what-can-we-learn-about-progress_topic1930_post20060.html#20060" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/rank-vs-score-what-can-we-learn-about-progress_topic1930_post20060.html#20060


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 11 Mar 2012 at 16:10
Perhaps trade score should include a formula that takes into consideration not just the amount of goods/gold traded, but also the number of different partners.


Posted By: wouterverbraak
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2012 at 08:26
What is the formula used to determine the technology ranking?


Posted By: dunnoob
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2012 at 09:31
Originally posted by wouterverbraak wouterverbraak wrote:

What is the formula used to determine the technology ranking?

Wild guess, research points spent in finished researches.  Please say if that theory fits what you see, I'm too lazy to check it over five towns.


Posted By: Captain Ganoes Paran
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2012 at 10:53
it could be just the number  finished research ( regardless of how much they cost )


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2012 at 18:28
I'm pretty sure it's total research points.  Although it could be some sort of complex % research completed sort of thing.  Would be hard to tell the difference.


Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2012 at 19:38
I'm not sure but I think people can get more than the score obtainable from max. research in 10 cities by destroying/losing cities after doing research in them. Guess that is just another thing to be thrown in the 'scores shown are totally unrepresentative' bag if it's true. Kudos to anyone who is bothered to grind away building+razing a city just to get to #1 score though lol... personally I'm not bothered grinding at magic, diplos, quests, trade etc. for artificial score though obviously some folks are.


Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2012 at 19:41
I can't be bothered with grinding at things like quests. Imo, the only important rankings are research, population, and defense (not in that order). If someone is high in all three of those, then they are, imo, a force to be reckoned with...


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2012 at 19:42
I think I have noticed that when I capture a city I don't get a "bump" in my research score for research already completed in that city.  So it's possible that people who capture a lot of cities, particularly those with a bunch of research completed, will end up with lower scores.

My research ranking is still higher than my population ranking, but I expect this is a reflection of the fact that my account has rather less population than do most accounts of its "age."  I've completed research in two of my seven cities and am getting closer on some of the others.


Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2012 at 19:58
Agree those are the top 3 I look at usually Kumo... although even defense could be artificially raised given enough of that 'grind' spirit and some friends/alt not too bothered about their army.

The one that bothers me most though is Trade... I could easily bounce my own trade score from outside the top 100 up to the top spot in just 1 day and obviously it would not reflect the actual amount of genuine market participation I had had with other players.


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2012 at 20:06
I have been having fun trying to get my trade "wedge" to show up in the pie of my rankings.  This is a challenge for me partially because my cities are in the middle of nowhere and partially because I still don't produce much of a surplus of advanced resources.  Thus my trade score is made up almost entirely of exports of basic resources (and some occasional small saddle purchases from Kelis).  You can almost see the light-orange wedge now!

Trade score and trade rank can be manipulated easily, but in some ways I find it more fun to climb in this area the "hard" way.  My trade rank, alas, is still much lower than my population rank, but I'm working on it -- not because I really care what my rank is, but because it's an interesting challenge and because I like to explore the range of activities Illy offers.


Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2012 at 23:13
I think that raises a good point Rill. I guess at the moment the %age of your overall score that each skill contributes to (hence the size of your 'wedge') is based on your score relative to the top ranked guy's score... this is fine for something like pop or tech... also perhaps for something like attack/defense/quest/magic which aren't truly glitchable just need a huge amount of grind... but for stuff you that can just bomb up artificially (like trade) then everyone who doesn't glitch it is gonna have a very low score compared to the top guy.

My point about this maybe best demonstrated by an example: My trade and diplo rankings are both around rank #100 at the moment, they contribute to 1.9% and 1.78% of my total score, very low because the guys with the top scores can rack up huge scores artificially... at the same time I'm around rank #50 with tech and this counts for 40.9% of my total score because the people at the top cannot easily grind out huge scores above the framework of normal game play. Even for something like pop which is around #200 for me at the moment, its contribution to my total is like 20%... I don't get why that should contribute like ten times as much to my total score as other aspects like diplo when there's more than twice as many people above me in pop as diplo, just because the guy at the top of diplo grinds a LOT.

