VVV scoring system suggestion - Updated

[Xger]

Take two on the system:

Here seem to be the general things desired:

• The top performances need a higher weighting
• Scores need to go further down the table
• Map size and difficultly need to be accounted for
• There should be two seperate VVV's; one for score and one for time, though there wasn't much discussion if they should combined for the overall ranking, if not, which would display on the page?
• Playing an empty table needs something to encourage new tables to be filled
• More entries should be more points, up to a limit

Each entrant grants the table 10 points, up to a max of 100.
At 6+ entries, 1st gets a 2x multiplier, 2nd a 1.5x multiplier. At 4-5 entires, 1st gets a 1.5x multiplier.

Points are awarded as a fraction of the number of entries, up to 10th. First place gets the full table value, 2nd gets (n-1)/n*(table value) points where n is number of entries and capped at 10, 3rd (n-2)/n*(table value) and so on.

Map size would be a end point multiplier of:

• Duel:55%
• Tiny:70%
• Small:85%
• Standard+:100%

Difficulty would be:

• Settler:1
• Chieftan:1.5
• Warlord:2
• Prince:2.5
• King:3
• Emperor:3.5
• Immortal:4
• Deity:4.5

Here is one and another example tables based on time finish:

Table 1||Table 2|
Player|Points|Player|Points
vexing|1080|HideInLight|340
moriarte|675|xger|229.5
glory7|360|moriarte|136
HideInLight|270|kirbdog|119
Bram|180|browd|102
Bignitas|90|Jinbe|85
||FoamFollower|68
||jamgdz55|51
||titantoma|34
||Dignitas|17
||11th+ Place|0

Please keep in mind once again, the constants are just chosen at the moment so there are concrete examples. I'm attempting to accomadate as much as possible as there are people who want things exactly the opposite, so please keep in mind this is supposed to be a system for everyone, not just one person or one playstyle.


The first iteration:

Spoiler :

This has been discussed a few times so I have come up with a system to suggest. The medals would stay but the current points would not.

Right now my system doesn't directly account for difficulty or map size, but multipliers could be used for such. I wanted to get a base system out for discussion before working out all the minutia. The 10 point base is just a simple number I started with. Rounding to the first decimal just seemed easiest.

The system would be as follows:
Points are earned only if there are 2 or more entries. Each participant is 10 points, so if a setting has 4 entrants it has 40 points, 25 entrants would be 250, 2 entrants 20, etc.

These 3 tables are my example tables:
One Two and Three

So table one is worth 60 points, two is 90, three is 20.

For time based points:
First place gets the full value of the table, so 60, 90, and 20 respectively.
Take the fastest time and subtract it from the total number of turns at the speed. For one this is 333, two is 260, three is 276.
This is the base used for point calculation. Use the same process for each entrant, and take the ratio of the number.

For instance on table 1 vexing would get 60 points. Moriarte would get 56.6 points as follows:
500-186=314
314/333=.942942...
.942942...*60=56.6

For reference tables 1, 2, and 3 would have these points:

Table 1|||Table 2|||Table 3|
Player|Points||Player|Points||Player|Points
vexing|60||moriarte|90||cetti|20
moriarte|56.6||Salamo|82.7||sir spink|18.7
glory7|55.7||brawd|76.5|
HideInLight|54.6||stevemeyer|71.3|
Bram|49.7||titantoma|67.2|
Dignitas|39.6||nerovats|61.3
|||Mesix|55.7
|||dinanipedro|46
|||xger|.3

The score tables would be similar. It would just be a ratio of the score in question over the top score then multiplied by the amount of points. I have the number for the tables I referenced but filling them out in the forum is more time consuming than I planned. I can post them if people want.

Overall the aim with this system was to reward players who do well in a very competitive table as well as awarding proportionally based on how close someone is to the leader.

 

[kirbdog]

I'm not so sure we can't give points of some kind for single entry tables. At the price of purity, there'd be a lot more variety of games to beat.

 

[vexing]

be aware the resultant sql to give scores needs to be quick. i don't think anything involving a ratio vs top score is going to work.

 

[Xger]

I'm not so sure we can't give points of some kind for single entry tables. At the price of purity, there'd be a lot more variety of games to beat.

I thought about that but it seemed odd to reward someone for playing 200 variants of duels to rack up easy points. The only other solution I had thought of was entries by themselves would be worth 5 points instead of 10.

be aware the resultant sql to give scores needs to be quick. i don't think anything involving a ratio vs top score is going to work.

SQL is one of the coding languages I never really learned at all. My confusion however is:
Why does the speed of it matter? Do the tables recalculate on each load?
Why can't it just be run twice a month when the update is done?
I tried to keep it relatively simple, but without a ratio of some kind it would seem awarding points proportionally would be out of the range of the possibilities.

 

[kirbdog]

The only other solution I had thought of was entries by themselves would be worth 5 points instead of 10.

I was thinking of something along those lines. Maybe it's 10% of a bronze metal, but it does reward someone for going through the trouble of uploading their games. Someone else can spam better times and then you lose that fractional value anyway.

