Experimental Guild Rankings

[Learner]

I've put together an experimental Guild Rankings page showing the Top 100 Skills rankings and some experimental combinations.

 

http://el.other-life.com/top/guild100.php

 

Please note that I do ignore very small guilds and players that 0 for that skill. The Rankings for a guild is based on the average skill of it's members, not the total or top members. The data about guild membership is still being gathered, so rankings will be changing a lot as players login and their guild gets recorded.

 

Donations to help support development are encouraged

[LevinMage]

Wow! Thank you so much for putting this together

[Ben]

Nice, Thank you

[LabRat]

Nice work

[Pride]

nice, learner!on # 35 for att and def

[Shujral]

very cool, nice work.

[Kaddy]

Someone should log me to make L.A. top 1 Pk score

 

Good job learner! i will donate some when i m able to go out from skool

Edited March 23, 2008 by OldySchooly

[kaGen]

Very well put togather!

 

~KgN

[RunTime]

Very nice Learner, Great Job!

[bugabear]

Sweet! Nicely done Learner... as always :~)

 

 

~bug

 

 

do you accept gc as a form of bribery, uh, a donation to help support development?

or how about tree mushrooms?

seriously though, i will see what i can do.

 

thanks again

[Kelnor]

Great idea!

 

But i think thats a bit unfair... a big guild like mine with many newbies is on position 80 or so, while we have some good fighters/alchers...

 

I think you should consider the average of the five or ten people with more level, to make the ranking more realistic

 

Nice work anyway

[Learner]

Great idea!

 

But i think thats a bit unfair... a big guild like mine with many newbies is on position 80 or so, while we have some good fighters/alchers...

 

I think you should consider the average of the five or ten people with more level, to make the ranking more realistic

 

Nice work anyway

No matter what is done, it will be unfair to someone. I choses a method to determine the ranking that is less prone to being maniupulated by people wanting a high ranking and are trying to cheat. That's also a reason that smaller guilds aren't included.

 

I've at least taken steps to help ignore inactive guild members as well, so if your bunch of low levels haven't been playing, they aren't getting counted.

[jowwow]

bzzz ftw \o/

[2coolfool]

bzzz ftw

[Sayre]

I still have the screenie of ASH being #2 in harv and #4 in summoning/overall before you made the boo hiss decision to exclude guilds with 2 or less members

 

Oh and bzzz for the yawn.

 

S.

[Zoya]

Wee nice work Learner

Bzzz ftw!

[Blodoks]

I've put together an experimental Guild Rankings page showing the Top 100 Skills rankings and some experimental combinations.

 

http://el.other-life.com/top/guild100.php

 

Please note that I do ignore very small guilds and players that 0 for that skill. The Rankings for a guild is based on the average skill of it's members, not the total or top members. The data about guild membership is still being gathered, so rankings will be changing a lot as players login and their guild gets recorded.

 

Donations to help support development are encouraged

 

The average skill discourages players with lvl 0 to start a skill.

The average exp permits to the old members of a guild to absorb

the new members without big problems.

With the same exp I need to make a lvl (summoning), a new player get 54 levels!

Edited March 24, 2008 by Blodoks

[Ermabwed]

The average skill discourages players with lvl 0 to start a skill.

The average exp permits to the old members of a guild to absorb

the new members without big problems.

With the same exp I need to make a lvl (summoning), a new player get 54 levels!

I've been thinking of this problem and Blodoks already posted a solution

Let me say that I can't complain about GWaR's average ranking as it is now, but the problem that should be addressed is that the average skill ranking says two alchemists at level 50 are the same as one at level 99 and one at 1: assuming they are the same, let one of the level 50 ones and the level 99 one each make 100 hydro bars... the level 50 player will loose ingredients of about 17 and get experience for 70% of his level, the level 99 player will loose maybe 1 and gain experience of about 5%...

 

I don't know if "average experience" ranking will be the best possible solution, however I think the exponential growth of the experience curve should be factored into a guild ranking. To make it clear and perhaps encourage a discussion about this here:

when comparing two groups under what circumstances do you think they should be considered equal?

 

With that being said, thanks for the nice work

[Blodoks]

Just a sample: guild with 5 players.

 

Lvls 100-50-30-1-0

Average skill (4 players) = 45,25

If the 5th player want to start the skill and get 1, average skill will drop at 36,4 (-19.55%)

 

Average exp (4 players) = 11,439,950 = lvl 77

If the 5th player want to start the skill and get 1, average exp will drop at 9,151,988 = lvl 74 (-3.89%)

[Usl]

With the same exp I need to make a lvl (summoning), a new player get 54 levels!

I've been thinking of this problem and Blodoks already posted a solution

Let me say that I can't complain about GWaR's average ranking as it is now, but the problem that should be addressed is that the average skill ranking says two alchemists at level 50 are the same as one at level 99 and one at 1: assuming they are the same, let one of the level 50 ones and the level 99 one each make 100 hydro bars... the level 50 player will loose ingredients of about 17 and get experience for 70% of his level, the level 99 player will loose maybe 1 and gain experience of about 5%...

I don't know if "average experience" ranking will be the best possible solution, however I think the exponential growth of the experience curve should be factored into a guild ranking. To make it clear and perhaps encourage a discussion about this here:

when comparing two groups under what circumstances do you think they should be considered equal?