If you look at it another way... if you're the guy at the top of the trade rankings you can effectively nerf everyone else's 'wedges' by glitching out another 10B points...

Maybe a better way would be to include an element of people's ranking in the weighting towards their total score rather than 100% of the weight coming from your score relative to the top person's score.

And if you're reading this please don't interpret it is a rant. I would certainly enjoy it if the ranking system was upgraded to make it a little more meaningful... but obviously I'm not upset by how it is now. I'd much rather see dev work pushing the game forward than fretting about old and ultimately relatively inconsequential stuff like the ranking page. Also I appreciate that with the game running 2 years already you can't exactly easily nerf people's current scores by changing the system... cos even though I used words like 'glitching' there's actually nothing technically wrong or against the rules about grinding score out artificially and people that have worked hard towards a top rank won't want to lose that.

It's a tough topic I guess... but interesting to think about. Maybe I'll save some probing questions about it for the next live-chat. Evil Smile


Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 18 Apr 2012 at 03:43
My observation is that tech score is RP spent.  Capturing cities hampers tech score for this reason.


Posted By: Daefis
Date Posted: 18 Apr 2012 at 09:47
I'm close to researching everything in all 10 cities (working on last town now) but there's still quite a way to catch up with the number one spot for research so I wonder if there is also an element of RP earnt as well as spent?



Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 18 Apr 2012 at 11:42
Originally posted by Daefis Daefis wrote:

I'm close to researching everything in all 10 cities (working on last town now) but there's still quite a way to catch up with the number one spot for research so I wonder if there is also an element of RP earnt as well as spent?

read up:
Quote I think people can get more than the score obtainable from max. research in 10 cities by destroying/losing cities after doing research in them.


Posted By: Daefis
Date Posted: 18 Apr 2012 at 23:13
Yep, read it and it's certainly the most likely answer but without facts we're still free to speculate.


Posted By: Bonaparta
Date Posted: 19 Apr 2012 at 11:16
You don't get research points for conquered town research already done. I guess you get more research if you lost a city and built another one...


Posted By: Kimmyeo
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2020 at 17:38
You can't tell me that someone is scoring so much right now, that most of us, at the level I am around have lost millions of points in the last 48 hours, while others have lost nothing. My perception is that you're playing favorites and changing things to make others happy. I have seen you do this before. So it makes me wonder why I am even trying to play this game.


Posted By: Kimmyeo
Date Posted: 24 Sep 2020 at 00:21
WHY HAVE I DROPPED OVER 20 POINTS IN THE RANKINGS IN A DAY???? Linking me to this forum post from 10 years ago isn't answering my question at all.


Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 24 Sep 2020 at 03:19
Hi Kimmyeo,

I linked you to this forum post, explaining how overall score is calculated.  It's an automated system, and no one "intervenes" in it.  We don't play favourites.  

I can only urge you to reread the explanation and the maths behind it, and perhaps work towards improving your scores in other areas, to assist your overall (calculated) score.

SC




Posted By: Kimmyeo
Date Posted: 24 Sep 2020 at 04:06
Can you please explain the logic for why it is setup like that? Why is it fair for inactive players to get part of my points, or even abandoned accounts, I have seen them gain points. Now the top players in the game are fighting it out in magic and trading and the rest of us are screwed because they are at such a level they can take points away from everyone else? It just isn't fair. You'll have to explain it. Ouch


Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 24 Sep 2020 at 15:39
Originally posted by Kimmyeo Kimmyeo wrote:

Can you please explain the logic for why it is setup like that? Why is it fair for inactive players to get part of my points, or even abandoned accounts, I have seen them gain points.
Why inactive/abandoned accounts remain on the ranking tables
The world works this way.  Just because you stop playing competitive tennis does not mean someone takes away your prize money and trophies.  If you set a high score on an arcade game, you remain on the high score table even though you are not playing the game.  If something happens in the past, doesn't mean it should be 'un-happened'.

Why inactive/abandoned accounts might gain points
An account/town might be abandoned, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have defensive spells still running on it, or troops to defend it, or buildings/research to complete in the building and research queues - any/all of which would add to the category scores, even though the account is abandoned.