 

[sanabas]

I thought about that but it seemed odd to reward someone for playing 200 variants of duels to rack up easy points.

But it's not hard for someone else to play the same variants and beat them. Encouraging players to fill empty tables is a good thing, I think. Discouraging it isn't. Beating the best time on table 3 would give you 30 points. Adding a 10th game to table 2, that took 50% longer than first place (360 turns vs the current #1 at 240) would give you over 50.

Why does the speed of it matter? Do the tables recalculate on each load?
Why can't it just be run twice a month when the update is done?

This I agree with entirely. Something using a ratio of the top score is I think the best way, by far.

Sure, some top scores are better than others. Empty tables are obviously the easiest place to get a top score. But as tables fill up, as there is more comp, that becomes less of an issue. Personally, I'd just give the top score on each table the same number of points (multiplied by a factor for map size, difficulty level, speed) and every other game on the table gets awarded points based on how they compare to the #1. With VVV subcategories counting your best x games for each part. So league of nations would count your best 2 Hun games, your best 2 Greek games, etc. While tempi counts the best 15 quick, best 15 standard, etc. The different parts of VVV would have different leaderboards, unlike now. There's an incentive to fill empty tables, unlike now. Posting a low-scoring game won't boost someone else's score, which it can now. Will still take the same 34 games to qualify for VVV, there's still the same medal counts, but players can focus on a high score for a particular section, and maximising their overall score will take a lot of varied games.

Playing 100 duel games might get you an early lead, but it won't last. And I think the current VVV setup offers just as many opportunities to post cheesy games to boost your score.

 

[vexing]

regarding your actual system, it rewards quantity over quality: a mediocre player with a lot of time on their hands could play every game that's had another competitor, never get a top finish, and would easily take 1st place. why not just make VVV count the # of games played?

 

[Moriarte]

regarding your actual system, it rewards quantity over quality: a mediocre player with a lot of time on their hands could play every game that's had another competitor, never get a top finish, and would easily take 1st place.

Only in opening stages. Two first places in two six player competitions (120 points) would outweigh 20 single entry games (5 points x 20 = 100).

 

[TractorBoy]

Very well thought out Xger, this is a very good way to involve the lesser players and hence to promote competition further down the VVV table. If members are getting some sort of reward for their efforts then they are far more likely to stay on board long term.

 

[TractorBoy]

regarding your actual system, it rewards quantity over quality: a mediocre player with a lot of time on their hands could play every game that's had another competitor, never get a top finish, and would easily take 1st place. why not just make VVV count the # of games played?

The cream will always rise to the top, but most people don't like their cream to be sour!

 

[Mesix]

regarding your actual system, it rewards quantity over quality: a mediocre player with a lot of time on their hands could play every game that's had another competitor, never get a top finish, and would easily take 1st place. why not just make VVV count the # of games played?

I agree with this statement. If the top player in one game finishes on turn 180 on a table with 6 entries and another player plays a similar game (perhaps only a slightly different map) and finishes on turn 220, but there are 15 entries (perhaps because it is a Gauntlet or challenge game), why should he get 150 vs the 60 points? This system will encourage people to beat the mediocre finish times with more entries (e.g. submitting the 16th game with a turn 218 finish for 160 points) rather than trying to compete against the more difficult finish time.

Perhaps you could alter the scoring system so that there is 10 points for every entry over 1 to a maximum of 50 points. See table below:

1.....0 points
2.....10 points
3.....20 points
4.....30 points
5.....40 points
6+...50 points

This will encourage players to fill up tables to at least 6 entries (the same cutoff for a gold medal) and then encourage competition for the best time rather than just rewarding more entries of the same conditions.

Perhaps the system could be made similar to the Civ 4 EQM so that the top 2 games with any one variable (i.e. top 2 games with a particular civ) count for the score. Instead of an average (like the EQM), the VVV could add the 2 (up to 50 points each for a total of 100 for any given variable). This would encourage players to try different settings to maximize their VVV scores.

 

[vexing]

Only in opening stages. Two first places in two six player competitions (120 points) would outweigh 20 single entry games (5 points x 20 = 100).

his system requires 2 entries for any points. regardless, you're completely missing my point.

look at table one in his example. dignitas with a turn 280 finish is getting basically 2/3rds the points i am for my stellar 167 game.
let's suppose dignitas always earns 2/3rds top score. if i enter an average sample 1/3rd of the games available and always get first place, and dignitas enters every table, his total VVV score would be 2x mine.

Very well thought out Xger, this is a very good way to involve the lesser players and hence to promote competition further down the VVV table.

funny how you are so adamantly opposed to any changes in VVV scoring rules... until someone mentions one that allows someone without skill be rewarded, like score games.

 

[Xger]

regarding your actual system, it rewards quantity over quality: a mediocre player with a lot of time on their hands could play every game that's had another competitor, never get a top finish, and would easily take 1st place. why not just make VVV count the # of games played?

How is that different from the current system? A giant pile of bronze medals from 2 entrant tables can make people top. Right now I am at the top of the VVV (as of the 4/1/13 update) for G&K but I have 4 less gold medals than FeiLing and 27 more bronze medals. The only one with more points than me is you, and you have 7 more gold medals than I do and only 5.7 more points.

