New Ranking and scoring (official thread)

[Zombrex]

This the official thread of the new Ranking and scoring. Here you can give us all your feedback regarding this new feature. Given that is very important for us to receive everyone thoughts this will be the only thread to discuss about this matter. All additional threads that talk about same will be closed or moved into here.


(Important information)

In this thread we enlist all the information you need you know about the new Ranking system. Please keep in mind that the first leaderborard will be selected from Nov 8 to Nov 15, and will be presented in the ranking section of our website and here, in our official blog as well.


1) What kind of variables will be taken in consideration to select the top players?

We tried to make the most out of the actual information that we have about the activity in the warzone. For now, the results are calculated taking into account fort capture participations, significant gold donations to enhance forts and player deaths/kills ratio (this is the order of influence too). This calculation will end in a value called Personal Score.

2) How often will be the top players leaderboard updated?

The top players will be selected on a weekly base, following an established time period (from Monday to Sunday). This will also be extended into a monthly and annual base. The top player will be in the front page of the Ranking and in the “Top Players” section, the top 30 players of the world will be listed.

3) What is this beta-staged thingy that you’re talking about?

Although the scoring system will be working, we will need to tune it up and gather feedback to know what any other information is needed to give the best results. Therefore, we will not be able to select the best players of this month as winners because of the stated reasons. So, in order to do things properly, we decided to use the remaining weeks of November as a Beta Stage. We surely will be happy to receive your feedback, as long as it’s constructive.

So what are you waiting for? Come on all Knights, Barbarians, Warlocks, Conjurers, Marksmen and Hunters from the three realms to give their best in battle. Get ready to involve yourself into war as you never did before. Glory is awaiting you!

[53453467734534]

Here you can find the old posts (pre official-thread) on that subject (to follow up here):

http://www.regnumonline.com.ar/forum/showthread.php?t=68389

[bois]

I still cannot judge it. We simply do not have enough information to go on just yet. When the first few scores come out we might be able to judge it slightly better.

Zombrex gave us a nice basic overview and did mention that it is in the beta stage. So there are bound to be hiccups . I hope the community remembers that.

The beta will basically try to fine tune the formula to come up with one that NGD is comfortable with and gives an equal chance (hopefully) the the widest player base possible.

At this point we have no idea of the weighting of each criteria in the personal score. We have a framework of the initial components but the weight each one carries towards the total is crucial.

What will be important in the coming months would be the obvious need to develop and /or improve the tools of data collections on player activity.

So, additional criteria such as trades, participation in invasions, fort/castle captures, differentiation between home forts and enemy fort captures, upgrade status of these structures, gold accumulation*, XP accumulation*, clan prowess, death/kill ratio, community rating (via polling community) and all of this weighted by the character level. All of this would all factor in a more comprehensive system.

Lastly, there can be no singular top player in one genre in this game. Classes are either offence or support and are of different levels.
So, top players would have to be broken by class and the so called "dream team" of the best of each class would be posted. The best of this 6 would then be team leader in effect becoming the player of the week.

*I do suggest that a "rookie of the week" be added to the level 1 to 32 bracket. This basically gives commendation of the best levelers. Criteria will be XP and gold. Any RP these guys can scrape will also improve their score as well. Their involvement in fort captures will also tally in the score. Of course this is capped at 32.

Generally I think it is a good idea and hopefully will signal a movement away from RP tally as the prime statistic on the website. I would also like to see the compilation of personal scores as the prime guiding tally towards Clan rankings. It would be a much much better indicator of clan prowess rather than rp and gold accumulations mostly by players that do not even play anymore but still have their characters in the database.

The only one I am worried about is the kill/death ratio. Once this gets only very minor significance ( I note it is the least significant of the lot ), we should be fine. I would hate to see players hiding away from war to preserve a tally they might have accumulated by running around killing half dead grinders all day. I would hate to see grinders hiding inner realm for fear their tally gets hurt by vultures picking at them over and over.

Edit I pulled this from a good post by W_Larsen and the points raised there are very important to the discussion:

as ngd has planned it, the way to do will be: (the importance order taken into account)
1) few players should take an empty fort (assuming that reward is split across fort takers evenly)
2) upgrade
3) pony to next fort
3a)wait while people nearby (2-3) come then
log if more than you can handle comes.
pony after 2.5 minutes for example if it is trele (aggers save- trele fort 3 minutes on horse)

defenders:
a) decide that attackers will pony away anyway, so there is no reason to run just to find empty fort
b) see that fort is actually defended and decide to not mess up ranking ratio and let them rot

defenders, who dont care about that bullshit:
a) fight desperatly with little numbers until ragequit and play ufo:ai


its not like we didnt see this all happening at one of recent events.

If their formula does not cater for this then the RvR and PvP side will take a serious hit. Hopefully they have learned form the lessons of the past and have a formula to overcome it.

Good luck NGD. Ideas are always nice. Delivery is the hard part.

Regards
Artec

[Seher]

Is it possible to gather data about the surrounding enemies?

I know that player deaths/kills ratio currently is the least important point according to the order of influence, but still... Some players will try everything to read their names in the ranking, so...

To me it's the best way to judge your playing style via something like "enemy/kills", the more enemies, the more points. The formula could look like this:

enemies in range * their level * kills
--------------------------------------------
allies in range * their level * 0.5 (see 2.)

Some comments on this:

1. The range in which enemies count should increase at forts as your enemies are spread there, compared to normal pvp

2. To promote playing in teams. Right now you usually get more points for just killing single targets while being alone, I think it should be the other way round. The number, 0.5, is completely random and just there to show the basic idea behind it.

3. No death is in this formula. I really love to charge against 30 enemies with just one or two allies, and it's just great to take someone down then. Your description of how the ranking will work suggests that this would actually decrease my personal score. My formula would actually count this as an epic win. :P

4. I don't know if this is actually viable because it would mean more position checks and maths for the server...

[53453467734534]

So, additional criteria such as trades, participation in invasions, fort/castle captures, differentiation between home forts and enemy fort captures, upgrade status of these structures, gold accumulation*, XP accumulation*, clan prowess, death/kill ratio, community rating (via polling community) and all of this weighted by the character level. All of this would all factor in a more comprehensive system.



Ok, but these criteria should not be susceptible to abuse, and should not encourage cheap and unintended playing style. RP rating has been tried and tested for long. And it is not at all game breaking and encourages fighting.

Lastly, there can be no singular top player in one genre in this game. Classes are either offence or support and are of different levels.
So, top players would have to be broken by class and the so called "dream team" of the best of each class would be posted. The best of this 6 would then be team leader in effect becoming the player of the week.



Yes, this would be in compliance to my "champions race" suggestion


The only one I am worried about is the kill/death ratio. Once this gets only minor significance, we should be fine. I would hate to see players hiding away from war to preserve a tally they might have accumulated by running around killing half dead grinders all day. I would hate to see grinders hiding inner realm for fear their tally gets hurt by vultures picking at them over and over.



There is more to worry about. Remember "Rosettes quest"?
http://www.regnumonline.com.ar/forum/showthread.php?t=61139

And who appreciates players, that "enhance" forts by "gold donations" Anyone? It´s nice for invasions, but really bad for normal battles.
With this reward it will be impossible to prevent them from upgrading a fort.

Ok, in case of a significant weekly reward on RPs (my suggestion), there have to be adjustments to prevent RP jobbery (see soccer event). But fort swapping is much more game breaking. Jobbery will not effect the normal WZ activity.

Osram

[Mattdoesrock]

My support conjurer will love the kill / death ratio! :clapclap:

[von1958]

I really do not see this as helping to create more war . right now with the big lag issue and positional errors alot of folks just don't play the game. they just log in every now and then to see if anything has been fixed

[bois]

For the record 534.. , I never voted against your suggestion. Rather, I really want to see what NGD is really proposing and the outcome after this beta period of theirs.

Regarding your idea, I am still weighing it and have no position on it as yet. NGD surely know how to pick tough projects. This one is deceptively easy on the face of it but incredibly difficult to balance and not have a knock on effect in the general game culture that exists today.

