Rank not exactly accurate

[Shaman]

The new scoring system is very nice.
However, Rank is not exactly the correct term for what you get when you /stat, I dont believe.

Aren't rankings usually descending, not ascending?
Aren't rankings in relation to other players, not based solely on accumulated points?

Perhaps the /stat result should say: Point Scoring
or, create a system where it is actually a ranking and people are ranked according to class.

color: grey, gold,
games played: 0-25 , 26-50, 51-150, etc. etc.
overall (against all players)

/stat
<DragonFire> Shaman - Gold - (Group 0-25):100 - (Overall):265

[drakonfire]

what r u babbbling about? leave the new system alone, it is a million times better than anything else out there that i kno of, it is very accurate in telling a persons relative skill level


i mean sheesh, we just got this one up, give it a while before suggest yet another ranking system, this one is great and should stay for a very, very long time


EDIT -- oh and the fact that its still called rank instead of points is very minor, leave well enough alone, if it aint broke dont fix it... this def aint broke

[Shaman]

Seriously.
Do people even 'read' the threads?
I know I am coming across as 'whatever', but here.. let me simplify what I wrote so you can understand it.

NO NEED TO CHANGE THE UNDERLYING MECHANISM OF THE SCORING SYSTEM, AT ALL.

However, it is not a ranking system.

If they want a true ranking system, they need to make it descending. If they don't, then just change it from 'rank' to 'score'. While seemingly minor, it is philosophically opposed to the meaning to call it 'rank' to leave it as is.

Secondly, if they see it worthy to really make it a ranking system, then it would be nice to see the additions that I suggested, since they would be SIMPLE database queries and reports... not rocket science. Since they already have a proper 'SCORING' system in place, it then makes it very easy to convert it to a RANKING system and then delineate individuals by Color, Game # Class Rank, and Overall Rank. All the data IS ALREADY in the database and the reporting mechanism just needs the proper algorythm.

Seriously. Why comment if you dont understand the underlying suggestion?

[myhkahl]

because i code in java and i'm having a hard time reading ur suggestion, let me see if i finally understand it, i get the part about changing rank to score, relatively minor thing


but the rest let me see, u suggest a stat command that would list out what, a persons wins/losses against greys and then against golds and then combined? is that what u were talking about?

i apologize for my rash post, but i was tired and not thinking particularly well at that time, i'm still not sure i understand what ur suggesting though, have i got it right?

[Shaman]

I am making my suggestions based on some assumptions gained from experiences with DB's in general. I again assume, and yes assuming is wrong, that java can be used to access a back-end and that the whole game is not written in flash or access or java.. but even so this would probably still be accomplished.

- Each player has their color stored somewhere, maybe this has been included in the scoring database and perhaps not.
- As players play games, they accumulate score based on the complex scoring system that has been implemented
- Every person score is maintained in a database.
- Since the database can be sorted, then you can query/sort/report (pick your own terminology based on oracle, access, fxpro or whatever you use) the database in an descending manner on call.
- All exact scores (ties) can either be further analyzed or simply assigned same rank value. Lets assume same rank for simplicity.

Therefore, using the current scoring system you (could) have the following components.

1. - Player UserID (definately)
2. - Color (maybe) - fairly easy to implement as a static value
3. - Games Played (maybe) - fairly easy to implement
4. - Score (definately) - this is what you see now
5. - Rank (theoretical) - this would be analysis of the scoring database to establish your relative rank, sorted in descending order.

To move the game to a proper RANK system.
You apply 1, 4, 5.

To move the stat to my final suggestion:
/stat
<DragonFire> Shaman - Gold - (Group 0-25):100 - (Overall):265

You apply 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 as such.
Query 1
1, 2 (disclude opposite color UserID), query 3 (disclude all non group), 4, 5.
this would give you : <DragonFire> Shaman {UserID} - Gold {Color Indicator - maybe unnecessary} - (Group 0-25){Games Played Grouping}:100{Rank} (though score is hidden)

Query Two
1, 2 (disclude opposite color UserID), query 3 , 4, 5.
Amend to Query 1
this would give you : <DragonFire> Shaman - Gold - (Group 0-25):100 (Overall): 265

You could go even deeper, but I think your /stat line would get too long. You could compare {greys and golds} and/or {games played group and all games played} through include commands or lack of disclude commands.

We run a much smaller system and not in real time, we do this at work with an in-house written MSAccess DB. It takes over 700 providers, takes rates of their assessment results, compares them to like sized facilities and reports their relative rank based on their competitors and their scores. It then also reports their overall rank regardless of size of facility.

Sorry if it still unclear. I am not writing programming language, I am commenting on a statistical model of comparison. Some of my terms may be incorrect for the type of database manager you use.

[drakonfire]

okay i semi see where ur going with this, still dont 100% understand, but hey, i'll let the TAO programmers work that out if they feel it necesary

[Ri'Orius]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. While an ability to check your ranking (rather than only being able to check your rating) would be nifty, there are a lot of other things that are a whole lot niftier--new units, terrain, etc.

Also, isn't sorting generally a very processing-power-intensive thing to do? Especially with so many accounts? And you propose that they sort regularly (say, every night)? When the servers are already stressed out?

[Shaman]

Necro Bump #2
Interesting Ideas to compliment the current thoughts.

[Jeffery]

Again, you try to hard. I hereby withdraw my cookie offer.

[Shaman]

Originally posted by Jeffery
Again, you try to hard. I hereby withdraw my cookie offer.

Actually, it is not hard to do a search.
One search on the words : rank gold grey
turned up both threads almost right next too each other.
I did not try hard at all to revive them.
But if people want to consider making rank mean something, they should look at some of the previous postings. Some people have come up with some really good ideas that would take minimal programming and would add meaning to the current system.

[Jeffery]

Minimal coding? Donlt you need a coder first?

[Shaman]

Originally posted by Jeffery
Minimal coding? Donlt you need a coder first?

Original post was from January.
Seed was actively coding at the time.
Some changes did get in.