How often should "Top Mining Socs" update?

[jaywalker]

My soc finally got 6 "active" miners last Friday (usually we only have 5 at any one time) but we still don't appear on the Mining Soc list. Does it only update once-a-week? or is this a bug?

jay

 

[jaywalker]

One week later and the "Top mining soc " list has still not updated.

possibly related issue: my total mining loot has been stuck on 67-something k for at least a month or two. I can no longer put this down to lower mining activity, and loot sucking. I've definitely landed enough loot recently to bring it up. These loots have been added to my global list, but they haven't affected the total, so it seems

Anybody else noticing mining stats failing to udate? (looks like Starfinder is too busy to answer this, atm)

jay

 

[Starfinder]

It should update "live".. I think something is wrong with the code.. will look into it this weekend..

 

[Kemp]

It's for weeks already, the same top lists for socs. Maybe even more then a month, just to inform you.

 

[Starfinder]

Fixed now.. a scheduler wasent running..

 

[jaywalker]

tyvm for the feedback and the fix

jay

EDIT: ummm I was a bit premature here I think. Yep, my soc is now on the list, but my mining loot total is unchanged. Maybe it will update from now on, with each new global, but the figure is surely inaccurate? And so is everybody else's total, presumably.

 

[Starfinder]

The soc scores are based on the globals in the last 30 days.. I havent looked manually at all your soc globals for the last 30 days, but you have like 6 mining globals in the last 30 days.. your score says 7 members have globalled in the last 30 days with a total of 95 globals.. So, are you sure that 7 members and 95 globals are inaccurate?

 

[jaywalker]

The soc scores are based on the globals in the last 30 days.. I havent looked manually at all your soc globals for the last 30 days, but you have like 6 mining globals in the last 30 days.. your score says 7 members have globalled in the last 30 days with a total of 95 globals.. So, are you sure that 7 members and 95 globals are inaccurate?

you mis-read my post a bit, i think.

Its my individualal mining loot total that i think is still inaccurate. Point being this has not been going up, not for the the last...well probably several months ( i remember it was 67-something k in July. It still is 67-something k. But all those little somethings must add up to more k by now)

I have not had a global since your fix. I am assuming my next global will add to my total. But the fix did not increase my total mining loot, so that figure must be inaccurate. You need to get it to recompute everybodys total mining loot, i think.

Obviously, my recent globals have contributed to my Soc's score, oddly enough. I've no reason to think that is wrong. But they (and/or previous months globals) have not increased my personal total

Does that make sense to you?

jay

EDIT: Just to remind myself, since i never can remember the last 3 figures: "Total Finds: 67,650 PED" at present. We'll see if this goes up

 

[Starfinder]

Your total finds is now:
Total Finds: 67,713 PED

With the latest Platinum Stone 63 PED Sunday, December 12, 2010 15:47
added to the 67.650 PED... seems allright..

 

[lilac]

I'm noticing the same problem... Rapture of Rebellion has 18 members registered for tracker who show up as having globaled in hunting within the past 30 days, but only 16 listed in the soc rankings. been kinda curious as the number has stayed at 16 even as a few of our newer members have joined the RoR group.

would they have had to have globaled after joining the group for it to show up?

 

[Starfinder]

I'm noticing the same problem... Rapture of Rebellion has 18 members registered for tracker who show up as having globaled in hunting within the past 30 days, but only 16 listed in the soc rankings. been kinda curious as the number has stayed at 16 even as a few of our newer members have joined the RoR group.

would they have had to have globaled after joining the group for it to show up?

did you read the whole thread?

 

[jaywalker]

Your total finds is now:
Total Finds: 67,713 PED

With the latest Platinum Stone 63 PED Sunday, December 12, 2010 15:47
added to the 67.650 PED... seems allright..

Ah! so it is adding new finds on now. But the figure it is adding to is still inaccurate, as this figure was static for some condiderable time. The totals do need recomputing, surely?

Put it this way: if I have 67,713 now, then I must have had 66, 782 (subtracting December's total loot of 931 PED) back at the end of November. I didn't though, according to Tracker, I already had 67-something K at the end of November, if mymemory serves me right and I had already waited for a very long time for my total loot to go above 67- something k. I wish that I had, at some point, recorded the exact figure, but I didn't,

So the total must be short by a few K, even if it is going up now, on account of that long period when i was globalling but my total was not increasing. I don't see why this would affect only me, so if you need convincing, or if you still can't see what i mean, maybe you can find someone who only recently started to global. The disparity shoul;d be more obvious there.