And yes I do remember the rosettes debacle. Hopefully, all of these mistakes will give the devs the experience and knowledge to sidestep them this time.

I still remain cautiously hopeful that something good can come of it.

Artec

[53453467734534]

For the record 534.. , I never voted against your suggestion.

I don´t take that personal anyway :wink:
Yes, I am confident, it would be a good idea.
However, if someone doesn´t like the RP rankings in general (these are many people), i will never convince him/her, and NGD will not convince him/her of their idea either.

Rather, I really want to see what NGD is really proposing and the outcome after this beta period of theirs.



Sure, but some objections seem obvious.

This one is deceptively easy on the face of it but incredibly difficult to balance and not have a knock on effect in the general game culture that exists today.



Absolutely, NGD has to be careful.

I still remain cautiously hopeful that something good can come of it.



We will see. I liked the idea at first, then this suggestion about "champions race" came to my mind, but these criteria NGD has taken into consideration to find a "top player" are very questionable at first glance and easy to abuse.

[e30G]

I'd like to see kills weighed in according to class. For example from highest to lowest:

1. Conjurer - Conjurer's are an army's life line and taking them out may turn the tides.
2. Knight - They are tanks. Placing them higher up the list will encourage more people to shoot at them. They can provide a very good distraction for unorganized armies.
3. Warlock
4. Hunter
5. Marksman
6. Barbarian - Putting them down in the list will help warrior rushes more.

Instead of deaths, I'd rather see a system that tracks how well your team works together. Maybe have it track the number of people in your realm that is within your visual range that dies. This will mean people will be looking out for their team mates better. Have it class based too with deaths from more important classes lowering your score more:

1. Conjurer
2. Warlock
3. Barbarian
4. Hunter
5. Marksman
6. Knight

This will hopefully encourage a little more team play and better target coordination.

[Gytha_Ogg]

1) What kind of variables will be taken in consideration to select the top players?

We tried to make the most out of the actual information that we have about the activity in the warzone. For now, the results are calculated taking into account fort capture participations, significant gold donations to enhance forts and player deaths/kills ratio (this is the order of influence too). This calculation will end in a value called Personal Score.

Will the fort level and amount of defense weigh in the fort capture scores? That might help balance against a zerg taking a fort, level-4-ing it and then farming for hours, if the attacking realm gets more credit for taking a level 4 packed fort over a level 1 empty fort, it may counterbalance the bad deaths/kills ratio they're going to get from fighting a protected zerg.

Possibly make gold donations that level a fort from 1 to 2 count more than ones from 2 to 3 and 3 to 4, this may slow down the upgrade-n-camp tactic.

I'm concerned that kill/death ratios might promote timid gameplay, but that can be handled if, for example, kills counted more, or that total number of kills/deaths is taken into account, so that, say
100 kills/10 deaths counts for more than 10 kills/1 death, even though the kill/death ratio is the same.

[Winds]

We tried to make the most out of the actual information that we have about the activity in the warzone. For now, the results are calculated taking into account fort capture participations, significant gold donations to enhance forts and player deaths/kills ratio (this is the order of influence too). This calculation will end in a value called Personal Score.

I assume the ultimate goal of the new ranking is to increase the warzone activity (fort captures). Thus making the game more attractive, as people will see the warzone more active, even if they are not there their selves. However the criteria fails to bring in the fun, since you've opted the easy way and chosen easily measurable factors.

1. Fort capture activity
Didn't you learn anything from the Rosette quest? Capturing a fort and running straight after to another isn't fun for anyone and it's highly repetitive and dull.

However the intention is good, so we can work from this. When capturing a enemy fort it should give points only, if you can hold it for some period of time. This is encourage fighting other players instead of AI guards and a fort door at the next fort. Secondly to increase the motive of the realm, that had their fort captured, they'd get points if they manage to recapture the fort before those who took the fort get points.

The points could be handed out in time intervals. For example like this:

1 point/5min hold of the captured fort
3 points/15min hold
5 points/30min hold

10 points for recapture of own fort within 5min
5 points for recapture within 15min
3 points for recapture within 30min
1 point for recapturing a own fort no matter, when it was captured

The points and time barriers can be put as you wish, those are just an example. I intentionally gave more incentive for recapturing an own fort and left the longest timer to 30min in order to not encourage camping the fort for ages.

2. Gold donations to fort upgrades
With the current design of fort upgrades they are just fun killers, there's no point in encouraging them. So I'd just scrap this idea entirely. If this is needed to act as a gold sink, then only give points for upgrading own forts. (Upgrading enemy structures should be removed.)

3. Death to kill ratio
Not good. We all ready have people who are afraid to go anywhere with out a zerg/personal conjurer, not to mention tree huggers or horse runaways. You don't want to encourage this behavior. One of the best parts of this game is, that it doesn't have bad death penalties. So you can fight even, when the odds are not on your side.

Any factor involving deaths or kills heavily favors some classes. I'd rather use rp over kills, since support characters can at least get those, even though they aren't perfect either. But like some said it might be worth listing the 30 best of each class, so the class differences wouldn't matter that much.

So :thumb: for the intention, but this definitely isn't ready to go out of beta-stage in this form.

[53453467734534]

I'd like to see kills weighed in according to class. For example from highest to lowest:

1. Conjurer - Conjurer's are an army's life line and taking them out may turn the tides.
2. Knight - They are tanks. Placing them higher up the list will encourage more people to shoot at them. They can provide a very good distraction for unorganized armies.
3. Warlock
4. Hunter
5. Marksman
6. Barbarian - Putting them down in the list will help warrior rushes more.



Conjurers are a priority anyway,...Barbarians are really strong enough.
Notwithstanding the above, I think that system is too artificial.
However, killing a "champion player" could give you a RP bonus according to my suggestion.

[53453467734534]

1 point/5min hold of the captured fort
3 points/15min hold
5 points/30min hold

10 points for recapture of own fort within 5min
5 points for recapture within 15min
3 points for recapture within 30min
1 point for recapturing a own fort no matter, when it was captured



This idea is really nice, but there is sadly still an easy option to exploit with fort swapping:

Of course, only the "defending" side will gain points by repetitive "recapture within 5 mins". But they could simply change to a fort of the formerly "attacking" realm, and repeat this procedure.

Fort swapping unlike RP jobbery is affecting the WZ badly, therefore this problem is not negligible, although a bit hypothetical.

The first part is good, second is not.
Think of a better solution.

Ok, i have an idea: A once recaptured fort will be "out of order" for additional 30 minutes after recapture. Only after that a countdown will start again, if an enemy realm controls it at that time.

Extra points for:
-Recapture of an upgraded fort.
-Capture of an enemy fort, that´s in possession of the third realm (Example: Ignis has Aggers, and Syrtis will gain Extra points by capturing Aggers from Ignis).Important: You will only score high if you hold it long enough after capture, otherwise there is room to abuse.
-triggering an invasion (all attacking players being in forts or castle of the defending realm at that time will score)
-breaking through the realm gates (all attacking players near the gate will score)
-being in the room with the golden dragon after a successful invasion.
-anything i haven´t thought of

[Winds]

Think of a better solution.

Ok, i have an idea: A once recaptured fort will be "out of order" for additional 30 minutes after recapture. Only after that a countdown will start again, if an enemy realm controls it at that time.

Extra points for:
-Recapture of an upgraded fort.
-Capture of an enemy fort, that´s in possession of the third realm (Example: Ignis has Aggers, and Syrtis will gain Extra points by capturing Aggers from Ignis).Important: You will only score high if you hold it long enough after capture, otherwise there is room to abuse.
-triggering an invasion (all attacking players being in forts or castle of the defending realm at that time will score)
-breaking through the realm gates (all attacking players near the gate will score)
-being in the room with the golden dragon after a successful invasion.
-anything i haven´t thought ofAll suggestions should be open for further developing and mine certainly are. The ideas you posted about it are a great addition and that's the way things should work. (I'm hardly ever trying to propose complete ideas, but something NGD or other players could work on and you just did that well.)

