Age of Strategy Forums

While I think it's great we have a leaderboard, and was initially really pleased to make the list, I have since realised it is susceptible to misuse - it is probably the presence of the leaderboard that encouraged all those scam games. The problem is, every game counts the same.

Looking back through early leaderboard discussions I noticed Dev make mention of a database. What information can be harvested from that? My suggestion relies on being able to access a) number of players per match, and b) whether they were friend or foe.

(I'm sure I haven't thought of everything so would appreciate any feedback or ideas)
But I think what would work well is a multiplier depending on the ratio of allies to opponents every match. Taking 1 point for a win, and minus 1 for a loss, the score would be calculated as follows...
If FFA, multiply that 1 point by number of players, ie if it's a full 6 player game, that win is worth 5 ponts, if 3 players, then is worth 2.
1 V 1 (and obviously 2 v 2 and 3 v 3) would give a score multiplier of 1, therefore only 1 point.
If you are an honourless rogue and you have played scam games of 5v1, then your hollow victory is multiplied by 0.2 making it pretty worthless.

This will be combined with the minus numbers of your losses (eg, lose a 6 player ffa, the minus 1 is multiplied by 0.2 again making only a malus of 0.2, lose a 1 on 1, then it is a full -1) giving a more effective player rating and hopefully less open to abuse.

There are other things to add (eg cheapening the weight of AI as opponents, so if you and a buddy take on 4 AI - very easy to win - it wouldn't boost your rating. Likewise maybe increase the weight of AI as allies making scam games even more worthless), but I want to see if this idea is possible or desirable before getting stuck into the details. (I can show my thoughts in mathematical equations too if anyone likes).

Dev, Endru, is it possible to gather that information and apply it retrospectively?

I like this idea very much

Valaraukar wrote: ↑Sat May 09, 2020 5:46 pm I like this idea very much

Wow, I'm glad someone does!... I thought it was a great idea, but it's had zero interest!

Could be used to give a player rating visible to everyone whether on the leaderboard or not, obviously makes comparisons easier. Could potentially be filtered by time, (as in all time, the last year, the last month) so you could see how your doing on a monthly basis, even be used to find a Champion of the Year!

I honestly thought this idea had legs... Maybe I just need to sit here making tumbleweedy noises until someone notices...

sorry i felt i have not time for these changes recently, sorry

Cool, I understand you're busy with constantly improving all your games. Thanks for replying Dev, as long as I know this idea might remain in your mind rather than being forever lost, I can live with that

Obviously the Leaderboard is essentially be hacked Legitimately.
When first introduced it showed who wasted the most time on the game,,, Zded was the winner and I was 3rd.
I've gone from 3rd to about 7th but I think most of the people simply play the same map over and over and over again.
At least it has set a goal for people.

One of these people who posts the same map I played and beat easily on the same map about 6 times in a row!!!! LOL
This same person,,, even though I had many opportunities to skip them,,, skipped me once right before he was at the end of loosing a game!

* I think the first thing to introduce would be a limit a person can win off only one map!

There is probably no way to stop people playing thermselves under another log in as well.
* So maybe restricting wins against the same player as well.

Those are two things that would help, but maybe there needs to be multiple leaderboards for different values.

In the end it is a step closer to ranking,,,,, but the best players of the game,,, at the moment don't correspond to the multiplayer list which I think is an issue.

Mike.

So if i lose to a player, then finally win against him another match, will it not count for playing against same player twice?

1. You shouldn't be able to play against a second log in that you create and then win 100 games for example.

So there should be some max limit set say 30 games against any player so the system is harder to cheat. or a limit to the same map to discourage playing to fudge the leaderboard.

Look without having the data, we don't know how a few of these people went from 0 -300+ wins, while we've all been playing for 3+ years.
without seeing the data we don't know.

2.

I would advocate having a few more leaderboards, just for fun, which would also make more of an objective to pursue, and put less emphasis on a single leaderboard stat.

Longest Active Players
Most opponent units killed
Longest active multiplayer games
Most turns played
Most units created?
Most completed games over 50 turns?

Mike. 3M




Mike.

But what if i am playing regularly against some friend(s)?
It will still be quite limiting.

Instead i suggest to limit amount of counted matches against opponent depending on something different.