Age of Strategy Forums

I have a plan fitering out non responsive players, but we need a good calculation for that.

idea:
- making logs if a user got skipped/kicked,
- and from this calculating a rating for him/her,
- and on game creation one can set a minimal rating required to join (the creator should also be qualified for such game)

i (will) have as input data:
- user
- game
- date of skip / kick

my first idea (this should be polished) is giving a bonus-malus system for it.
eg.
- on start everyone has 1000 points
- on every finished (won or killed or withdrawn) game: +1
- on every unfinished (skipped/kicked): -5 points

so if someone has 1050 points and creates a game with rating > or equal than 1050 than only players with more(or equal) than 1050 can join.

please give me ideas on a better calculation, because this does not calculates with eg. time (how old the received -5point penalty is) and so on.

This is a problem in every game alright, but at upgrade time this could penalize a active player. Who doesn't have Dev. version this is sadly as big of problem. People don't know who has what?

I thinknit is a great idea but what if new players cannot play a match because everyone set it so high?

If you set a rating that is around 950 you might allow most of the new players to join your game
We can put a description when entering the value
950/1000 for players who don't skim much
1200 for very active players
1500 for experienced players and so on

I think that 1 pt per game !!!! Thats quite insane. The increase /decrease should be per turn i think. Otherwise it will take ages to get to an avg score. And if there are new commers then it will be a problem for them as till then most ppl would have a high score and so will the multiplayer game limits also.

but at upgrade time this could penalize a active player.Who doesn't have Dev. version this is sadly as big of problem. People don't know who has what?

what do u mean? I dont really understand what is the drawback or advantage having DEV version. i think nothing.

I thinknit is a great idea but what if new players cannot play a match because everyone set it so high?

they can create games and play with other new ones. and with old ones opening games on eg. 1000 level.

it will take ages to get to an avg score

yes this is why i mentioned "time" factor. we could annulate all negative and all positive values in eg. 1-2 months opr something. so if somebody does not play any multuiplayer for eg. 3 monts, he will start again with 1000 points.

----
or something very different:
- no +1 or any increase.
- only penlaties accumulated by skipped/kicked counts.
so
- starting with 1000 point
- if gets kicked/skipped: -1
- if finishes: nothing happens.
- so every "playing player will have 1000 points, and the bad guys will have less then 1000 (maybe annulated in 2-3 months)

I like this better than the incrementing one. Maybe lets not talk about points . Its just games finished by the player, games played by the player ( in half yearly basis) and the ratio of these 2 will show his activeness. More the ratio closer to 1 more is the player active

sorry i dont understand, can u write the equation?

What about keeping increments but setting the limit to 1000?

Let's say you play and are kicked out, you get -5
If you are skipped you take a -1 for every time you are skipped (if other players don't kick you you might be skipped more than 5 times).
If you play regularly a game finishing it you recover 5 points
If you get 5 points but you are already at 1000 points you don't get anything.

A player with 950 or more points is considered a good player (sometimes you leave because you have been destroyed or you are stuck for some reason, or maybe you have decided to interrupt a game in agreement with other players).

I disagree. You should withraw from any game u no longer want to participate.

Yes, i mean you shouldn't go over 1000 to avoid people who wants to play with old players

Maybe create a user profile that records all of that players data viewable to all other players (number of campain maps completed, the troop type that player creates most of, troop type that player destroys most of, number of muliplayer games created, users muliplayer wins, losses, resigns, and kicks) an active gem count would be pretty cool to see. Also you could accumulate the in-game score board points at the end of matches and be part a global scoreboard.

The activity log could be just a high, medium, or low label beside the user's name

muliplayer games complete
high = 20 or more
medium = 10-19
low = <10

or a time based system
high = daily user (active for >7+ days)
medium = 24 hour inactive login period
low = >2+ days or more of inactivity

players start at a medium ranting, if 48 hours pass without another login they drop to a low rank. After 3 days a high ranked player would drop to low rate. Low players must only join games (now creating.) medium players can create medium or low ranked games. High ranked players can create any ranking game or an all ranks game.


