Lux Forums

dustin · Last edited by dustin on Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:38 am; edited 3 times in total

The ranking system is based upon every player having a raw score. The highest raw is the best. New players start out with 500. For every game that is played a calculation is done of every player vs every other player, as follows:

If you beat a player that is higher or near to you in the rankings you get more raw. If you beat a player that is a lot below you then you get nothing. If you beat a player that is a lot above you then you get lots.

The reverse is done as well. If you lose to players below or near to you in the rankings then you will lose raw.

The player that comes first gets some super bonus raw. The player that comes last loses some bonus raw. Games that have lots of humans in them will give out higher bonuses to the winners. Games that only have 2 humans in them will not give out very many points.

Every monday (very early in the morning) the weekly winners are calculated. Before this happens the scores are adjusted for every player who has not played at least 3 games in the last week. This way users that stop playing will slowly disappear from the rankings. The first monday of every month everyone's raw value is reset to 500 and the game starts again.

--- Conclusion (i.e. How do I get to the top?) ---: Beat players that are above you in the rankings. Win games with lots of humans in them.

cdwise86 · Luxer Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Posts: 9 Location: Charlotte, NC

enotadril · Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2003 3:56 pm Post subject:

Dustin, can you be more specific on the ranking system? Like giving some formula? Is it based on some stochastic distribution (like the chess rating system)?

The current ranking system seems to be quite "jo-jo" like.
The higher you climb, the deeper you fall...

dustin · Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2003 11:28 pm Post subject:

The exact numbers in the formula are subject to change, but as it stands now you get/lose 10% of the difference between your raw and the other players. So if a 300 raw player beats a 700 raw player the 300 player will gain 40 and the 700 player will lose 40.

The yo-yo like aspect is to be expected. If you are to remain at the top you must not lose. If you lose to people then you go down and they go up.

Sir Holo · Guest

Hey,

Than rank board seems splattered with one-time players who happened to win. As more people try out the game, the "noise" of few-time players will increase. Gow about having a minimum to get on the ranking board? I suggest 5 games, maybe 10.

Holo

logan · Guest

might i suggest the option to not play in a ladder match. a non ranked area, good for beginners?

logan · Guest

lame, loosing 400 points in a single game is a wee bit off

LoudMusic · Luxer Joined: 30 Dec 2003 Posts: 56

Sir Holo · Guest

LoudMusic said, "The problem I've seen in multiplayer games on Yahoo, though, is that friends will get together and sacrifice one account to boost another ones rank. "

Teaming is a problem in ALL online multiplayer games allowing >2 players per game (e.g., not chess). I've never seen anything that successfully blocks this. The best I've seen is for games with a large enough community (not Lux. Yet. Very Happy

) is that there is unranked, ranked, and sometimes an additional variant of ranked. The teamer dorks are attracted to the "highest-rank" type games (e.g., Crowns-only ranked games in Myth II), clearing it somewhat for regular users who just like to keep track of how they stack up in comparison to other players.

So, unfortunately, I think the only thing we can do is to avoid and ignore teamers. Just like in real life.

Holo

logan · Guest

[quote="LoudMusic"]

robscottkerr · Guest

I am 0 and 16 yet have a score of 808 and rank 68.
It's like rolling the dice. I've seen people lose over 200.
I've scored more than the winner. This will change in time.

cogden · Luxer Joined: 16 Feb 2004 Posts: 47

Does it add value to include bots on the list (esp. since there are many 2 human - 4 bot games)?

cogden · Luxer Joined: 16 Feb 2004 Posts: 47

Players who have played more games and won significantly should score higher than a person who has played a couple of times and won.

Preacherman · Guest

And high ranked players who beat others should never receive 0 points, regardless of who they were playing...there should be a single point at LEAST. I have seen at least a dozen instances of this over the last week. A game can still be a hard fought win even for a high ranked player, and it is nice to get some credit for it!

cogden · Luxer Joined: 16 Feb 2004 Posts: 47

Agree with previous comments, scoring is extreme. The bot one an almost 2 hour game and I got negative score! And it got 332 points!!!!!!!