[53453467734534]

All suggestions should be open for further developing and mine certainly are. The ideas you posted about it are a great addition and that's the way things should work. (I'm hardly ever trying to propose complete ideas, but something NGD or other players could work on and you just did that well.)

Thanks.:smile:

I now think, your point system will work well.

Are there objections, anyone?

[Gabburtjuh]

Does this mean i have to:
1. Go knarb for kill death ratio
2. Go broke on upgrading
3. Keep capping empty forts
To get top player? No thanks.

[Gytha_Ogg]

Does this mean i have to:
1. Go knarb for kill death ratio
2. Go broke on upgrading
3. Keep capping empty forts
To get top player? No thanks.

One down, 860195 to go... my chances are looking better and better. :theking:

(This would have been a green karma message but "You must spread...")

[Znurre]

2 ideas from me on this matter.

Idea 1

Fort capture statistics, as has been mentioned earlier in this thread, is hard to credit without promoting boring gameplay like swapping forts, hit-and-run, camping inside forts without fighting just to gain points, etc.

Imo. the following would be a better option and is very hard to abuse:


Each enemy kill, anywhere in the Regnum world give 1 point in theory.
Each enemy fort/castle held by your realm works as a multiplier for the received score. (So basically, if you don't own any enemy fort the multiplier will be 0, and you don't receive any points for kills)

This way, if you hold a fort or a castle you still need to be out on the battlefield and fight to actually receive some points.
You also make it easier for your realm mates to earn points, of course.

Idea 2

The server should know players x, y and z coordinates.
Save the last 10 coordinates for each enemy kill in an array, and compute a difference between the values for each kill.

The bigger difference, the more points received.
This would solve 2 problems:


People camping, be it forts, bridges or whatever.
Bringing people out into the whole warzone instead of everyone gathering at a few key places.

[bois]

2 ideas from me on this matter.



Interesting ideas there. As always I worry about the computational efficiency in the code and and such, hope that idea B will not impact the server performance for so many fetches.

Idea #1. Good idea. a few things occurred to me though. There is no formula to encourage taking back your lost fort under the system. Each realm could in theory capture one other fort and then leave it so that everyone has their multipliers on. I could see this happening during off peak times. Everyone would then do the open field skirmishes.

Each kill in theory is one point meaning that the level 30 weighs as much as a level 50 and as such they become the prime targets.

There is no doubt in my mind that the equation needed for this is going to have to be very complex.

Like I said earlier, there is absolutely no way to pick the one best player. But you can pick the best of each class. This would be a much more fair assessment. Each class is then judged on criteria that is more tailor made to the expected operations of their class. I can see no other way to do it fairly and equitably.
You can never tell me that a conjurer that heals everyone is not better than a barb that plunders so many virtual lives. It will not compute to me.

NGD is picking a very contentious and exceptionally difficult project to work on here. I see this one as looking deceptively simple but can disrupt the game equilibrium very easily if they get this one wrong.

I strongly advise at least 2 months under beta. Do not release this officially until 2011. Haste will make waste if this one is rushed through. Run it through all of November and December and fine tune this. Also I do hope consultation and more importantly Developer feedback will be forthcoming after the first month. This one can do more harm than good if mishandled . Be warned.

Regards
Artec

[Myxir]

You can never tell me that a conjurer that heals everyone is not better than a barb that plunders so many virtual lives. It will not compute to me.
I totally agree to this.
But how to rate support conjurers since their actions are so different to all other classes?
This is already the current problem regarding RP and XP.

As far as I see and understand the current method to get the player of the week we will never see a support conjurer there.

[Znurre]

...And as usual you manage to punch holes in my ideas with sane arguments, damn :p

Regarding idea 1 then, let's say the multiplier would be the total number of forts captured by a realm, be it enemy forts or own forts.
The standard multiplier would then be 3, and a loss of your own fort would then decrease the points earned for kill contribution.
I think this is reason enough for people to want to recapture their own forts instead of going for an enemy fort to balance it out.

Also notice that I say "kill contribution" instead of "kill" now.
I realise that the number of kills is not a good number to base such a score on, so maybe everyone who contribute to a kill should get an equal share of points, calculated by the formula.
This would allow support conjurers and players that choose to play defense to earn as much points as the rest of the classes.

What do you think?

[bois]

But how to rate support conjurers since their actions are so different to all other classes?


I can see a long winded and ridiculous computation. One that can only hurt performance.

Let me see.

First you will have to assess buffs on allies and their leading to RPS.
Next you have to calculate resurrections close to fortifications.
Then you have to calculate HP recoveries on players who lost more than half of their life in war situation.
Then you have to calculate successful dispels on characters which have player generated effects on them.
And mana transfers to players who are low.

How will you be able to quantify this? I have no clue. That would be the most fair assessment of a conjurer (not warjurer). The complexity of it boggles my mind and could never be a reality in my view.

Art

[e30G]

I think it's best to simplify things and try to make use on what systems are already in-place in the game. We can assume how they can work, and how they can be maximized.

There are a few systems already in-place on the fort capture mechanism:


The fort upgrade system.
The upgraded fort capture system.
The resurrection dizziness cancellation feature in fort proximity


These three systems can be used for the new ranking system. I'll go over these one at a time.

The fort upgrade system
The fort upgrade system can be used to reward players based on the percentage of gold they give per fort level. We can make this give a simple bonus of 1 point per 10% of the gold given per fort level.

Upgraded fort capture system
x2 multiplier on RP gained within the last 3 minutes per player inside the fort per fort level in addition to the cash reward. We can set it so that level 1-4 can be equal to 1-8x multiplier for RP gained in the last 3 minutes per player when they capture a fort.

The resurrection dizziness cancellation feature in fort proximity
This is something we can really use. The system already shows that a player's proximity to a given location can be checked by the server, and effects can be applied to a player (in this case, cancellation of Resurrection Dizziness). I suggest we use this system in conjunction with the current RP system:


Kills within 50m of the fort will give fort defenders a x10 multiplier for RP gained.
Kills within 50m of the fort will give fort attackers a x20 multiplier for RP gained.


Note that gains are higher for attackers since it is more difficult to take a defended fort than to defend a fort from attack. This should also encourage attacks on guarded forts since the rewards are higher.

This only applies on fort battles. Individual kill rewards and RP distribution between classes for kills are a whole different matter.

[Adrian]

Translation of a post I made in the Spanish section, just for you to have the info as well.

Think objectively Defcul, those who want something, something will cost to them.

Two guitar player start to play at the same time, but one practices an hour a day and the other five hours a day. Who will advance faster?

Two people study the same subject, one studies the day before and the other the whole month before the exam. Who will have the most chances of getting a better grade?

Who gives more time to the game will get a better position in this new raning, as long as dedication is given to RvR.

Exactly. Even though not all ranking have to require a lot of time from the players, be the best in this case will mean to be the one that activates the warzone the most and for that you require time.

I didn't read all the posts as I don't have too much time to do it, now Zombrex takes care of that and gives me the most important data. Nevertheless, it is appropriate that I mention that most of the pesimist posts and complaints about a feature that hasn't been released yet and without giving a chance to test the first batch of results sincerely makes one think twice before reading your opinions. It's Friday and working with pharyngitis (I don't care and I'm not forced to) and reading some of you makes you want to, well, "I don't know".

We work with the data we have and has been collecting. Not everything is easy to measure and we have to avoid overloading the server. Slowly we are advancing in the fact that the obtained data and the formulas avoid possible abuses to reach the top player list.

For example, for fort captures, recovering it (capturing one of your realm) will have much more value than capturing an enemy one. Kills are counted by participation, so every class will have the same chances to get the same number as others. Deaths will be counted as unique and will have a penalization. Gold donations don't have that much influence but doing them from time to time will give you extra points. Donating 1,000 gold pieces a thousand times will not give you points. Doing it from time to time and with significant amounts, will do.