[EDIT: To save you the trouble I just looked through Tracker and quite easily found a few such people... and their totals were correct! So i think there must be something wrong with my memory, or...i dunno, but i guss its not worth pursuing after all ]




jay

PS There must be a load of great Socs who don't make the lists through insufficient "active " members. I think it would be better to bring the requisite number back down to 5, or even 4. As it is, the lists are more of a reflection of the size of the soc than how good they are at mining, hunting or crafting! For example, I see that mjau is currently no 1 hunting soc, but with only 6 active members. If just one of their members leaves, or takes a break, then they will drop off the list completely!

 

[hojlund]

How in the world does 4/20 or 6/80 make a top mining soc!? if something it should be 51% of members or something

 

[jaywalker]

How in the world does 4/20 or 6/80 make a top mining soc!? if something it should be 51% of members or something

If you applied that rule, there would only be a handful of socs on the list, if that! Most socs, like ours, tend to have quite a large number of inactive players on their member list (because many of our players are apt to take long breaks from EU due to RL commitments or shortage of PED). Also, many socs (like ours) admit new players, who usually play for quite a long time before they start to get regular globals, so these members appear "inactive" on Tracker. And finally, very few socs specialise in mining to the extent that all of the members mine; most avas specialise in hunting instead, and seldom if ever mine, and this is reflected, ofc in in soc memberships.

Now, I know there are some Socs who trim their membership list, close their doors to low-level players and otherwise go to great lengths, just to keep their place in EU's "most skilled " socs. But there is a great reward for doing this: a chance at Land-Grab. I don't think any soc will ever go to similar lengths just to keep their place in Tacker's mining soc list! (and i should very much hope not!)

jay

 

[hojlund]

For some people it actually matters being good at what they do, and if possible the best.

A society can be held together by more than just chit chat, also a society can be people with common interrest, being best at what they do, or dedication within their respective field.

I hardly think anyone trims their soc list towards what tracker shows, as globals in no way represents a succelfull mining career, but it can point you in the right direction towards activity in certain fields.

-Tao- has inactive members and people not playing as miners, then do you really belong in between "top" miners societies? allready parameters for top soc are widely interpretet so why stray further away from what the name "top mining list" represent!? what will be the point of being on it? Or even having it?

 

[jaywalker]

-Tao- has inactive members and people not playing as miners, then do you really belong in between "top" miners societies? allready parameters for top soc are widely interpretet so why stray further away from what the name "top mining list" represent!? what will be the point of being on it? Or even having it?

I think one point of the list is that you can see which socs have a core of dedicated miners, which might help you decide which soc to join, if your main interest is in mining. Or if you're undecided as to where you want to specialise, you might look for a soc that appears on all three lists! How many inactive people the soc has besides is neither here nor there. For my own part I'd be wary of joining a soc that only has so many active miners, nobody else. That would suggest that the soc would kick me if i had to take a break from EU (as most people do at some point. I, myself, took a break of 2-3 months when my Pc broke down, and i couldn't afford to replace it immediately), if i was too short of PED to mine much anymore, or if i developed a big interest in hunting, and let mining lapse (its not all unusual for people to move between different disciplines in EU . I've moved from priimarily hunting, to primarily mining, then back again, in my three years. I surely wouldn't like to hop socs every time i scented better loot elsewhere! And why should I? I think my experience and in both areas would easily justify my place in eirther a hunting or a mining soc)

Thankfully few, if any dedicated mining socs are that intolerent. Furthernore, there a not very many dedicated mining Socs. So the number of socs that deserve to be on the mining soc list, according to your criteria, might turn out to be zero.

My own Soc was originally a "hunting Soc", btw, but changed into a multidisciplinary soc, as our members branched out into other areas. Currently, by sheer chance, it is actually more of a mining soc. I guess you would want to take the "top mining soc" title very literally, exclude all such socs, and only have socs that have a single, exclusive focus? But, like I said, such Socs are hard to find, and would wipe nearly all of the socs off the list. And if you insist on your 50% active mermbers criterion then even NBK Miners, Modified Miners and Miners Mafia would have to go, leaving no dedicated mining soc on the current list, at all, except for Mine to Extract and NBK Elite Miners

What's the point a list that consists of just two Socs?

Oh! You're a member of one of those two? And you think that all other socs are held together by nothing but "chit-chat" and are not worthy of mention?

Well, enjoy your prejudice. Sneer at all the unworthy socs if you like, but for me (and for most of us , i think) a list that gives info on a LOT of diferent socs is bound to be far more informative.