As I see it, the logarithmic relation between exp and levels has been designed in the game for a reason - it is not something you want to factor away, quite on the contrary!.

It is level, not exp that determines your chances for success with mixing, ability to cast spells, your chances with the attack and defense rolls, etc.

Ermab, in your example above (two level 50 alcher's vs. 1 level 99 and 1 level 1), you compare one level 50 and one level 99: what has this to do with guild rankings? The math should be as follows:

 

guild of 2 alchers, lvl 50 & lvl 50; 100 hydro bar each: yeld=166 (they loose 17 each)

guild of 2 alchers, lvl 99 & lvl 1; 100 hydro bar each: yeld=99 (one loose 1, the other 100)

 

So, in terms of performances, I could advocate that the 50+50 should rank much better than the 99+1!

The top-rankers already have the spotlight in the individual rankings (with all due respect for their outstanding achievements!); there is no point in having a guild ranking which is so skewed as to mimic the individual rankings.

 

As a side note, from a purely statistical point the current system computes avg(log(exp_i)) with i over the recently logged, non-bot, non-0 level players in the guild. Blodoks' proposal would have log(avg(exp_i)). Unfortunately, the sum of experiences would exhibit a Gaussian distribution, and applying the pseudo-logarithmic conversion from exp to level would "squash" most guilds in a very narrow level zone, so we would end up with a huge number of ties -- not a good ranking system imho.

 

Thanks Learner, I think the ranking as it is is pretty cool!

[jowwow]

I noticed that people who have -private- dont have their lvls counted, but are used when getting the mean.

 

e.g, bzzz has 4people with -private-, so their levels aren't counted, however when it gets to total level/# of players, they are counted in that '# of players'

 

Was curious if it was meant to happen like that?

I tested it out in the top magic rankings, dunno if it affects anywhere else.

 

That could possibly explain why it seems like there are 1 or 2 oddities, I could be completely off the plot but I think what I said makes sense

[Tempest]

i think privates do get counted... cuz havn is #5 summoning and except me no1 does summon there rofl. and no1 has a high lvl to keep up with the other guilds either so i guess it should be me. even tho im -private-

[Usl]

Just a sample: guild with 5 players.

 

Lvls 100-50-30-1-0

Average skill (4 players) = 45,25

If the 5th player want to start the skill and get 1, average skill will drop at 36,4 (-19.55%)

 

Average exp (4 players) = 11,439,950 = lvl 77

If the 5th player want to start the skill and get 1, average exp will drop at 9,151,988 = lvl 74 (-3.89%)

So you have an increase of +20% in the size of the guild (from 4 to 5 players) and minimal contribution to the skill, and the current system provides a decrease of -19.55% of average ranking, what is wrong with that? Seems to reflect very faithfully what has happened to me.

Why should we have instead a decrease of -3.89%? Why is the latter the proper number, not the first?

 

You mention the need to absorb without damage new members. But the net effect of the proposal would be simple: the individual top rankers would skew the guild rankings, and since we already know who the best alch'er, the best potioner, the best summoner etc. are, I don't think much additional information would be provided by mimicing individual rankings in guild rankings.

Edited March 24, 2008 by Usl

[jowwow]

i think privates do get counted... cuz havn is #5 summoning and except me no1 does summon there rofl. and no1 has a high lvl to keep up with the other guilds either so i guess it should be me. even tho im -private-

 

Well in my example, KMA (#1 Magic) have an average level of 37.4, with no members -private-. But working out bzzz's average magic level, the only way for KMA to be ahead of us is for the levels of people with -private- to not get counted but they do get counted as a member.

 

EDIT: Seems I forgot to take into account that members need to log on since it was introduced for them to be counted in the rankings, my bad

Edited March 24, 2008 by jowwow

[Learner]

I noticed that people who have -private- dont have their lvls counted, but are used when getting the mean.

 

e.g, bzzz has 4people with -private-, so their levels aren't counted, however when it gets to total level/# of players, they are counted in that '# of players'

 

Was curious if it was meant to happen like that?

I tested it out in the top magic rankings, dunno if it affects anywhere else.

 

That could possibly explain why it seems like there are 1 or 2 oddities, I could be completely off the plot but I think what I said makes sense

Players with -private- Ranking or with privacy set on are still handled properly. Any player that is unlevel (skill 0) is ignored in that skill when being counted.

 

What is probably a bigger issue, is that the guild data has been building up for just over a week. That means that currently only active guild members that have had their guild tag recorded by one of my trade bots that I supply has been accounted for. There are guilds with several hundred members (yes, I know they aren't all active), but the largest guild I've spotted so far has 36 active members (hold your mouse over the guild name to see how many Guild Members I included in that ranking).

 

So, if you have high level players in your guild that haven't been or not spotted for their tag, they won't be counted yet. Get them logged in and walk near one of my supplied Trade Bots to get counted. When I first posted this, bzzz only had 6 ranked members, that's gone up to 10 now.

 

I figure it might take up to a month or two of data collection before those rankings stabilize enough. For example, since I started this thread, =HC= moved into the #2 A/D slots, pushing L.A. down.