just trying to help

For clarity i am repeating myself:
Consider 3 players A,B,C
A - played 35 games , kicked from 3 games
B - played 16 games, kicked from 7
C - played 5 games and completed all.
So their ratio is calculated as
games completed / games played
So ratio of A is 32/35
Ratio of B is 9/16
ratio of c is 1
The more the ratio closer to 1 the more the player is active to any game he plays
Now it may seem that maybe A is way more active than C logically. But its just that A plays aos more frequently and is more experienced. So i suggest that these ratios be calculated only for 3 month cycles but the games played keep on adding throughout

Any person making a multiplayer game may keep 2 condns: a min. ratio required(for activeness) and the min amount of games played(for toughness) or a category overall(see below)
Also those who have played a multiplayer game get a chance to rate other players on 5 points.
The cumulative of the 3 factors- ratio , total games played and total points earnt will decide the players rank/ category.
The formula for cumulative points will be
ratio*total games played + points given during multiplayer games by other multiplayers

I think this may seem a bit complex but will get rid of the problem almost completely

yes a bit complex but good approach, how about this:

in the game (for easier understanding) we use "medals" as a ranking of activeness
- rookie: some basic medal
- active nicer medal
- more active even nicer medal.
- and so on up to something mega nice medal...
and down from rookie (the ultra many times skippeds):
- death medal (with 1 skull)
- death medal 2 (with 2 skull)
- death medal 3 (with 3 skull) - who is skipped many many times.

calculation idea:
- we calculate the last 1 or 2 months only if player had at least 10 games in this interval, if not than extending the time range to have 10 games.
- we think of the most active players close 1 game every 4 days
- rookies
- calculation
v_sum_skipped = sum of all occurences in the time interval where he got skipped or kicked (so can be more than one in one game!)
v_sum_ok = all games played and finished with won, lose or withrawal (where there was no any kick or skipping because of him!)
v_time_interval_days = number of days in measured interval eg. 1 month is 30 days.
v_min_ok_for_best_award = v_time_interval_days / 4;

rating = (v_sum_ok - v_sum_skipped * 5) / v_min_ok_for_best_award

if 2 months is the interval:
rating = (v_sum_ok - v_sum_skipped * 5) / 15

samples:
- rookie: rating = 0/15 = 0
- good guy less play: rating = (3 - 0)/15 = 0.2
- good guy more plays: rating = (12 - 0)/15 = 0.8
- good guy mega plays: rating = (24 - 0)/15 = 1.6
- litte bad guy less play: rating = (3 - 2*5)/15 = -0.47
- litte bad guy more play: rating = (12 - 2*5)/15 = 0.13
- very bad guy more play: rating = (12 - 5*5)/15 = -0.86

medaling:
diamond: 1 or above
gold: 0.8-1
silver: 0.6-0.8
bronze: 0.4-0.6
copper: 0.2-0.4
steel: 0-0.2
skull 1: 0- (-)0.33
skull 2: -0.33 - -0.66
skull 3: -0.66 or below

I think that any formula should have the effect of total games played by a player during lifetime. Also the ratio idea is better off as
games completed/games played Than your formula in terms of simplicity( maybe i am missing something)
If you consider my formula complex then just scrap the points by other multiplayers thing.than it becomes fairly simple:cumulative points= ratio*total games played
Cum. Points can be used to categorise according to your classes
I think this is optimum.any thoughts?

The medaling is a cool idea, because it gives us a nice visual too. Just don't make the skulls too scary.

if anyone likes to play with colors and stuff for the indicators here are some basic images to modify.

Those are cool images.

+1

i thought it would be fun to have 5 (Cadet, Centurion, Legate, Subpraetor, Praetor) images from the roman army "badge"s.

here they are, i did not find any god image only this.

until we have better i will use these

The Roman idea is great!

I also like the Roman idea.

The first version is up on server in 10 minutes with the images i posted above.
please test it, create multiplayer games with player filter setting, and try to join.
(filtered games are not listed to older AOS version users)

the bagde icon position in the game lists is not so good i think , any suggestions where to put it?

Daniel (the dev) wrote:the bagde icon position in the game lists is not so good i think , any suggestions where to put it?

In front of the player's name?

i ment the "game" filter setting in the games list.

also i have changed the images to these, i think it is better.

Oh, okay. Yes those images are better.

lol: i wanted to join a game but i could not because i have only level4 badge and was opened to filter to level5

lol