Regarding the invasions data, we are analyzing how to calculate them efectively and sum them up to the formula.

In a few words, the best player of the week will have to participate a lot in war and it will not matter of what class it is, but how much it plays for its realm. And the better the groups play, the most chance of one of them becoming a top player, strengthening the concept of RvR.

If you want to contribute, don't beat about the bush and think a little more about punctual game events (capture, die, enter another realm, etc) to formulate ideas. We like you to give your opinions, but we don't like that permanent pessimism... that way, what sense is there in moving forward? I, for myself will keep on going forward. I don't know about you. ;)

--

This was a response to the Spanish official thread, don't take it so literal, even though it may apply :)

[bois]

Translation ...


Haha, and that is why you should come here more often. I don't know about the Spanish forum but I think we are a bit more optimistic and on point here. You may be slightly more enthused with our more ehrm.. constructive posts.

And no, DB has not posted here yet so you are safe.

I think that we all want more war and are prepared to work towards that. Even those who don't give a damn about prestige want activity and are generally on board with the idea from that perspective.

I also think we want the best result possible so minds are brainstorming here. Not much pessimism but due caution. You can't blame us for that .

As always, keep up the good work Kailer and even though we may seem negative, we are still here. That says something about how we feel about the game.

Remember this: when you get no comments at all, good or bad, then you are in real trouble.

BTW: Thanks for the insight. The info is quite useful to know. It might be nice to keep it beta and post the first official player of the week at the end of the Christmas week. Just an idea.

Regards
Art

PS: Znurre I am still thinking . Good job xD.

[Zas_]

What a pity NGD is working on such ranking thing while there are so many things to do (check forums, keywords network code, UI, linux, etc...)


I guess those will not enter in the formulas:
- path to fort camping
- tracking and informing your own realm of enemy's moves
- indirect help using Stalker Surroundings or Reveal
- miles made in enemy's realm
- etc...

I guess highest damage classes will be favored (as it is actually with RP system)

Please try to include the "support" role of hunters/knights/conjurers in your calculations...

Beware of the warju setup, not all conjs are "support".

And please don't spend too much time of this, but instead try to fix some of the issues community reported in last six month...

[Adrian]

What a pity NGD is working on such ranking thing while there are so many things to do

check forums

Not my work.

keywords network code

Neither.

UI

Nooope.

linux

No.

I think it's clear now. Continue with the topic and read again my other reply if necessary.

[bois]

I guess those will not enter in the formulas:
- path to fort camping
- tracking and informing your own realm of enemy's moves
- indirect help using Stalker Surroundings or Reveal
- miles made in enemy's realm
- etc...

..

Well Zas, I am hopeful that NGD will at least consider the top of each class instead of "the one". They can use the formula they are making now but at least they have a framework with which they can enhance it sometime in the future. Enhance it in a way that each class can have maybe one or two of their specialities factored in their calculations.

But , I will wait and see. We may be pleasantly surprised. I will not make the same mistake of jumping the gun as I did with the update process. Patience, patience.

Art

[Seher]

...

Well, feedback is mostly kind of pessimistic, I just don't think it's that necessary to write "yeah agree lol!1" or, to be more precisely, "wow, a new ranking system is great" or something like that.
However I'll try to mention positive points as well from now on so that you don't have to see just pessimism all day long. :biggrin:

Idea 2

The server should know players x, y and z coordinates.
Save the last 10 coordinates for each enemy kill in an array, and compute a difference between the values for each kill.

The bigger difference, the more points received.
This would solve 2 problems:


People camping, be it forts, bridges or whatever.
Bringing people out into the whole warzone instead of everyone gathering at a few key places.


That might work for Ra, but other servers need those key places to have at least some action. Promoting hunting parties even more just decreases fort war action further.
And I mean, forts are there to be camped, somehow :P

[Truewar]

I like that idea. All I have is just one suggestion regarding clans ranking:

would be nice to have a relative measure that takes into account not only amount of RP`s but the number of members too.

I think you agree that 10k RP from 5 members and 10k RP from 50 members are different things

[bois]

A few questions.

1. Will all players be able to see their personal scores on their character sheet in the client?

Will they see a breakdown scores for (not formula, point score I speak about)

Gold deposit score
Death/kill ratio score
Fort capture score?

Last question. You can probably poll user uptime. Will this information play any part in future tabulations or are there any intentions to give it some weight at any time in the future?

I would suggest we can see these scores and breakdowns. Players that are motivated to get to "player of the week " may be encouraged by seeing their scores and the areas they are weak in. Just a thought.

Artec

[w_larsen]

For the ones who don’t like it please wait until everything its put into place before start complaining.

now that the pessimistic prognoses are happening exactly as expected, can i complain? :D

today i encountered textbook case of ranking pumping.

we bere bit busy with green zerg in aggs, when trele got taken by reds. when we arrived there, no iggies were to be found of course. meanwhile green zerg went back to aggs, and as expected iggies logged back in trel and attacked it.
i reloged to see, who are they and found even more - two greens as well. iggies took the fort.

while iggies attempted to log near guards, remaining green (one of the two greens died in process) went to log in tower.

fun part was that iggies came to help the greenie a bit, so he can log. :D

so short version of very productive pumping:

1) arrive at small fort
2) take it
3) log
4) let small group of enemie realm (not the one who originally had fort) take it and log
5) log back in
6) jmp 1

with enough alts you can allways choose some empty fort around wz.

the system as planned and written in first post of this thread is flawed.
not that this wasnt expected...

[bois]

Honestly, I can't wait to see the first leader board.

I have participated in fort taking, and minor hunting and contributed zero gold to any upgrade this week. I also have observed several opposing characters and their behaviour patterns this week. These players that I chose have consistent playing style through the week.
The players I am observing I also expect to be all on the leader board because of their particular style.

Because NGD will not likely reveal their formula, I intend to be guided by the observation of these players and my own calculated playing style. I specifically chose a style that balanced hunt, home fort/ castle recapture and because of knight, usually one or 2 deaths per fort visit. I performed few personal kills but because of my auras/areas I collected a fair amount of RP that way.

Based on how this first leader board plays out , I will draw initial conclusions from it.

Till then, I sit back and enjoy the ping pong between the forts.

Regards
Artec

[Jippy]

"You can probably poll user uptime"

Hmmm - so the more u play the better u are??? NOT!!! xD

[bois]

"You can probably poll user uptime"

Hmmm - so the more u play the better u are??? NOT!!! xD

Well, I suspect that is exactly how it is going to play off with the current formula.

You score will be derived from the amount of fort recaptures or captures meaning more playtime to do so. Also, you kill/death ratio will probably mean the more kills (single and participatory)and less singular deaths result in a better score. This means more playtime to accumulate a better score.
Lastly you can donate gold to upgrade forts more often only when they transfer ownership. Bottom line is the more active you are and specifically in RvR, the better your score will be. To do this requires uptime.

I was actually thinking about polling user uptime to apply that statistic to the formula to come up with a better score. In other words, your score will be based totally on not how much time you log but, rather give some weight to the quality of what you did in the time you were on . Of course this can be abused by players doing something then logging and watching the status of the game via third party tools to log on and capitalise that way. Instead of boss logging we have fort logging instead. In retrospect, this may be a bad idea and totally unnecessary. :facepalm3:

In the end, the formula may not please everyone but the hope is that it can be as fair as possible with the data available.

Artec

[Mellion]

Welcome back Rosetta-Effect. :(

We don't need anyone who tells us if we play good or bad.

[mute]

Well, it's monday and I am waiting for the ranking update...

I think it's a good idea and we get much more action in the WZ. I have not changed my playing style. Usually playing about 2 hours a day.

We will see more after the ranking update...

[Mellion]

Instead of some strange ranking with closed formulas, we should get access to some real statistics.

death/kill ratio including rp ratio over day/week/month.
damage done over ...
health given over ...
gold give/taken over ....
etc.

