Patent Application
20160199739
The present invention relates to an information processing apparatus, an information processing method, a program, and an information storage medium wherein evaluation of an action carried out between a plurality of users or user groups is carried out.
When some action is carried out between a plurality of users (or user groups), for example, in a competition of a game, it is sometimes desired to evaluate a result of the action and carry out ranking. For example, in a competition of a game, it is desired to implement a process for calculating ranking of all users and finding a user having a strength substantially equal to that of a certain user on the basis of wins and losses in results where competitions are carried out among various users. Particularly, where a large number of users participate in a game, each of the users cannot be directly concerned with all of the remaining users and is concerned only with some users from among all of the users. In such a case as just described, it is difficult to simply juxtapose users and carry out ranking of all of the users on the basis of results of actions of users.
Therefore, in a technique so-called Elo rating system utilized, for example, in the chess or the like, the strength of each player is evaluated in the following manner. In particular, each player has points (rate) allotted thereto and, when a competition between players is carried out, the loser loses some allotted points while the winner acquires allotted points equal to those which the loser loses. At this time, the number of points transferred from the loser to the winner varies in response to a rate difference between the players before the competition. In particular, even if some player wins a different player having a lower rate than an own rate thereof (namely, a different player having a lower rank than an own rank of the player), only a small number of points are obtained. However, if some player wins a different player having a higher rate than an own rate thereof (namely, a different player having a higher rank than an own rank of the player), a great number of points are obtained. If the competition between the players is repetitively carried out in such a manner as just described, then each of the players comes to obtain a rate corresponding to the ability thereof. Therefore, by comparing the rates to each other, a difference of the ability between players who do not carry out a competition directly with each other can be evaluated.
The present invention has been made in view of such a situation as described above, and it is one of objects of the present invention to provide an information processing apparatus, an information processing method, a program, and an information storage medium wherein a user or a user group can be evaluated by a novel technique on the basis of results of actions carried out between users or user groups.
An information processing apparatus according to the present invention includes an action result acquisition unit configured to acquire, regarding a plurality of users or user groups, action result data indicative of a result of an action executed between the plurality of users or user groups, and an evaluation value calculation unit configured to execute a trace process by a plural number of times and calculate an evaluation value of each of the users or user groups in response to a number of times by which the user or user group is selected as a target in the plural number of times of the trace process, the trace process including a starting point selection process randomly selecting a user or a user group as a target from among the plurality of users or user groups, and a target selection process repetitively performing a process newly selecting, as a next target, an opponent user or opponent user group who has been an opponent of an action carried out by the user or user group selected as the target at present on a basis of the action result data until a predetermined condition is satisfied.
An information processing method according to the present invention includes a step of acquiring, regarding a plurality of users or user groups, action result data indicating results of actions carried out between the plurality of users or user groups, and a step of executing a trace process by a plural number of times and calculating an evaluation value of each of the users or user groups in response to a number of times by which the user or user group is selected as a target in the plural number of times of the trace process, the trace process including a starting point selection process randomly selecting a user or a user group as a target from among the plurality of users or user groups, and a target selection process repetitively performing a process newly selecting, as a next target, an opponent user or opponent user group who has been an opponent of an action carried out by the user or user group selected as the target at present on a basis of the action result data until a predetermined condition is satisfied.
A program according to the present invention is a program for causing a computer to function as an action result acquisition unit configured to acquire, regarding a plurality of users or user groups, action result data indicative of a result of an action executed between the plurality of users or user groups, and an evaluation value calculation unit configured to execute a trace process by a plural number of times and calculate an evaluation value of each of the users or user groups in response to a number of times by which the user or user group is selected as a target in the plural number of times of the trace process, the trace process including a starting point selection process randomly selecting a user or a user group as a target from among the plurality of users or user groups, and a target selection process repetitively performing a process newly selecting, as a next target, an opponent user or opponent user group who has been an opponent of an action carried out by the user or user group selected as the target at present on a basis of the action result data until a predetermined condition is satisfied. The program may be stored in a computer-readable information storage medium.
In the following, an embodiment of the present invention is described in detail with reference to the drawings.
In the following, a case is described in which, as a particular example of an action carried out between a plurality of users or user groups, a game competition between users is handled. In this case, any kind of a game may be applied if victory or defeat is determined by a competition between the users.
The totalization server 2 is a particular example of the information processing apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention, and includes a control unit 11, a storage unit 12, and a communication unit 13 as depicted in
The control unit 11 is a CPU or the like and carries out various information processes in accordance with a program stored in the storage unit 12. The storage unit 12 is configured from a memory device such as a RAM and stores a program to be executed by the control unit 11 and data which are a processing target by the program.