I'd like to see more of the smaller socs on the list, which is why i suggested lowering the "active member " requirenment. I see that Mjau has dropped off the list now, and the reason is obvious: the soc only has 7 members in total, so will always be in a precarious postion, despite having such strong members.And I do agree with you on one thing: a list of "Top" Socs that features -TAO- but not Mjau is bloody daft. My answer: expand the list. Yours: narow it down even more than at present, so it becomes even less informative, but at least gives your own soc pride of place.

jay

 

[jaywalker]

PS Oops! hojlund, i notice you're actually a member of RELICS. so i guess that RELICS is a mining soc. And therefore, we would have a list of three mining socs, not two. But do you have a suggestion as to how Tracker could formulate the rules so as to wipe you off the Hunting Soc list? (you have 4 inactive hunters. tut tut!)

jay

 

[hojlund]

You are putting meaning in my words that are simply not there, i am sorry if you feel that i insulted your soc in anyways, but a soc of 20 people or more got a very hard time being specilized, yes you can have a common interrest but that in no way may you the "top" of something.

Instead of responding to me as a person you should respond to my words as they are written.

As to a soc being held together by "chit chat" i mean that a society is being hold together by the social side of the general gameplay, i think theese 2 simple words do not mean the same here with me as they do with you, but in my perspective they mean social talk and light conversation. I dont understand why you see that as negative?

50/51% rule would mean a hell of a lot for smaller socs, suddenly soc with 5 members approved of MA would have a chance to get on list too, 3/5 3/6 4/8 5/10 6/12 so 12 members before it really has a real effect, where now tracker list is static 6.

About my soc, yes we are miners. Yes we take pride in that! Would i go on a crusade to try and change rules/setups in our favor, to promote us as something we are not. No.

On a personal note, intolerant societies is just a ugly word to use as it sends a message that the Society has the "holy grail" of living within EU and in general wont tolerate others. Yes there are societies that has area's that they favor and they want to promote, but from there to being intolerant is pretty far.

 

[Starfinder]

interesting discussion.


As I see it there are some possible solutions.

Keep the "cutoff point" as it is now .. a fixed member count which are active within the given profession (globals)..

Or make it so that the soc needs at least 6 members active in the given profession, and then the score will be based on ALL members of the soc.
That way it truely will be an "elite" list or a "specialized list" in the sense that it will be near impossible to be ranked high on two separate lists (unless EU is your full time profession and you are made of money)..

As it is now the score is based on the total number of globals in the profession divided with the amount of people in the soc who got the globals.

Ie. 10 members, 6 has gotten 12 globals in mining the last 30 days.. Thus the score is 12 / 6 = 2.
If we do the "elite" way it will be 12 / 10 = 1.2..

It will give a better look into which socs are truely specialized in the professions... And to be honest.. I dont really care about it.. I feel that with the method im using now.. it gives each soc a fighting chance on each list. If I do the "elite" way it will perhaps scare some people away from socs because they have to be active within the "soc profession" to contribute to the soc's standing on ET.

Poll time?

 

[mandu]

Poll time?

Bring on the poll, I like the "elite" way.

 

[jaywalker]

You are putting meaning in my words that are simply not there, i am sorry if you feel that i insulted your soc in anyways,
...
Instead of responding to me as a person you should respond to my words as they are written.

I might have said much the same to you! Seemed to me that instead of responding to the points I raised , you launched a personal attack on my soc. Not only do you assume that as a non-specialist soc that doesn't always kick inactive members, we can't be good at what we do, we can't even be serious about it. Look at para 2 of your oginal post! ("A society can be held together by more than just chit chat, also a society can be people with common interrest, being best at what they do, or dedication within their respective field.") You seem to think i'm so far from having any idea of what a serious soc might be about, i need it patiently explained, point by point

That said, Aplogy accepted And i apologise for responding in like fashion.

but a soc of 20 people or more got a very hard time being specilized, yes you can have a common interrest but that in no way may you the "top" of something.

nor are we "top" of something. We're number 19 on the list, and maybe we should be further down, if all the socs that ought to be included were included. I think you're taking this "top" thing a bit too literally. Maybe the list should be re-named to avoid confusion, but most people do get that no 19 isn't actually "top".

but, anyway, i really don't see that specialisation is necessarily the one and only key to success in EU. That's highly debatable (and here is not the place to debate it, so i won't say more)

As to a soc being held together by "chit chat" i mean that a society is being hold together by the social side of the general gameplay, i think theese 2 simple words do not mean the same here with me as they do with you, but in my perspective they mean social talk and light conversation. I dont understand why you see that as negative?