[Gabburtjuh]

When is it comming on, I've been working hard to get into another tab worth nothing....

[_Enio_]

Instead of some strange ranking with closed formulas, we should get access to some real statistics.

death/kill ratio including rp ratio over day/week/month.
damage done over ...
health given over ...
gold give/taken over ....
etc.

add time played dancing ;D

[Zombrex]

Hi, we already published the results!

Do not forget that now we are facing a Beta stage for this new Ranking system. Therefore, this results will not reflect in a 100 per cent accurately the functionality of this new system.

The ones that don't appear in the top 30 can check in their account's profile, in the "characters" section, if you have summed points and your position in the Ranking.

Is very important to remind you that, for the ones who think that should have appeared or had a higher position in the Ranking, to post some feedback explaining us why your score is not what you deserve in the Ranking. This will be essential to guide us in the improvement of the system.

[VandaMan]

Is it possible for you to include in this ranking exactly where the score comes from, and show us the separate pieces for each class? It's much easier to offer suggestions when we know what contributed to the score in what ways.

Right now on the top 30 players we have:
10 barbarian
6 knight
6 conjurer
4 hunter
3 marksman
1 warlock

Aside from barbarian being the most represented (presumably for sheer kill-count), it seems that survivability is the most important factor. While it may not be rated as such in your formula, death count is probably the most variable factor between classes, and affects the class distribution in the rankings more than intended.

[Adrian]

Is it possible for you to include in this ranking exactly where the score comes from, and show us the separate pieces for each class? It's much easier to offer suggestions when we know what contributed to the score in what ways.

Right now on the top 30 players we have:
10 barbarian
6 knight
6 conjurer
4 hunter
3 marksman
1 warlock

Aside from barbarian being the most represented (presumably for sheer kill-count), it seems that survivability is the most important factor. While it may not be rated as such in your formula, death count is probably the most variable factor between classes, and affects the class distribution in the rankings more than intended.

We can't give the exact formula. That way it wouldn't make sense. Experience is also a requirement to be a top player ;)

Anyways, yes, death count and such variables need to be adjusted, that is why we need your personal feedback.

Also, next week we're surely adding more variables and the top list will surely change dramatically. That's why we're on a beta stage with this ranking.

[Miraculix]

Experience counts? O.o

Maybe superboss & dragon kills count too? o.O

Anyway, the presentation looks nice and it gives players that are new a chance to appear somewhere on the ranks and keep them addic-- erm interested. Every new thing added to the site and ranks is a good thing, imo. It definitely needs some more attention.

The class distribution show that warlocks are either
a) Very few in-game
b) Unfavored by the formula

But only NGD has numbers on this. All I can say is that I played almost only on the weekend and participated in 1 invasion and did a few hunts, my score was 297 (42) which is probably way too high for the little time that I invested. I know people that are almost every day for many hours online and did not appear on the ranks.

Good luck getting it to work properly, looks like an interesting ranking.

PS: It would be nice to have some more ranking while we are sort-of on this subject. I was thinking of realm-wide rankings like the "Results" page: Stats like:
- Enemy gates broken
- Own gate broken (X amount of times)
- Portal openings
- Endangered enemy realm (X amount of times)
- Own realm in danger (X amount of times)
- Fort captures
- Castle captures
- Individual stats per fort/castle (for example: Samal captured by Syrtis X times, by Alsius Y times, reclaimed by Ignis X+Y times)

All these stats can appear in daily/weekly/monthly/annual tables seperately too.

Hope that last part was not too off-topic :D

[VandaMan]

We can't give the exact formula. That way it wouldn't make sense. Experience is also a requirement to be a top player ;)

Anyways, yes, death count and such variables need to be adjusted, that is why we need your personal feedback.

Also, next week we're surely adding more variables and the top list will surely change dramatically. That's why we're on a beta stage with this ranking.

If you mean experience as in time spent in game, then I agree, but if you're talking about the character's level I don't think that should be included. I think kill and death counts should be drastically modified or completely removed, because it's just too messy to compare between classes:

A conjurer will sit toward the back of an army, or inside a fort and die very rarely but still get credit for a lot of kills by using auras. Similarly, a knight can get credit for lots of kills by using defensive auras, but is at low risk of dying due to high HP and defense. Both classes will probably show a large number of kills, with a low number of deaths, for a high k/d ratio

A marksman, however is more focused on single targets, but still has strong defense and can fight from a relatively safe position. They probably contribute to each of their kills significantly more than a knight or conjurer, but get fewer kills overall. Likewise, hunters are difficult to find and catch, so die less often than most. Warlocks can have a very strong focus on area attacks, and are likely to get credit for a lot of kills. Being the shortest range of the ranged classes, high priority targets, and having the lowest defense - they will also have a very high death count. My guess is that this is not accounted for, leaving archers with low kills and low deaths, warlocks with high kills and high deaths, and all 3 subclasses with a mediocre k/d ratio.

Barbarians, having excellent areas and single target attacks should have the highest number of kills. With moderate defense, but fighting at melee range, they have a medium death count. I would expect this to put their k/d ratio somewhere between mediocre and high. I would attribute the high number of barbarians on the top 30 list to the fact that there are more barbarians playing than there are knights or conjurers.

-----------

I understand your reasons for not telling us the exact formula you use, but would it be possible to show us the raw data? I feel like as testers for this beta feature we could be much more use to you if we could see the numbers, instead of making ridiculous guesses (see above :¬¬:).

Right now I think it might be interesting to check stats for the number of kills and deaths per time in game, for each of the 6 subclasses, and use deviation from the mean in the formula for personal score. This way the individual class limitations on kills and survivability aren't what makes a difference, but the player's performance as compared to others with the same limitations is what is measured.

[w_larsen]

know people that are almost every day for many hours online and did not appear on the ranks.

it seems that it's the way the system works -

you get favoured for fort taking even empty (my knight got point for retaking empty trel few times)

for participiating in shared kills and not dying (conjurer got 17 points from heals/auras and i cant even remember, when i played him)

but not really for fighting (winning and dying) - my marks, whoom i play every day (and die a lot in process of say... attempting to retake zerged forts or general failing) got 28 points.

[Adrian]

It's experience as game knowledge and playtime, not experience points. Sorry :P

[Seher]

I can live with a death count formula as long as it will give you points to kill one or two enemies and then die.

And again, I'd really love to see enemies in range having an influence on your score, as it deserves way more reward to kill one enemy out of ten than to kill one out of one. :P

[KKharzov]

I have a question. On the character sheet page we are given two numbers for our personal score. The first number is our current score for this week, but there is another number next to it in parentheses. What is the number in parentheses? All points together?

[Znurre]

I have a question. On the character sheet page we are given two numbers for our personal score. The first number is our current score for this week, but there is another number next to it in parentheses. What is the number in parentheses? All points together?Apparently it's your position in the rankings.

[blood-raven]

just want to say: gratz anna! gj!:banana::punk::clapping5365:

ps: the RA player and pic seem to be mixed up, it sais it's a knight but the pic is of a warlock.

[KKharzov]

That would make sense Znurre.

ps: the RA player and pic seem to be mixed up, it sais it's a knight but the pic is of a warlock.
That's the ugliest Skelics Knight I've ever seen.

[bois]

Had a look at the rankings. Anna getting top spot is not too much of a surprise. Good player in the class.

The rest of the list seems to be a fair start. Most if not all are heavy RvR players, play quite a lot and are present for a lot of fort battles and hunts etc.

List seems to be a fair assessment to me for a first try.

I managed to score 76. Not too bad considering I only played 4 days in that week and spent 80% of that time grinding either the hunter or the marks. I probably spent about a sum total of maybe 2 hours for the whole week in any kind of RvR activity. Scoring seems quite fair from that standpoint too.

All in all it looks a decent start.

Regards
Artec

[tikinho]

It's experience as game knowledge and playtime, not experience points. Sorry :P

So how do you calculate my game knowledge? You check the date of registration and how much I have been online? I guess from the RPs ranking...