The communication unit 13 is a communication interface such as a LAN card, and the totalization server 2 carries out transmission and reception of data to and from the plurality of user terminals 3 and the game server 4 through the communication unit 13.
The game server 4 is a server computer which provides a play function of a competition type game and executes a process of a game played by the user of each of the user terminals 3. Since the user terminal 3 carries out communication with the game server 4, the user can play a game provided by the game server 4 through the user terminal 3 and can enjoy a competition with a different user. Further, the game server 4 transmits action result data indicative of a result of a competition to the totalization server 2.
A function implemented by the totalization server 2 is described below with reference to a functional block diagram of
The action result acquisition unit 21 acquires action result data indicative of a result of an action carried out between users. Since an action between the users which is an evaluation target is a competition of a game in the present embodiment, the action result data include information indicative of a result of a game competition carried out between the users. Such information as just described is acquired from the game server 4. For each combination of two users who carry out a competition of a game actually, the action result data includes at least information for specifying the two users and information indicating which user wins in a result of the competition. The information included in the action result data is used to configure a directed graph in which a user and a competition are indicated as a node and an edge (link), respectively.
Further, the action result data may include information relating to a result of a competition other than a win and a loss such as a score of a competition carried out between users. Further, the action result data may include information relating to a characteristic of a game of a competition (information of distinction between an easy mode and a hard mode or the like). Especially, if the two same users have carried out a competition therebetween by a plural number of times in the past, then the action result acquisition unit 21 may acquire, as the action result data, information obtained by totalization of the number of times of wins and losses in a competition by a plural number of times. For example, if a user A and a user B have carried out a competition by five times and a result of three wins and two losses is obtained, then the action result acquisition unit may acquire information indicative of the result of three wins and two losses (winning percentage: 60%). Further, where a score for each competition is recorded, a totalized value of the score may be acquired as information of a result of the competitions. For example, if a user A and a user B have carried out a competition by three times and results of 3:2, 1:0, and 0:4 are obtained, then the action result acquisition unit 21 may acquire information indicative of a score of 4:6. Further, information obtained by combining the two kinds of information described above may be acquired. It is to be noted that the action result acquisition unit 21 itself may carry out totalization of competition results to acquire totalized action result data or may acquire totalized action result data from the game server 4.
The evaluation value calculation unit 22 executes an evaluation value calculation process for analyzing the action result data acquired by the action result acquisition unit 21 to calculate an evaluation value of each of a plurality of users who utilize the information processing system 1. The evaluation value is used as an index value indicative of what degree of strength each user has in the game. The evaluation value calculation process in the present embodiment is on the basis of a sort of a random method (Monte Carlo method) and statistically calculates an evaluation value of each user by executing a trial using a random number (hereinafter referred to as trace process) by a plural number of times. Therefore, even if the evaluation value calculation process is carried out by a plural number of times for the same action result data, the same result may not always be obtained. However, by carrying out a trial by a sufficient number of times, the accuracy of the analysis can be enhanced. A particular example of the evaluation value calculation process is hereinafter described.
The evaluation information providing unit 23 transmits, in response to a request from a user terminal 3, various kinds of information according to the evaluation value calculated by the evaluation value calculation unit 22 to the user terminal 3 of the requesting source. Consequently, the user terminal 3 of the requesting source can display various kinds of information relating to a strength of a user such as, for example, ranking information of the user on a display screen thereof to provide the information to the user.
In the following, a particular example of the evaluation value calculation process executed by the evaluation value calculation unit 22 is described. Here, contents of the evaluation value calculation process are described taking, as an example, a case in which it is assumed that four users A to D play a game utilizing the information processing system 1 and action result data indicative of a result of the competition are made a target of the evaluation value calculation process.
Further, a concept of random tracer is introduced in the following description in order to explain contents of the trace process. In the trace process, one random tracer moves in accordance with a predetermined rule on such a directed graph as depicted in
Here, a flow of a trace process in one cycle is described with reference to a flow chart of
First, the evaluation value calculation unit 22 selects a first target user (starting point user) who is to serve as a starting point of a random tracer (S1). This starting point user is selected at random from among all users included in the action result data. In particular, all users have a chance that they are selected equally as a starting point user. Here, as a particular example, it is assumed that the user A is selected as a starting point user from among four users. The evaluation value calculation unit 22 adds one point to the evaluation value of the selected starting point user (here, the user A) (S2).
