You are not logged in.
The forum is now configured for sending mails. So you can subscribe to topics and get informed via mail.
This is a draft for a simple and lightweight player ranking system. As there isn't any authentication of players (yet), the players are identified by their UUID (a unique identifier in your config file).
There is a player score which range is from 1 to 1000. A new player (new UUID) starts with 500 points. In every game players gain/lose points for won/lost games. The amount of points depends on the current score of the player and of the player's finish place.
Examples for score calculation:
This simple ranking system is already implemented in a separate development branch. If you're interested in the exact algorithm, you can have a look at the score algorithm implementation (draft, revision 707, line 1564).
You will say this ranking system can - of course - easily be abused. However the ranking should be seen as a relative "player skill level", not as an absolute player score. Moreover this shouldn't be a problem with private servers where players can be trusted.
Of course, this feature getting merged into trunk (main development tree) doesn't mean that it's final. Feel free to use this thread for discussions about this idea and ranking systems in general.
Offline
Here's another graphic showing the distribution of points per game. This amount is multiplied by a factor (the ratio of your score to the maximum score).
Example:
Your current ranking is 800. You are playing in a 7 player game.
You finish with the 6th place:
max-score = 125 (1000 / 8)
score-ratio = 0.8 (800 / 1000)
lose-ratio = 0.8
score-result = 100 (125 * 0.8)
place-result = -0.67 (-2 / 3) [see algorithm for details]
score-diff = -66 (100 * -0.67)
new-score = 734
You finish with the 2nd place:
max-score = 125 (1000 / 8)
score-ratio = 0.8 (800 / 1000)
win-ratio = 0.2 (1 - 0.8) [ratio is inverted here!]
score-result = 25 (125 * 0.2)
place-result = 0.67 (2 / 3) [see algorithm for details]
score-diff = +17 (25 * 0.67)
new-score = 817
Edit: There was an error in calculation. Updated graphic.
Last edited by datag (2009-09-10 17:36:29)
Offline
thank you for the informative post and keep up the good work!
Offline