Player page and rating updated

David
Key Master
Posted: 2 years ago #

I've updated the player/member page and also introduced a new rating system.

There's an accompanying statistics page where you'll find your result per game.

You may need to refresh the profile/member page for it to display correctly.

As always, feel free to comment.

UPDATE: The stats-page showing results per game per user is temporarily disabled due to performance reasons. I'll enable it as soon as it's safe even for members who have played more than 250 different games (that's when the load started to show).

Ronald33
Member
Posted: 2 years ago #

Superb update!

I really like that the rating is now based on points. This allows for toplists among users and what not. I just wish you would update the site more often with these kind of things ;)

Niklas
Member
Posted: 2 years ago #

I think it´s great with a system that is based on points instead of ratings but I think this system rewards quantity on the expense of quality since you can´t get more than 200pts for each game regardless of the time you have achieved.
Although this is good for me, not being that fast, I’m not sure I’m worthy of a better overall rating than Pelle, Thomsiboms, Angela0276 and Co.

But didn't Stalin once say something like “Quantity is a quality in itself”? ;-)

Doffa
Member
Posted: 2 years ago #

I agree with Niklas, its an improvement but not by as much as I had hoped. More points should be rewarded to those people who top the original games, which have been plaved 10 000+ times. Further I was hoping the point system not to be based on your per centage score in a game but rather your position - it's easy to get 100% in a game but very hard getting the top position.

David
Key Master
Posted: 2 years ago #

Quite right. Some reward for the top positions is obviously needed. I had a monthly "best player, best game etc etc" hall of fame in mind for keeping the interest of achieving first place.

Other than that I think if you know 30+ games @ a 100% level, you are worthy of the title grand master for that category since you would obviously then have obtained a great deal of knowledge.

On the "quantity over quality"-problem: A "low quality" game will seldom be played by more than 5-6 ppl. Such game gives only 20-30 points for 100%. You could end up playing 100 of those games without achieving the Grand Master title. So, to become Grand Master right now, you need to master quality games and have obtained some real knowledge.

But sure, a bonus of double or triple the points for the fastest time is probably a good idea, or maybe - as I originally thought - a separate "hall of fame"-style forum for our fast top players out there.

Anyways, thanks much for the input.

Doffa
Member
Posted: 2 years ago #

So in order not only to complain, here's an alternative way of giving points for games:

Log(Number of people played game)*Log((number of people played game)-(position))*10

Bonus could be given to the top 20 position by additional multiplication, e.g.:

1st: 10x, 2nd: 8x, 3rd: 6x, 4th: 5x, 4th: 4.5x, 5th: 4x, 6th: 3.75x, 7th: 3.5x, 8th: 3.25x, to 20th:1.05x

Example: Leading Countries of Europe, ~450 players
Log(450)*Log(450-1)*10*10= 704p

Example: 100th position of Countries of Europe
Log(450)*Log(350)*10= 67p

Example: Leading States of Australia ~15 players
Log(15)*Log(15-1)*10*10= 134p

Example: 10th place States of Australia
Log(15)*Log(15-10)*10*2= 16p

Example: Leading a game with only 3 players
Log(3)*Log(3-1)*10*10= 14p

Niklas
Member
Posted: 2 years ago #

Maybe I focused to much on the game part and not on the learning part. But I think Doffa is on to something when you base the points on the number of people you have "beaten".

Thomsiboms
Member
Posted: 2 years ago #

Maths is not my forte but i agree that a game that is played 14000 times by 500 different people should be rewarded differently than a game that is played 500 times by 20 people.
Perhaps you can attribute some kind of 'special status' to games that are played by more than, say 200 players, and have been played more than, say 3000, or 5000 (or some other number) times or so. And then create a hall of fame for 'most number one spots' or 'best mean position' in those games. ;-)
And i want a stat with 'most games played overall' ;-).
As the statistics per game are temporarily disabled, i don't have an opinion on that yet.
Keep the good work up, David, we enjoy playing :)

Doffa
Member
Posted: 2 years ago #

Added to my thoughts on new scoring above, it should also probably be multiplied by the per centage scored in the game, i.e. multiplied by a number 0-1 (0=0%,1=100%)