I don't see it as negative if that's what a soc is all about, but it's both prejudiced and belittling to characterise people on the slender basis you presented; either you're a completely specialised soc with few or no absentees , or you're all about chit-chat! I don't think that defines my soc at all. We discuss some very heavy social issues. J/k. but seriously, much of our talk is about issues like: how to progress in EU without haemorraging PED; our mining specialsts do share tips with each other; and we are not devoid of ambition... just nowhere near uber enough to make a promotion of it, nor to seriously expect that we could ever be "best" (we're simply not "old" enough to have gotten much benefit from pre-nerf skills)

50/51% rule would mean a hell of a lot for smaller socs, suddenly soc with 5 members approved of MA would have a chance to get on list too, 3/5 3/6 4/8 5/10 6/12 so 12 members before it really has a real effect, where now tracker list is static 6.

I agreee. I thought of it long ago, but dismissed the idea because, as I pointed out, that would exclude a lot of socs that really do belong on the list. A case of : out of the frying pan into the fire. Maybe Tracker could implement some kind of either/or system? but that might be asking for rather too much complexity.

About my soc, yes we are miners. Yes we take pride in that! Would i go on a crusade to try and change rules/setups in our favor, to promote us as something we are not. No.

I shouldn't seriously think so. But you're looking at the problem exclusively from the POV of "socs like ours", which unfortunately has the same effect.

On a personal note, intolerant societies is just a ugly word to use as it sends a message that the Society has the "holy grail" of living within EU and in general wont tolerate others. Yes there are societies that has area's that they favor and they want to promote, but from there to being intolerant is pretty far.

Er, now you're reading things into my words that are simply not there. Intolerent means, in the given context, not tolerating absenteeism etc (ie kicking members who go inactive, or who change focus from mining to hunting). This says nothing about the Soc's attitude to other socs, only to its own members. I also said that I don;t think that socs are that intolerent, in general. My point being not to criticise any soc, but to say that they would haveto be intolerent (in that particular sense) to keep their place on the list,. So the list would not work: would be more of measure of tolerance than anything else, and would exclude some excellent socs just because they give their members a bit of latitude. I say thank goodness for that, because that's the kind of soc that i personally prefer to belong to, but i do think that inter-soc rivalry, together with MA's criteria for "most -skilled" socs can mitigate against it (I've heard of ambitious socs kicking members for failing to skill-up fast enough, for example)

In conclusion I think that what you and I want is two completely different kinds of lists. I want to see some pretty complete lists that can tell me something about all the half-way prominent societies. How skilled they are, in comparison to other socs, what their specialisation is (if any) etc. You seem to want some kind of Premier Division league table. But what's the harm in having a more inclusive list? So long as it can be fixed so it doesn't exclude the uber socs, then you can easily compile your owwn Premier Division League Table out of it, by simply ignoring socs like mine. The more info available, the better, IMO.

jay

(BTW, there was a time when you could click on a soc and see stats for all the individual members of that soc. Now you only see that for the soc that you're a member of. I understand why the change- respect for the "hidden avatars"' privacy. But now the "Top socs" lists have the job of compensating for that loss of info, which is why they need to be more comprehensive, IMO)

 

[jaywalker]

interesting discussion.


As I see it there are some possible solutions.

Keep the "cutoff point" as it is now .. a fixed member count which are active within the given profession (globals)..

Or make it so that the soc needs at least 6 members active in the given profession, and then the score will be based on ALL members of the soc.
That way it truely will be an "elite" list or a "specialized list" in the sense that it will be near impossible to be ranked high on two separate lists (unless EU is your full time profession and you are made of money)..

As it is now the score is based on the total number of globals in the profession divided with the amount of people in the soc who got the globals.

Ie. 10 members, 6 has gotten 12 globals in mining the last 30 days.. Thus the score is 12 / 6 = 2.
If we do the "elite" way it will be 12 / 10 = 1.2..

It will give a better look into which socs are truely specialized in the professions... And to be honest.. I dont really care about it.. I feel that with the method im using now.. it gives each soc a fighting chance on each list. If I do the "elite" way it will perhaps scare some people away from socs because they have to be active within the "soc profession" to contribute to the soc's standing on ET.

Poll time?

I thoroughly agree with your reservation about the "elite" way. A futher point: it will also penalise "mentoring" socs, eg those like mine that are active in the "adopt a newbie" scheme, as each adoption will deduct points from the soc on all counts unless we tell the newbies "for Pete's sake don't join our Soc on Tracker" At a time when floods of noobs are coming in, and we all need them to stick around for the sake of the future of the game, this is entirely the wrong way to go!

and as I said above; what do we want: A) some useful info about all the socs or B) a Premier Division league table? I think B might be nice, but A is really important, and never more so than at present, with the aforementioned floods of noobs coming in, who can't really aspire to joining an uber soc anyway.