[Nils_Dacke]

Without a detailed and complete description of the algorithms used for the calculation of these "scores", the ranking in question is just meaningless hogwash.

Same goes for the RP ranking, since the RP calculation algorithms are also not published by NGD.

The rules of this game in general are never published by NGD. There is to the best of my knowledge no publication from NGD that explains how hits or anything is calculated. There are some rumors, and some equations that players have found out by reverse-engineering, that's all.

It is absurd, to say the least. In any other game; football, tennis, chess, dwarf-throwing, crocket, you name it; there are strict and officially published rules for how scores are calculated. We can't even begin to discuss anything resembling a "ranking list" without knowing how scores are made in the game.

Regnum Online is a passtime, and a form of entertainment. But to pretend (by publishing obscure "scores") that it qualifies as a competition is ridiculous.

[Nils_Dacke]

We can't give the exact formula

Because you don't know it yourself?

[Mellion]

This ranking is a bad joke and meaningless without an open formula.

Please give us unfiltered statistics and not your companies wishes how we are supposed to play.

[e30G]

Without a detailed and complete description of the algorithms used for the calculation of these "scores", the ranking in question is just meaningless hogwash.

Same goes for the RP ranking, since the RP calculation algorithms are also not published by NGD.

The rules of this game in general are never published by NGD. There is to the best of my knowledge no publication from NGD that explains how hits or anything is calculated. There are some rumors, and some equations that players have found out by reverse-engineering, that's all.

It is absurd, to say the least. In any other game; football, tennis, chess, dwarf-throwing, crocket, you name it; there are strict and officially published rules for how scores are calculated. We can't even begin to discuss anything resembling a "ranking list" without knowing how scores are made in the game.

Regnum Online is a passtime, and a form of entertainment. But to pretend (by publishing obscure "scores") that it qualifies as a competition is ridiculous.

I agree here. The scoring system should be transparent in order to make it credible amongst the players. We can't provide proper feedback as well if we don't know how the system works.

It will be interesting to see how this evolves. Will something similar be made for clans as well?

[bois]

To the posters above me,

When has NGD ever given information on anything of any importance and relevance to the functioning of the innards of this game? You actually expect them to make a 180 degree turn and start now? It is not their corporate culture and probably never will be. Their formulas are classified, full stop.

To expect them to actually give out formulas for the player base to scrutinise and take apart would be wishful thinking and probably slightly delusional. Nearly all the information I ever got from this game are from the folks who maintain the wiki, inquisition and Mikan. Have you ever looked at the manual? That alone says a lot.

This competition is for people who have copious amounts of time and or who secretly figure out the framework of the formulas and gerrymander their play style to enable themselves to rise in the stats.
The stats in this game, all the stats, are practically meaningless. RP, gold , experience, what do they mean? Nothing practically. There are lies, big lies and then statistics. To the complainers I would say do as you always did, ignore the statistics and NGD version of how good you are. Play the game , enjoy it, the friends you made and have fun. I do.
RP, gold, experience, player of the week, fastest, slowest , prettiest, etc. have never been much of a factor in determining the best of the best . Never will be. To veteran players I say play your Regnum . Not be governed by useless stats.

And by the way , what is the result of the competition? Your picture in the blog and on some virtual notice board? Don't they put worker of the month on the board in KFC? See this as it is. A gimmick to motivate the player base that are obsessed with accolades and becoming first.

It is a good thing. The end result will be more fort wars , maybe invasions and this is what we all want. The vehicle may be not to everyone's liking but the end result might justify the means.

Of course, the whole thing could backfire with the player base boycotting the whole thing and just playing their regular way. In my estimation, this latest gimmick will lose steam like clothing and the game will eventually settle back to its normal mode as long time players return to their usual patterns. I for one will not (and can't because of RL )change my pattern.
NGD will still get money from me when they offer something that tickles my fancy, that is what it all boils down to doesn't it?

Regards
Artec

[Myxir]

Looking at the stats for Ra:
5 Warlock
3 Knight
10 Barbarian
8 Conjurer (mostly warjus!)
4 Marksmen
0 Hunter

This seems a bit strange for me. I expected more marksmen here and less conjures
And 0 Hunters, lol :)

[Seher]

Because you don't know it yourself?

Because they think it's better to have the players decide by their feeling and not by their calculations, meaning they need more experience. That's true and I don't think you can argue there very much.

However, formulas get found, and as soon as every player can look up the formulas on some fan sites it's kind of... absurd, not to publish them officially. :P (Okay, you can still say more experienced players know those sites, newbies don't, but...)

[Gabburtjuh]

It's experience as game knowledge and playtime, not experience points. Sorry :P

Hehe, funny, I only play knight since like 3 months and im number 8 of horus, getting in there is all about being online at the right time...

[Nils_Dacke]

add time played dancing ;D

I agree to that!

At least it would be something objectively measurable.

[Nils_Dacke]

The class distribution show that warlocks are either
a) Very few in-game
b) Unfavored by the formula



Did you also notice how unfavoured Alsius is? It's even worse on Ra (only 3 players on the top 30 ranking list there) than on Horus. But I don't think it is in the top secret ranking algorithms Alsius is disfavoured by NGD, but mostly by the the terrain they made, where Alsius is the only realm who has both enemy castles at the far end of the map.

[Gabburtjuh]

Do you see how much Haven and PoB rule in horus? 4 out of 5 Alsius are from them, our PoB+Haven ftw xD

[KKharzov]

NGD isn't going to release how it works because then there would be people that would try to abuse the system. Although players will probably eventually figure it out themselves, for now the lips are probably sealed in order to prevent point farming.

Also, I theorize that one of the point giving factors is not amount of RP earned, but number of actual KILLS earned. Meaning people that you have defeated.

EDIT: Another factor may be time spent ingame. I know that many of those people on the list are usually ingame for long periods of time. Perhaps there is some sort of multiplier for that.

[Nils_Dacke]

NGD isn't going to release how it works because then there would be people that would try to abuse the system. Although players will probably eventually figure it out themselves, for now the lips are probably sealed in order to prevent point farming.

Also, I theorize that one of the point giving factors is not amount of RP earned, but number of actual KILLS earned. Meaning people that you have defeated.

If they can "figure it out by themselves", then they can "abuse it". Not that I can see how "the system" could be "abused" merely by knowing it. What is the problem with simply publishing the goddam rules of the goddam game?

[Seher]

Those who tend to abuse things usually are the same players that manage to figure things out. Or at least they know players with more brain. :P

[KKharzov]

If they can "figure it out by themselves", then they can "abuse it". Not that I can see how "the system" could be "abused" merely by knowing it. What is the problem with simply publishing the goddam rules of the goddam game?
Because it could ruin gameplay, and people would only want to play in that specific playstyle that earns them points. Do you remember the crap with the rosettes during the anniversary event? People were just running from fort to fort not fighting at them.

But I agree with you, I'm just throwing out some possible ideas on why NGD would not want to share it. This player of the week ranking feels weird, because you are earning something you have no idea how you earned. I think NGD is aiming for a more casual gaming approach with this though, to give everyone a chance. Personally, I don't care for rankings.

[Flocke]

I don't want to read all, but I have found a bug.
Go on an randim page, e.g.
Ra->Gold->IGNIS
http://regnumonlinegame.com/ranking/index.php?l=1&realm=4&world=ra&opt=4
Then go to the Top players ranking and you will see:
Top Regnum Players

Coming soon! Check next Monday!