Additionally, because the overall score is a derived value, it is possible that an abandoned account can gain overall score points and ranking because of other players' actions in categories that the abandoned account was scoring weakly in.  See below for further explanation of how this works.

Originally posted by Kimmyeo Kimmyeo wrote:

Now the top players in the game are fighting it out in magic and trading and the rest of us are screwed because they are at such a level they can take points away from everyone else?
They aren't taking category score (eg Magic score, Attack score) away from *anyone* else.  

Your category score (in whichever specific category you like to look at) does not go down, in any way, because of the actions of other players.  Your defense category score, or magic category score, or research category score will never go down.  Your category ranking, however, might go down, because someone else's category score has bettered yours.

Your overall score - as it is a derived field according to the formula on page one of this thread - will fluctuate, as it is a derived value from the sum of all the category scores, factoring in the relative difficulty to get points scored in each different category.

The reason it takes into account all the scores in the same category (ie the "total category pool of all the available points in that category") is because different types of category score are easier/harder to get than others.  

For example, it is much easier to get 1 million points in (eg) Magic than it is to get 1 million points in Attack, so the scores for each category are normalised to the total category pool, to balance them out.  The achievability of 1 million points is therefore self-normalising.  

If everyone can get 1 million points in magic very easily, then 1 million points in magic is worth a lot less than 1 million points in Attack.  Dividing an individual's category score by the total category pool normalises the ranking when the categories are combined to create an overall score and allows us to compare apples (Magic Score) with pears (Attack Score) as a self-normalising system of relative category effort and relative individual effort within that category.

So, yes, if two top players battle it out in magic, and you are ranked below both of them, it will make the total category pool for the magic category much larger, whilst leaving everyone else's individual category score in the magic category unchanged. 

This will push *everyone* - except those two players - to a lower overall score.  How much this affects an individual player's overall score and overall ranking will depend entirely on how contingent/sensitive that particular players' overall score is dependent on their performance in the magic category score.  

In this example, if you rank highly overall but have a very poor magic score, then your overall points score won't drop by much.  If you rank highly overall, and are hugely reliant on your Magic score to prop up your overall score, then your overall points score will drop much further - because magic score's contribution to overall score has been devalued relative to (eg) Attack score or any other category of score except Magic.

There are players in the Top 10 Overall Score ranking who aren't in the Top 20 for certain categories of score - and if they improved their ranking in the categories where they are underperforming, their overall score will improve, and others, ranked below them, will reduce.

---

This system of calculating a derived overall score and ranking has been in place for more than a decade, entirely unchanged since we put in a small fix many, many years ago (2013? 2014?)

Is the system perfect?  We don't think so, which is why, 18 months ago, we http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/overall-score-request-for-comment_topic10607.html" rel="nofollow - published a public consultation on a potential way of changing the overall score algorithm  but received (at best) a luke-warm response to our proposal, and (more clearly) quite a lot of negative reaction - so we didn't go any further with the proposal.

---
tldr;
I hope this answers your questions.  You are in the same boat as everyone else.  You are not losing score in any score category because of the actions of others, but you might lose ranking if someone else's score passes your own.  

Your derived overall score will fluctuate according to the total pool of available points in each category, which normalises relative performance and required effort to get points across dissimilar point categories (eg Attack and Magic, and all the others).

Best wishes,

SC

EDIT: Fixed bolds, tidied up score names


Posted By: Kimmyeo
Date Posted: 24 Sep 2020 at 16:57
I hope you read what you wrote and see how dumb it is. I have lost over 5 million points in the past 2 days. My score has gone down. No ones score should ever go down. period..... No abandoned player's score should go up either. no inactive account, of which there are many, should be gaining or losing points either. I know you're going to say they are still defending if someone attacks their town... Blah Blah Blah, fine give them that, but they shouldn't be taking away from anyone. you will never convince me this is fair. I cannot compete with a player that has over 800 million points, and has  gained over 1.5 billion points in magic and trade in the past couple days. Once they are #1, they can keep hammering everyone down down down...


Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 24 Sep 2020 at 17:31
Originally posted by Kimmyeo Kimmyeo wrote:

I hope you read what you wrote and see how dumb it is. I have lost over 5 million points in the past 2 days. My score has gone down. No ones score should ever go down. period..... No abandoned player's score should go up either. no inactive account, of which there are many, should be gaining or losing points either. I know you're going to say they are still defending if someone attacks their town... Blah Blah Blah, fine give them that, but they shouldn't be taking away from anyone. you will never convince me this is fair. I cannot compete with a player that has over 800 million points, and has  gained over 1.5 billion points in magic and trade in the past couple days. Once they are #1, they can keep hammering everyone down down down...
No, no they can't - unless they continue to gain score in each category at a faster rate than the people below them in each category, and hence overall.

If your complaint is that the very biggest players in the game have an advantage in that they're bigger and can therefore outperform the players ranked below them (for as long as they're playing the game), than that's exactly the way the system is designed to work.  Players who perform better than other players rank higher than other players.

I can't explain it any more clearly than I have.

Regards,

SC





Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 24 Sep 2020 at 20:26
Kimmyeo, i am really sorry you are losing ranking points because of me (and to some part Quentin).

Originally posted by Kimmyeo Kimmyeo wrote:

Now the top players in the game are fighting it out in magic and trading and the rest of us are screwed because they are at such a level they can take points away from everyone else?

Quentin challenged me to a race for rank 1 until the end of the year some weeks ago. That is why he is putting an insane amount of resources into getting ranking points. I cannot really win the race (he is playing the game a lot longer and thus has a way better base score, i.e. he is leading in most ranking categories that are hard(er) to play like quest/build/attack/defense/diplo) but i tried to make it harder for him - thus i started getting points in magic again. Doleigh got magic rank 1 some days ago, thus i had to "fight" there anyway.

Originally posted by Kimmyeo Kimmyeo wrote:

I cannot compete with a player that has over 800 million points, and has gained over 1.5 billion points in magic and trade in the past couple days.

Ranking points do not say that much in my opinion. You cannot compete with 2 players that have over 100 cities and know what they are doing. Getting more cities is by far the best and easiest way to get more ranking points in he long run and thus be more "competitive". I started the game a bit after you and put an insane amount of work in the game. Quentin is putting an insane amount of work in the game. That has to be (and should be) "rewarded" somehow.

Originally posted by Kimmyeo Kimmyeo wrote:

but they shouldn't be taking away from anyone. you will never convince me this is fair.

A ranking system in a complex game like Illyriad is never really fair. Even the current ranking system is not really fair - as some categories are a lot easier to gain points in than others. It is by far the best and close to fair ranking system i know though and thus i really hope it is going to stay.




Posted By: DeliciousJosh
Date Posted: 25 Sep 2020 at 00:06
Thank you for the in-depth explanation on how it works and why the more inactive players gain so much.
An example is the Number 1 Defense player gaining a lot of points since he clearly didn't care much about anything else but building kobolds :)
It has been fun to follow the Thirion vs Quentin battle. In some ways a bit annoying that it is influencing everyone but whatever. We will get over it.

Hope all are well.



-------------

PublicRelations
HumanResources


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 25 Sep 2020 at 14:52
regardless of fairness etc, I'd rather the devs put development time into aoa/illyriad mechanics, than fiddling with scoring algorithms.

One of my first posts on this forum was a program for alliance overall scores. If you really have an issue with the way they are currently calculated, make an algorithm that prioritises what you want and, if it's a good idea, other players who care will follow.

Oh, and you ignore the one true overall rank; forum points.


-------------
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because...


Posted By: DeliciousJosh
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2020 at 11:24
Forum points :O I forgot about those...

Oh, and are you guys going to be rank gaining till new years or whats the deal... That might be a bit long?


-------------

PublicRelations
HumanResources


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2020 at 23:45
Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

Oh, and you ignore the one true overall rank; forum points.

Winning.


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 27 Sep 2020 at 01:54
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

Oh, and you ignore the one true overall rank; forum points.

Winning.

I will catch you one day... maybe... 
I'm only something like 200 points off the first page.


-------------
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because...



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net