Maybe , to please the elitists , you can see your way to making two different lists? But please don't make it so you Have to be either super-specialised or uber, (as well as quick to kick the guy whose PC blew up) to have any kind of meaningful score

jay

 

[hojlund]

I like the Elite way, sometimes a very good motivation is to have something to go for.

Why not just create 2 lits, the generel overview list of activity and the "Top" list.

 

[mandu]

I like the Elite way, sometimes a very good motivation is to have something to go for.

Why not just create 2 lits, the generel overview list of activity and the "Top" list.

even better. Seconded!

 

[Noodles]

I'll add my thoughts to this interesting topic. Though those lists are of limited utility, I do admit to watching them and cheering for my society to rise a few ranks, and so appreciate having them available.

The biggest weakness that I see in the ranking calculation is that one (or two) people can cause a massive rise for an entire society. These people might spam CND with amps, craft 101's on condition, or just be very active players. Please note that I'm not singling out or judging any individuals or societies, just making an observation.

If the list is called, "Top Mining Socs," these societies with single aberrant individuals, in my opinion, should not necessarily be at the top of the list. I'd consider a top "society" to be one that has a number of strong contributors, not just one or two.

So here is a proposal, I hope that it is not too complicated. Calculate the score based on something similar to a "root mean square," with the root and the square reversed. The formula looks something like:

Score = [sum(globals1^0.5 + globals2^0.5 + ... + globalsN^0.5)/N]^2

Or you could use ^0.67 and ^1.5 as the exponents, e.g...as long as the exponent inside the sum is less than 1.

Now consider two hypothetical societies with six members. Society A scores 100 globals in a month, distributed 95,1,1,1,1,1. Society B scores 90 globals in a month, distributed 15,15,15,15,15,15. Under the current system, society A is ranked higher, with its one very active miner. Under the proposed system, Society A would score 6.04 points, while Society B would score 15 points, ranking Society B higher (and correctly higher, in my humble opinion). Exact scores can be adjusted with the choice of exponents.

Again, I'm not singling out any particular societies or individuals with this proposal (in fact my own society might well suffer from this sort of scoring system). Just proposing a way to give the word "Society" a stronger meaning. Feel free to discuss or ignore

 

[Starfinder]

So here is a proposal, I hope that it is not too complicated. Calculate the score based on something similar to a "root mean square," with the root and the square reversed. The formula looks something like:

Score = [sum(globals1^0.5 + globals2^0.5 + ... + globalsN^0.5)/N]^2

Also interesting.
How about including the value of the global into the equation as well then instead of just the "count" of globals.

Score = [sum(((globals1 * value1)^0.5) + ((globals2 * value2)^0.5) + ... + ((globalsN * valueN)^0.5))/N]^2

Or would that favour "amp miners at CND" too much?
How about rarety of the mineral then (in PED value)?

Each mineral has 100000 points for example.
If there has been two globals on this mineral in the last 30 days, then it would be 100000 / 2

factor1 = (100000 / number of globals on mineral X) * times this person has globalled on this mineral.

Score = Sum[((factor1 * value1)^0.5) + .... + ((factor1 * valueN)^0.5))/N]^2


That method rewards the soc who is finding (globalling) on rare minerals a lot...

 

[Pretender]

Also interesting.
How about including the value of the global into the equation as well then instead of just the "count" of globals.

Score = [sum(((globals1 * value1)^0.5) + ((globals2 * value2)^0.5) + ... + ((globalsN * valueN)^0.5))/N]^2

Or would that favour "amp miners at CND" too much?
How about rarety of the mineral then (in PED value)?

Each mineral has 100000 points for example.
If there has been two globals on this mineral in the last 30 days, then it would be 100000 / 2

factor1 = (100000 / number of globals on mineral X) * times this person has globalled on this mineral.

Score = Sum[((factor1 * value1)^0.5) + .... + ((factor1 * valueN)^0.5))/N]^2


That method rewards the soc who is finding (globalling) on rare minerals a lot...

seems fair imo, and would not be to hard to implement for hunting either, crafting might be different but it'd probably would have to be something with bp lvl + costs / something

 

[Xen]

not working again, for hunting at least

 

[Starfinder]

yeah.. had to format my computer.. and I dotn do backup's.. .. so.. the scheduler program was only on my local disk.. so that got lost.. when i rebuild it.. i forgot the socupdate thing.. its in again..