And all Skelics rankings aren't available too:
http://regnumonlinegame.com/ranking/index.php?l=1&opt=2&realm=4&world=ra
->
http://regnumonlinegame.com/ranking/index.php?l=1&opt=2&realm=4&world=ra&filter=r_2

[pauluzz]

#10 Pauluzz Syrtis Alturian Barbarian 42 421
(horus)

Thats me,
im just lvl 42 where rest is all 47+

The fun is i didn't do anything special for it (no fort upgrades and stuff),, in fact i just played like i always do


so i guess my playing style earns pointzzz xD

[maximus-decimus]

Great Job again NGD, a Ranking that everbody has been waiting for :fingers:

Instead of taking care for real problems,

Laggs,
Crashs,
2-3 year old bugs,
clicking gates,
etc.

you still keep on surprising us with things that advance Unbalancing in RvR. Everybody now is Fortupgrading without any enemy in sight. So the enemies dont even think about capturing the Fort because its,

a) senseless
b) they have to watch the kill/dead ratio

how come you guys have such a great idea about a RvR-Game, destroying it with all kind of nonsense you are implementing?

Players who play after prime time, with little groups of players, just need 1 person to upgrade a fort and then the whole fighting finds an immediate end, this already happened the yesterday evening on Niflheim, destroying all kinds of fighting and makes Regnum a Fort-to-Fort Running gag :nunchaku:

[Truewar]

Hm.... looks like date of TOP PLAYERS has been changed to actual: "from 2010-11-15 to 2010-11-21" but results stay same as passed week.

Is it... eeem... normal?

[KKharzov]

Hm.... looks like date of TOP PLAYERS has been changed to actual: "from 2010-11-15 to 2010-11-21" but results stay same as passed week.

Is it... eeem... normal?
It is... eeem... in the testing phase.

[mute]

Last week the stats were updated in the evening (european time).
Maybe NGD must start the update script by hand...

[simons_pl]

Isn't releasing character stats API (http://regnumonline.com.ar/forum/showthread.php?t=67606) a better idea? Community would make their own stats, more recent and everybody will be happy.

PS: top scores still outdated...

[mute]

PS: top scores still outdated...

Jo, I am also waiting for the next "Top Player Update"...

[Adrian]

As we're still on beta stage, update is still not automated. We didn't have time yet to apply the changes we wanted to the system so please wait until tomorrow for us to do it.

Thank you for your patience!

[Quincebo]

We dont blame you guys:razz:

[VandaMan]

We dont blame you guys:razz:

Don't put words in my mouth, I completely blame them, and kailer in particular. LKFJAEIFJAS;IJEF!RAGERAGERAGE!ASIJ

[Adrian]

Don't put words in my mouth, I completely blame them, and kailer in particular. LKFJAEIFJAS;IJEF!RAGERAGERAGE!ASIJ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yunSRfnsVck

Seriously, wait until tomorrow. Don't derail or you'll be banned :mf_hide:

[Gabburtjuh]

Zomg, trolled by kailer, WIN xD

[VandaMan]

Don't derail or you'll be banned :mf_hide:

I would never do that intentionally, I just can't resist you :angel2:

Also, next week we're surely adding more variables and the top list will surely change dramatically.
We didn't have time yet to apply the changes we wanted to the system so please wait until tomorrow for us to do it.

Can you tell us what changes are planned for the ranking tomorrow, and was this considered (or even read)?

Right now I think it might be interesting to check stats for the number of kills and deaths per time in game, for each of the 6 subclasses, and use deviation from the mean in the formula for personal score. This way the individual class limitations on kills and survivability aren't what makes a difference, but the player's performance as compared to others with the same limitations is what is measured.

[Anpu]

Kailer, I think you should include check if user killed character at save. If yes, instead adding +1 death in formula, it should be -1.

[bois]

New results are out. An interesting read.

[Mikan]

New results are out. An interesting read.
Sorry... but it just looks like people who play alot to me, nothing else.

[VandaMan]

I really don't understand how this ranking works, other than grind support I only played my conjurer for our invasion attempt, and only at the gate (not any fort wars). We died there and hardly killed anyone, yet my conjurer's personal score is 204. I play my warlock every day (for longer than I should most likely), join in almost every fort war, and even being squishy I would estimate I have a pretty high k/d ratio... and his personal score is only 31 points higher.

Again the number of each class in the top players seems to correlate strongly with survivability:

8 knights
8 barbarians
5 marksman
4 hunters
3 conjurers
2 warlocks

[Miraculix]

Barbarians are the class that dies the most, so I guess it's not that dependent on survivability.

But, as long as NGD does not disclose any of the info, we're just entertaining ourselves with guesses. This is not testing :p

[VandaMan]

Barbarians are the class that dies the most, so I guess it's not that dependent on survivability.

I wouldn't say that, they have the second highest HP, decent armor, some nice defensive buffs, are tough to CC to death... they're high priority targets, but not so much as mage classes. Even so, same as last week:

I would attribute the high number of barbarians on the top 30 list to the fact that there are more barbarians playing

[bois]

Sorry... but it just looks like people who play alot to me, nothing else.

It is interesting. I played my marks for a few hours on one day and pinged a few arrows at people from distance into forts. Zero gold invested. The score for that was 109. I played knight for 3 days over much more hours per day and most of the time was in fort battles for both home and away structures.
The tally was 119.

Now the tally or my final score does not matter much because it will never alter my playing patterns but, I still find the results interesting. Interesting could be taken with a positive or negative slant.

I am not going to even guess what the formulas are. For me this is just about as exciting as the new costumes the art department dreams up every so often. Hopefully, NGD gets what they want which is more activity/ war , eventually leading to an upsurge in the bottom line.

[Seher]

I really don't understand how this ranking works, other than grind support I only played my conjurer for our invasion attempt, and only at the gate (not any fort wars). We died there and hardly killed anyone, yet my conjurer's personal score is 204. I play my warlock every day (for longer than I should most likely), join in almost every fort war, and even being squishy I would estimate I have a pretty high k/d ratio... and his personal score is only 31 points higher.

Maybe invasion attempts count, too.

http://regnumonlinegame.com/ranking/index.php?l=1&realm=0&opt=11&world=niflheim

And this is what you get if your invasion attempt works. Just guessing.

[doppelapfel]

Kailer, I think you should include check if user killed character at save. If yes, instead adding +1 death in formula, it should be -1.
Why? I often go to cs with my clan, usually the gelfs have twice as much players as we have and kill us pretty fast after some tries, if we manage to kill some ppl of a bigger zerg than ours we should not be punished. Zerging at a fort does also not give you -points. Better give no points for killing grinders.

[Anpu]

Why? I often go to cs with my clan, usually the gelfs have twice as much players as we have and kill us pretty fast after some tries, if we manage to kill some ppl of a bigger zerg than ours we should not be punished. Zerging at a fort does also not give you -points. Better give no points for killing grinders.

I was referring to save camping (the ones that give you -20rps), not exactly killing near save on open field.

[Seher]

if we manage to kill some ppl of a bigger zerg than ours we should not be punished.

Or just give us a ranking just for that, points for playing well :P

I was referring to save camping (the ones that give you -20rps), not exactly killing near save on open field.

Unfortunately that's almost the same, you'll still get -rp quite often.

[Dupa_z_Zasady]

I like new scoring system, but i think that it doesn't fully show what player is good at. So I propose to divide scoring table into three subcategories
1 - chickenshit of the week - players that run away best, when things get nasty.
2 - most unreliable player of the week - he will always leave you in deep shit when you help him. (or will aggro mob on you when you are resting low on HP like our dear current No1)
3 - best horse runner of the week.

Really, this scoring system made some players pathetic.

Now for real proposal. Lets make a list of players who give a shit about such rankings and make a list of them moving every player on list going up every week, so everybody of them can be finally Number One. Thats easy to code even for NGD. And then lets proceed to real problems and bugs.

[Seher]

I like your suggestions though, at least the first one.

1 - chickenshit of the week - players that run away best, when things get nasty.

Regnum could have rankings similar to those some shooters have: Not just best fragger, but also precision freak, etc... And Mr coward. xP

[Geev]

Instead of some strange ranking with closed formulas, we should get access to some real statistics.

Tdeath/kill ratio including rp ratio over day/week/month.
damage done over ...
health given over ...
gold give/taken over ....
etc.

This.

Just give us a ton of tables, sortable, with averages. Any player will be able to figure out who is decent. If on top of that you want to have a PotW that's fine.


