VVV scoring system suggestion - Updated

[sanabas]

I don't bother either with all the stuff that has been written here, just hoping whatever you do kinda works out in the end.

So... can anyone actually explain to anyone else in 2 sentences what this new scoring system is?
Or will I when i go to the FAQ once it's done only get to see those tables I currently see in this thread (which make me say "oooookay... whatever.")?

At the moment it is:

Every game will score points, including those on otherwise empty tables. On an otherwise empty table, points will range from ~1 (quick/duel/settler) to ~260 (huge/non-quick/deity). Bigger the map/higher the difficulty, the more points it gets.

Tables with more games will score more points. Being first out of 10 games will range from ~32 (quick/duel/settler) to ~420 (huge/non-quick/deity).

The closer you are to first, the more points you get. On standard speed, if you're 20 turns behind, you get half the points. 40 turns behind, 1/3 the points. 60 turns behind, 1/4.

For each VVV sub-category, your best x scores count. So for LoN, we'll take your best 3 for each civ (so potentially 129 games will count). For Mapquest, we'll take your best 6 for each maptype (so potentially 120). That'll give you a different total for each VVV category, and there'll be a maximum of ~120 games count towards each. We'll add those together to get your total VVV score.

If you want to work out exactly what your games will score, please consult the following tables/formulae:

Spoiler :

Here be tables/formulae

With things like game totals (or a switch to the more complicated options BWS has described), what percentage of points you get for being so many turns behind, etc, able to be easily tweaked once we see how things are working in practice. The aim is to encourage people to play a wide range of games if they want to maximise their VVV score. To encourage them to open empty tables, in particular the bigger/harder empty tables.

 

[beezany]

I noticed that all of the proposed balancing systems have a common weakness: They prevent you from racking up a bunch of Distance points with Duel, a bunch of Tempi points with Quick, a bunch of League points with Attila, a bunch of Machiavelli points with Domination, and so on – but they don't keep you from racking up a bunch of Inferno points with Quick Duel Attila Domination, for example.

Option E: For each setting in a category, your best game scores full points. Your second best game scores 20% for each setting that is different from the best game. Your third best game scores 20% for each setting that is different from both of the other games, and so on.

Inferno Example: Your best Deity game scored 500 table points with Standard Standard Pangaea Shoshone Domination, so you get 500 Inferno points for that. Your second best game scored 400 table points with Quick Duel Pangaea Attila Domination. That's three unique settings (Quick Duel Attila), so you score 400 ⨉ 60% = 240 Inferno points. Your third best game scored 100 table points with Quick Duel Great Plains Attila Domination. That's only one unique setting (Great Plains) so you score 100 ⨉ 20% = 20 Inferno points. Your fourth best game scored 50 table points with Marathon Tiny Continents Venice Culture. Those settings are all unique, so you get a full 50 Inferno points for that. Total Inferno score for Deity: 810.

This system is simple to explain and relatively simple to implement. It rewards players who not only can win with all of the settings in a category, but who can also win each setting in multiple ways. A player who can win all five victory types with Enrico Dandolo scores a lot more League points than one who can only win DVs with him. A player who can win Culture Victories with any leader will score more Machiavelli points than one who can only win with Poland. I think this method best fits the spirit of the VVV in that it encourages as much diversity as possible.

 

[Denniz]

I don't bother either with all the stuff that has been written here, just hoping whatever you do kinda works out in the end.

So... can anyone actually explain to anyone else in 2 sentences what this new scoring system is?
Or will I when i go to the FAQ once it's done only get to see those tables I currently see in this thread (which make me say "oooookay... whatever.")?

Don't worry. I am not really mathematically inclined either. Since I have A) understand it and B) figure out how to implement it, it is going to have to be understandable.

 

[Denniz]

Still some peripheral work to do but the VVV scoring system for BNW has been implemented.