1.....0 points
2.....10 points
3.....20 points
4.....30 points
5.....40 points
6+...50 points

The problem with this from my perspective is that a top finish in a table of 20 entries should mean more than one with 6.

his system requires 2 entries for any points. regardless, you're completely missing my point.

Moriarte was referring to my response where I said my only thoughts I had had on including single entry tables was giving them a value of 5.

look at table one in his example. dignitas with a turn 280 finish is getting basically 2/3rds the points i am for my stellar 167 game.
let's suppose dignitas always earns 2/3rds top score. if i enter an average sample 1/3rd of the games available and always get first place, and dignitas enters every table, his total VVV score would be 2x mine.

This is pretty valid, but as I said this was a base system. Perhaps the top 3 finishes get an extra multiplier to represent their medal placement. First gets 3x points, second 2x, thrid 1.5x or something along those lines.

funny how you are so adamantly opposed to any changes in VVV scoring rules... until someone mentions one that allows someone without skill be rewarded, like score games.

How are score games any less skill intensive than duel domination? Or huns domination on a single landmass? Just because you don't like a type doesn't mean it should be excluded, especially when there are several settings "without skill" that are rewarded.

Tractor does have a point though, giving something for everyone to work for will likely encourage more particiapation.

 

[vexing]

How is that different from the current system? A giant pile of bronze medals from 2 entrant tables can make people top.

the current system requires top finishes. your system does not as should be clear from my example. someone nowhere near a contender could easily take first via pure number of games played.

How are score games any less skill intensive than duel domination?

specifically i am referring to tables like this

presumably 22 folks played with these settings vying for fastest finish, and one person played for score. that score game gets a gold medal with no competition. how much skill does it take to win against no competition? why are these being lumped together when they're completely different games?

 

[TractorBoy]

funny how you are so adamantly opposed to any changes in VVV scoring rules... until someone mentions one that allows someone without skill be rewarded, like score games.

So I have no skill and I am a self confessed "stupid old git", I hardly matter in this thread. What really matters is the good of all and not the good of one man. If you really want to SHOWCASE this site at the top end then you should join Moriarty in playing his Deity, Pangea, standard games. On VANILLA for as long as it ran only one man ever played one of those.

Xger and Messix are really trying hard to get the HOF where it should be, they are being totally unselfish in their efforts.

 

[TractorBoy]

specifically i am referring to tables like this

Well I never, I can't believe you took 254 turns to obtain your culture victory Vexing!
I thought you are far better than that?

 

[Xger]

the current system requires top finishes. your system does not as should be clear from my example. someone nowhere near a contender could easily take first via pure number of games played.

And you ignored my current example where I am above FeiLing but he has more gold medals than I do. A handful more bronzes and my current score would be higher than yours as well.

You seem to have a very strict vision of what is a good system in that you bemoan the current one as well as mine. Care to suggest one that encourages participation?

specifically i am referring to tables like this

presumably 22 folks played with these settings vying for fastest finish, and one person played for score. that score game gets a gold medal with no competition. how much skill does it take to win against no competition? why are these being lumped together when they're completely different games?

What about this table?
Should the speed wins not count since it was a high score gauntlet that 5 of the 6 entries are from?

How do you identify who played for fastest speed and who plays for highest score when they are submitted since you seem to imply they should be separated?

So I have no skill and I am a self confessed "stupid old git", I hardly matter in this thread. What really matters is the good of all and not the good of one man. If you really want to SHOWCASE this site at the top end then you should join Moriarty in playing his Deity, Pangea, standard games. On VANILLA for as long as it ran only one man ever played one of those.

Xger and Messix are really trying hard to get the HOF where it should be, they are being totally unselfish in their efforts.

Well I never, I can't believe you took 254 turns to obtain your culture victory Vexing!
I thought you are far better than that?

Please do not use this thread to rehash what has been said in multiple other threads, I cannot be the only one tired of threads covered in the Tractor v. vexing.

 

[HideInLight]

Score games should have separated HoF tables from fastest finish. Its a completely different goal.
You can identify that easily by adding a checkbox when submitting, if you want your game to participate in fastest finish HoF tables or in score HoF tables.


On topic:

I am happy there is a motion for a system to encourage more activity, but it seems to me that the suggested is a little too difficult to understand and confusing and still would need a lot of balancing to do to be really good. It might be very good though in the end.

Personally though I preffer simplicity and I think the (already suggested) simple change to reward top 10 places (the standard way, not proportionally by finish date) would be enough to get more players to fight for points.

 

[Peets]

Why not create two?
One VVV for medals and one VVV for a point system.
I prefer HideInLight suggestion with rewarding the top 10 places.
Since then I might get some fast finish date points too

Also at this moment there is not much competition for high score games so they are easy medals.

 

[vexing]

Should the speed wins not count since it was a high score gauntlet that 5 of the 6 entries are from?

sounds good to me.
i've proposed two versions of VVV: one for score games and one for civ v games.

i'd be in favor of rewarding the top 1/3 or 1/4 of submissions in each table in a nonlinear way