Also, people needn't worry about the impact of complex computations, since the results aren't real time, but calculated once per week, and can be offloaded to a separate server. The game server merely has to log the info, which can also be to a separate server, RAM disk, ssd etc.

[Adrian]

Hi,

We updated the Ranking. Also, I'll inform you of some things (and repeat others to clear some doubts):

- The formula didn't change this week, we were working on changes to obtain more data and enhance the formula but this will be reflected in the ranking after the next update to the game.
- We're still in beta until January. This ranking is very important and we want it to really show who are the players with better performance at war. We still aren't happy with the results.
- We have a lot of ideas of how to enhance it and most of them are similar to yours, but you must remember the limitations we have, which we are trying to solve.

So, we want the Top Player to be the one who pushes the game towards invasions and fort captures. Step by step we are acknowledging what we need to to to calculate it correctly. Once the beta stage is ended and we have pleasing results, we will start giving prizes.

Regards,

[Ulti19]

The ranking system could be awesome i think if the formula is really complex and takes into account things based off classes and not generic things like fort donations and such.

I dunno much about the current formula, but I would love to see things like:
(these are just ideas)

Conj's

Can get points for being pure warju too, but get's more points for saving heavily damaged allies (calculating how long a conj can keep someone alive who is taking damage etc), and using spells like dispelling and pylons to calculate how much dmg that conj reduced from incoming attacks in total to show how he/she truly helps in the big picture.

Locks

Taking things into account like when mod is up and how many people get affected by it, showing how the lock cc's ppl. Or how many people the lock can cc, sultar, or purely damage. Casting things like lightning and freeze on heavily defended ppl like ao1 knights.

Knights

Get points for dealing damage and kills for example, but more points for example casting shield wall at time before huge damage is applied to the armies showing how much hp total was saved by that knight etc. cc'ing enemies, tanking dmg, protecting allies, how long the knight can survive etc.

Barbs

Not only dishing out huge damage to most people but also taking into effect how a barb cc's opponents. Roar and howl can be brutal, so barbs can get massive points by sheerly pwning people with 2.5k southcrosses or stopping armies from being able to cast or move with their cc's. Taking numbers into account of how many were howled at once for example showing that that barb stopped one or many opponents from being 100% effective. And if a conj mass dispells this for example that conj gets more points for example for relief.

Marks

Kinda similar to the barb, though with range, cc'ing people from far and dishing out damage gets big points

Hunter

Not really sure^^ Perhaps big points for hindering many people at once with caltrops etc. But for sure also getting points for damage etc.

These are class based skills but I still like the kill to death ratio. I Don't think though people should get same points for killing a lv 1 for example in one shot as opposed to killing a lv 50 by yourself.

Just an idea for making this really show what a top player kinda is. It has to be super complex to show skills of people and not a simple formula, though I have no knowledge of how to program anything and don't know if what i mention is possible for ngd^^

Again I love the idea, just hope it gets really in depth with the game mechanics in all aspects.

Also would love to see:

person who had most death blows
person who ran most (though dunno how to calculate this^^)
person who took most damage
person who drowned most
person who died the most XD (though not sure would be nice to single ppl out, but i think would be cool to see these stats^^)
top 10 people's kill to death ratio
stuff like this^^ kinda like smash brothers if you ever played it lol

[VandaMan]

[...] I have no knowledge of how to program anything and don't know if what i mention is possible for ngd^^

Most of that stuff is impossible, you can only record and manipulate the numbers, and unfortunately they never tell the whole story.

Also would love to see:

person who had most death blows
person who ran most (though dunno how to calculate this^^)
person who took most damage
person who drowned most
person who died the most XD (though not sure would be nice to single ppl out, but i think would be cool to see these stats^^)
top 10 people's kill to death ratio
stuff like this^^ kinda like smash brothers if you ever played it lol

This though would be a lot of fun. Instead of putting in silly formulas and giving us a number, the meaning of which we can only guess at, we could make our own judgments on who is good and who isn't from more simple stats.

[A_K_M]

Thats the conlcusion I have gotten, I have been playing long enough to know who is a good player and who isnt, numbers dont matter much to me.

[_Enio_]

So, we want the Top Player to be the one who pushes the game towards invasions and fort captures. [...] Once the beta stage is ended and we have pleasing results, we will start giving prizes.



I fear thats another step into making RO more serious, rewarding end results over quality of fights.

I forsee instead of capturing one fort and having a hot fight around it well see more LVL4-ing and putting-Gates-in-danger rushs, while the defenders PvE guards and few remainings, much running around for Doors.

The same with 3-way fights, the most awesome and fun experiences you can have in RO, now it will be rewarding to leave the other 2 realms fight alone at one fort and instead rush to the empty ones to put the gate in danger. even if its only for 5 mins till those are undangered, you prolly get precious epeen points for that kind of PvDoor.

Maybe im too oldschool for new RO philosophy but i really dont see the fun in that kind of gameplay :(

[Syrtisa]

My support conjurer will love the kill / death ratio! :clapclap:

well my have sth around 1 kill for 100 deaths so when i'll be on top list ???

LOLZ +1

[Mellion]

Maybe im too oldschool for new RO philosophy but i really dont see the fun in that kind of gameplay :(


me, too.

In general fort wars, invasion and boss monsters are really the worst parts of the game in ascending order.

[e30G]

me, too.

In general fort wars, invasion and boss monsters are really the worst parts of the game in ascending order.

Same here. However, since this is still incomplete, I think we should reserve judgement until then. There are a bunch of other stuff coming that might affect the outcome of this:

- Fort revamp
- Invasion mechanics revamp
- Final ranking system

A lot can still happen (or not) so IMO it's best we keep our feedback constructive and remain optimistic. Maybe a little positiveness around here can help more than giving out negative feedback outright.

[bois]

I will not judge this effort harshly. The philosophy behind it is good. As for NGD , I am glad they are not rushing it and are developing data collection tools to enhance the results.

It is too early to see how this would pan out so I suggest patience while they tinker with it. Anything that raises activity in the warzone and keeps it well above graveyard status at all time zones is a win for NGD as far as I am concerned. The formula will never be 'perfect' but at least they can have a framework and refine it over time.

NGD should consider a 'rookie of the week' as well. Something for the level 36 and lower players to go after. Even A champions league battle between clans could be formulated.

Artec

[Klutu]

Hi,
So, we want the Top Player to be the one who pushes the game towards invasions and fort captures. Step by step we are acknowledging what we need to to to calculate it correctly. Once the beta stage is ended and we have pleasing results, we will start giving prizes.

Regards,

So basically your trying to force a broken mechanic on us - Fix your invasion system and make it more interesting then try to force it on us. - Encouraging people to upgrade forts has just spiraled out of control on Horus.. every fort is lvl 3-4 this ruins small fights

In this formula it looks like your just trying to promote Zerging & Cowardly Play

If anything you should reward people fighting at different parts of the map spread out the war make it actually feel like a Warzone - Encourage fights at all 6 forts then offer a bonus for castles

One issue i see with Horus is that people rely on zerging to win so war never gets spread out

while on Ra theres a fight at every bridge so if there was a way to encourage that it would boost Horus and Ra would just stay the way it always was

[_Enio_]

Same here. However, since this is still incomplete, I think we should reserve judgement until then. There are a bunch of other stuff coming that might affect the outcome of this:

- Fort revamp
- Invasion mechanics revamp
- Final ranking system

A lot can still happen (or not) so IMO it's best we keep our feedback constructive and remain optimistic. Maybe a little positiveness around here can help more than giving out negative feedback outright.

What should affect the stated ideal, pushing the game towards invasions will be rewarded per player. Theres no sign for me to be optimistic, really. I appreciate the efforts to give incentive for playing but rewarding low risk play and capturing just dont draw a good pic.

[Adrian]

Well, given that this thread is not helping too much to the development of the feature, I'll close this.

I'll create a new one when bigger changes are applied to the formula.

Thanks anyways to those that provided useful feedback, it will be taken into account.