To-Dos :

• Change ad-hoc query to show Table Scores (TScore)
• Change ad-hoc query to add User dropdown
• Change VVV category pages to link subcategory scores to the ad-hoc query to show games for user. (dependent on ad-hoc query changes)
• Add formula explanation of table scores and VVV bonus adjustments to VVV formula tab. (blank right now)
• Add links to VVV formula tab to Table Viewer and Ad-hoc Query.
• Change Game Info page to show Table Scores (maybe show actual calc)

For now only the Table Viewer has the Table Scores (TScore). You can access that via the left hand menu or by clicking on the Entries number on the Main HOF Page.

The formulas are based on information sanabas provided and is contained in this thread somewhere. Please hold off tearing into the formulas until we can get the remaining work done.

The To-Dos above will provide a lot of information about the detailed formulas and the ability to valid the them.

Comments on format and such are welcome. (I don't do pretty. ) Just try not to hurt my feelings.

 

[sanabas]

Busy weekend, will hopefully have formulae written up properly in the next day or two.

 

[beezany]

Does the current implementation use any of the diversity options? I think a diversity system is a good idea and would be happy with any of them except maybe option B. That one seems to have more quirks than practical effect. My favorite is option E.


– Bradd

 

[sanabas]

What's up there now uses option C, more or less. Full formulae should be up soon.

If you've got specific questions, just ask.

 

[beezany]

Oh wow, I like what you did with that, Denniz! Nice work!

Some of the numbers on the VVV overview page are in italics. Does that mean something, or is it a bug?

 

[sanabas]

If it's in italics, it means you haven't completed that category yet.

 

[Denniz]

If it's in italics, it means you haven't completed that category yet.

Remind me that I need to put a note somewhere about the italics.

____________________________________

The sub-category scores now are linked to the ad-hoc query page to show you the games that make up the score. TScores and a User dropdown were added to Ad Hoc Query to facilitate that.

Note: I am fairly confident that the TScores are accurate. (sanabs and I reached mutual understanding of those over the weekend.) sanabas needs to verify the sub-category calculations after tonight's changes before we can say they are going to stop changing.

 

[sanabas]

I reckon bold (completed)/non-bold (uncompleted) is easier to see at a glance.

 

[beezany]

Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing about bold instead of italics.


– Bradd

 

[FeiLing]

TScore value should probably be rounded to a number without decimals.

Love how you can search for games from a specific player now... and I'm shocked to see that there are only so little bnw submitters as of now (of course for vanilla and gnk most of the users are probably pretty much inactive).

I must admit though that when I look at the VVV and only see a bunch of numbers in all the tables instead of a relatively small number of three different medals I do not see any point to ever look at it again. Medals allowed to see where I was doing good at one glance. Now I need to look at all the numbers carefully and search for the highest and lowest numbers to be able to get out any information from it. It could very well just not be there for me as the only thing that makes sense to look at now is the rank or the total number of points.

 

[Denniz]

I reckon bold (completed)/non-bold (uncompleted) is easier to see at a glance.

Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing about bold instead of italics.


– Bradd

I think I tried both. Bolding anything makes it jump out. Same with colors. Maybe an asterisk? Frankly, if that is the worse thing we have to worry about we are doing well.

 

[Denniz]

TScore value should probably be rounded to a number without decimals.

Easy enough. whole numbers may be easier to read. Any one against that?

Love how you can search for games from a specific player now... and I'm shocked to see that there are only so little bnw submitters as of now (of course for vanilla and gnk most of the users are probably pretty much inactive).

Only way I could think of to let folks see their games that make up number. We are early days on BNW. The numbers will pick up. Especially now that more than 1st through 3rd get point in VVV.

I must admit though that when I look at the VVV and only see a bunch of numbers in all the tables instead of a relatively small number of three different medals I do not see any point to ever look at it again. Medals allowed to see where I was doing good at one glance. Now I need to look at all the numbers carefully and search for the highest and lowest numbers to be able to get out any information from it. It could very well just not be there for me as the only thing that makes sense to look at now is the rank or the total number of points.