Doffa
Member
Posted: 2 years ago #

And since Log(0) is not possible to calculate, the second term should probably be rewritten by +2 so that the lowest second term is Log(1)=1. New formula would be

Log(Number of people played game)*Log((number of people played game)-(position)+2))*10*(0-1 - from percentage of game)

Niklas
Member
Posted: 2 years ago #

Maybe the factor for 100% could be higher than 1.00 in order to premier the learning part of the game.

colek
Member
Posted: 2 years ago #

I agree with last idea of Doffa, he has thought up perfect scoring. If David was able to perform it, it would be great. Otherwise i like this new change, good job David.

MisterSamsonite
Member
Posted: 2 years ago #

It seems that the population here is split between those that are just here to learn and increase their knowledge, and those that are here to compete.

Why not satisfy both with a "Knowledge Rating", which I think the current system works nearly perfectly for, and a "Speed Rating" or "Competitive Rating" or such that's more along the lines of Doffa's formula?

Also, I like your formula (for knowledge rating) to compute the points, but the criterion for assigning a titled rank (Grand master, etc) should maybe be based on the player's percentage of the total number of possible points, not a fixed point value. As of now, you can't achieve Grand Master in certain categories because there aren't enough games, and in a year, you'll be able to achieve it while playing half the games. Using a ratio (95% for Grand Master maybe) would keep the title meaningful.

Is there a plan in the works to make the Member page sortable by ranking (hopefully by Knowledge Rating and Speed Rating some day :) ) in addition to the alphabetical listing now?

Finally, is there a way you can show us our total number of points? It would be nice to know how close we are to the next rank.

Thanks again, David!

David
Key Master
Posted: 2 years ago #

First of all, thanks for the feedback.

Well, basically I agree with what's been said, starting with Doffa/Niklas et al.

I still believe in a point based system, though it should of course consider relative placement as well, as so many of you have noticed and pointed out.

I'm not that keen on the suggestion of a relative target cap on what constitutes the Grand Master level, then depending on the number of games in a category. That may be a bit of a problem right now but is soon a thing of the past as more and more games gets created for the various categories.

So, in essence, I'll see about adding placement as a parameter for calculating the rating.

MisterSamsonite
Member
Posted: 2 years ago #

David,

Yeah, after thinking about the GrandMaster thing, I guess the absolute points would work, as long as we can see how many points we have. In the future, having 500 grand masters isn't a bad thing as long as you can actually see the underlying points. There'll just be some grandmasters with 40,000 points and some with 100,000, which is great.

Angela0726
Member
Posted: 2 years ago #

I guess you all know where I stand, but it would be nice to incorporate how you place. We work really hard to get those top 1-3 spots, and it would be nice to get a little extra for that. Anyone can memorize the answers and have a crappy time...
Anyway, thanks again for the site David.
(And I'm sorry if this contradicts anything previously posted...I didn't read the entire thread thoroughly)

Thomsiboms
Member
Posted: 2 years ago #

Is it perhaps possible, if it's not too much trouble, to temporarily show the old game stats in the my profile view, even though they only show the first 40? I'd like to keep track of my played games.
Thanks, Thom.

David
Key Master
Posted: 2 years ago #

The list of played games and your placement in the games is now available again.

I had to build a cache mechanism for it, in order not to overload the server. As with the rating system, the challenge is seldom the math or the algorithm per se, as much as getting it to work for some 200,000 requests per day.

Anyways, you can reach the game list from your profile. Click the "Different games" stat link to get to the details. Note that the stats there is cached for a couple of hours before flushed, to not risk overloading the server.

I'm currently looking into a way to consider the placement of a player, for the rating system. Let me thank all of you in this thread for pitching in with very good ideas. Thanks.

Thomsiboms
Member
Posted: 2 years ago #

Thanks, David!

famisamis
Member
Posted: 2 years ago #

Totally cool! Way to go, David!

Thank you!

Player page and rating updated

About this Topic

Tags

Player page and rating updated (20 posts)

Reply