Worse, Atom lost 26% of his score!!!!!! Not fair (and I'm not Atom)

<< shopi has exited >>
<< Successfully added game results to the Internet Record Book >>
<< +332 for player Bort. Now at 696 >>
<< -1 for player Lankar. Now at 629 >>
<< -25 for player shopi. Now at 661 >>
<< +78 for player Bort. Now at 442 >>
<< -55 for player Preacherman. Now at 587 >>
<< -188 for player Atom. Now at 535 >>
<< End of Internet Record Book update >>

Preacherman · Guest

And again - I was ranked #1, playing 4 bots and a sasquatch, lol. I won, but it wasn't easy, and yup - 0 points for me. Hot tip for anyone ranked #1, don't bother playing!

Preacherman · Guest

sarcoma · Guest

ever since he registered, preach has turned into a point-grabbing-grubby-whining-little...

just kidding Cool

From Chumdinger · Guest

Preach, I think you have to play one or more very highly ranked players and win in order to get points since you are ranked very high.

atom · Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2004 6:15 pm Post subject:

personally i like the ranking system a lot. (although i think at least 1 point for a win would be nice). as it is one may decide to never play when he/she is no1)

but then... how can some1 who took the time and effort to achieve rank 1 resist to play ? i think its just fair that being rank 1, that is having a reputation as a good player is something valuable. id rather manage to keep such a position under very hard circumstances than sitting safely on my throne and become lazy and fat Smile

.

my highest loss so far was about 350 points. but then, i managed to get back up and you know, its doing ones best to reach a goal, and not about sitting around...

Cyberpilot · Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2004 8:45 am Post subject:

ok but its just a game cool i won 50 points but that does not change who i am or make me a better player ie. JUST PLAY THE GAME

Natya · Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:51 am Post subject:

Given that we don't provide a username and password before we play a network game, how does the ranking system identify a unique player?

Presumably, it's not on nickname alone, right? Otherwise, I could give myself the nickname "shopi" and really mess up (or improve!) shopi's ranking.

If it's on IP address, do I not get credit for games I play at the local wireless hotspot?

rip · Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 2:02 am Post subject:

dustin · Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:10 am Post subject:

Yes, every username is determined by the nickname, user account key pair.

universalcat · Guest

current ranking system needs revision
allows for way too large swings based on a single game
too erratic
seems that it gives too much weight to relative ranking of folks playing.
i think overall record, and average place in the games you lost,
are the 2 most important criteria.

For sure
The rankings not why we play
(most of us hopefully)
Its definitely not more important than the quality of the game itself,
but the truth is
that most of us like to see a tangible measurement of how were doin
and check the rankings regularily.

with the system the way it is now,
checking the rankings usually leaves one pissed off,
whether you won or lost

cat

ulfy · Guest

A suggestion: we could have additional types of rankings, like in the Tour de France, where you have the "mountain guy", the "speed guy", the "best young biker" etc.
Overall, I like the current ranking, apart from the unpredictable "resets" of the whole table once in a while. (A solution would be a fixed date, or a fixed score that needs to be reached).
The additional rankings should just be add-ons, linked to the main ranking table. Ideas:
- best player in "6 humans" games
- best player in "3 humans 3 bots" games
- best comeback player (largest span between lowest and highest raw)
- best player in long games (> 40 rounds)
- best player in short games (< 10 rounds)
- best newbie (< 10 games overall since registration)
- best veteran (> 100 games overall)
- best elder (> 400 games overall)

- best dustin beater (most games won against dustin) Wink

Cheers, ulfy

Enter the room · Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2004 11:05 am Post subject:

What about current form - last 10 played?, most improved player (I allways used to get that at the football club cos I was rubbish)

senbabo · Guest

dustin, am i losing raw score for not playing? i play so seldom really, but my raw score drops without my losing games...?

DrgnMastr · Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:37 am Post subject:

I have to admit that my ranking and score dropped significantly, as I couldn't get LUX to load for the last six months. At least that problem was finally solved, although I have no idea how the Java/Com folder disappeared from my drive.

dustin · Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2004 10:01 am Post subject:

Normally you do not lose raw for not playing. However sometimes (about once a month) everyone's raw gets reset.