I will let sanabas and those that helped him address the strategy for improving your scores. All I can say is any game will add to your score. And quality games will add even more.

The formula tab on the VVV for BNW is partially filled in. It still needs some work but it gives the info on how TScore is derived. If you don't look at anything else look at the tables to see how Map Sizes, Difficulties, and Speed determine "quality". Of course medals still mean you get a higher score for that table then those without.

 

[beezany]

Thanks, Denniz! Great work!

I also agree that TScore values and category totals would be more readable if rounded to whole numbers. That does raise the question of whether to calculate the category averages and totals from rounded or unrounded TScore values. The figures will be more precise if you use unrounded values throughout, but the calculations may be more transparent if you figure averages and totals from the rounded numbers.

Some other suggestions:

Show complete VVV categories a different way, instead of showing incomplete categories in italics (as suggested earlier). Perhaps show incomplete categories with gray text or an asterisk or something? The italics don't have quite enough visual distinctiveness.

Currently, the table and query pages only show TRank and TScore if the ranking method matches the Date/Score setting. For example, Time victories are ranked by score, so their TRank and TScore only shows up in a Scores query. I understand why you do it that way, but it would be convenient to always see the TRank and TScore, even if they don't match the query. (Perhaps with an asterisk or other highlighting to note when they don't match?)

It would also be helpful if the ad-hoc query showed how much competition there was for a table, so that you can see whether “TRank 1” means first out of one, first out of six, etc. You could either add another column with the total number of entries, or simply display the TRank as 1/1 or 1/6 or whatever. In either case, it would also be handy to have a link from the query to the corresponding HOF table so that you can see the competing games.

Likewise, it would be handy to have a link from the game info page to the corresponding HOF table. (Or is that already there? I know there are links in the other direction.)

 

[sanabas]

I also agree that TScore values and category totals would be more readable if rounded to whole numbers. That does raise the question of whether to calculate the category averages and totals from rounded or unrounded TScore values. The figures will be more precise if you use unrounded values throughout, but the calculations may be more transparent if you figure averages and totals from the rounded numbers.

I think rounding should only ever happen at the end, for display only. Rounding partway through a calculation is just wrong.

 

[sanabas]

Displaying the avg cap on the inferno/machiavelli/etc tabs I think is good.

For mapquest, LoN, machiavelli, it's easy enough to see which sub-categories you have capped.

For GtD, Inferno, Tempi, it isn't. Maybe use an asterix, or a different colour, or bolding, to show which subcategories are capped, which are not? If it's doable, anyway, as it might mean inserting another function. Other option might be to put two lines, instead of just "* Avg Cap value is before Sub-Category adjustment is applied." add "To check the cap for a particular sub-category, multiply the avg cap by the size/speed/difficulty modifier for that sub-category"

 

[beezany]

Yes, I also think it's a good idea to show the cap and which values are capped. (Maybe also show the uncapped value somehow, perhaps one value or the other in parentheses.)

As for rounding, I think it's a good idea to carry the fractions through calculations ONLY if the user can see the fractions somewhere in the interface. If the TScores are universally shown as whole numbers, then the totals should be based on the whole numbers. Also, if you do show the fractions somewhere in the interface, I recommend showing them consistently with two or three decimal places.


– Bradd

 

[sanabas]

TScores are all shown to 3 decimal places.

Calculations just take those TScores, spits out a number at the end, which is then rounded to 1 decimal place currently, or to the nearest integer to keep things cleaner.

Keeping it as is, with just a change from 1 d.p. to 0 on the display I don't think will cause any issues. Still easy to see if a sub-category is capped, or roughly how close to the cap it is. Relatively easy to see what a game will do to your scores. And easy (but a bit long) to work out exact scores in advance if you really want to.