Then, the evaluation value calculation unit 22 decides whether or not there exists a user (winning user) who has a history that it has won the target user (S3). If it is decided at S3 that there exists no winning user, then since this signifies that a next movement destination of the random tracer does not exist, the evaluation value calculation unit 22 ends the trace process. On the other hand, if a winning user exists, then the evaluation value calculation unit 22 selects one user as a next target user on the basis of a rule determined in advance from among the winning users (S4). For example, if the target user is the user A, then according to the action result data, two users of the user B and the user C have won the user A as depicted in
Further, the evaluation value calculation unit 22 decides on the basis of a predetermined ending condition whether the random tracer is to actually hop to the node of the user selected at S4 or the movement of the random tracer is to be ended (S5). In particular, the evaluation value calculation unit 22 continues the movement of the random tracer on the basis of a fixed probability. For example, the evaluation value calculation unit 22 hops the random tracer to a next movement destination at a probability of 85% and ends the hop of the random tracer at a probability of 15%. The reason why such a process as just described is adopted is that it is intended to avoid such a state that the random tracer continues to move infinitely among a plurality of users having, for example, such a relationship as three-way standoff of rock-paper-scissors. By introducing the process at S5, it is possible to avoid that one random tracer continues to move infinitely and the movement is ended at a fixed probability. It is to be noted that, in place of or in addition to the probability condition described above, the evaluation value calculation unit 22 may unconditionally end any further movement of the random tracer which has repeated hopping by a fixed number of times counting from the node of the starting point user. Alternatively, the probability at which the movement of the random tracer is ended by the decision at S5 may be increased as the number of times of hopping of the random tracer increases. Further alternatively, if one random tracer selects a node passed once by the random tracer once more again, then since this signifies that the movement route forms a loop, the movement of the random tracer may be ended there. Alternatively, when one random tracer selects the same user as a target user by a predetermined number of times, the movement of the random tracer may be ended.
If it is decided at S5 that the movement of the random tracer is to be continued, then the evaluation value calculation unit 22 actually hops the random tracer to the node of the selected next target user at S4 and adds one point to the evaluation value of the user (S6). It is to be noted that, when one random tracer passes the node of the same user by a plural number of times, the incrementing of the evaluation value may be carried out only at the first time whereas the evaluation value is not incremented at the second and succeeding times. The evaluation value calculation unit 22 returns the processing to S3 and continues a process for causing the random tracer to hop to a further next movement destination. For example, it is assumed that one random tracer selects the user A as a starting point user and selects the user B and the user D in order as a target user by the trace process described above and then ends the movement. In this case, the evaluation values of the three users of the user A, the user B, and the user D are individually incremented by one point.
As described above, the evaluation value calculation unit 22 executes the trace process represented by the flow of
It is to be noted that the number N of times of the trace process executed in one cycle of the evaluation value calculation process is determined, for example, in response to the total number of users. Since the accuracy of the evaluation values increases as the execution time number N increases, where high accuracy is required as in the case where the order table of all users is to be made, it is preferable to increase the execution time number N. On the other hand, where the accuracy is not required very much, the execution time number N may be decreased in order to reduce the processing load.
Further, the evaluation value calculation unit 22 may use an evaluation value normalized by the execution time number N of the trace process for evaluation of a user. In this case, a final evaluation value is calculated by dividing an evaluation value obtained for each user as an accumulated value of the trace process by N times by N. If such normalization is applied, then, for example, when an evaluation value calculation process is executed every day using action result data indicative of a competition history till then, even if the evaluation value calculation result of the previous day and the today's evaluation value calculation result are different in the execution time number N of the trace process, the evaluation value obtained the previous day and the evaluation value obtained today can be compared with each other. Therefore, since the necessity to execute the trace process by an equal number of times in every time operation is eliminated, every time the evaluation value calculation process is executed, the execution time number N of the trace process can be changed in response to the processing load, required time period and so forth. Further, in place of the execution time number N of the trace process, an evaluation value may be normalized by the cumulative number of times of hopping in the trace process by totaling N times. Since this cumulative number of times of hopping coincides with the cumulative value of the point incremented for all users, by using this value, such normalization by which the total value of the evaluation values of all users becomes 1.0 can be carried out.
As described above, the evaluation value calculation unit 22 executes, at a certain point of time, an evaluation value calculation process using action result data relating to actions between users in the past accumulated till the point of time as a processing target. According to such a technique as just described, several problems appearing in such a technique as an Elo rating system in which exchange of a rate is carried out every time a competition is carried out can be avoided. For example, in an Elo rating system, it is known that, when three users having abilities equal to each other compete with other, an order effect that a difference appears in rating among the three users depending upon a competition order among them. Since this is a problem arising from that a rate is exchanged every time a competition is carried out, this does not occur in the evaluation value calculation process of the present embodiment in which an analysis is carried out using action result data after a competition is carried out by a plural number of times.
Further, in the Elo rating system, also a problem called local problem (island problem) occurs. As a particular example, it is assumed that a plurality of players belonging to a certain group A compete with each other and ratings corresponding to results of the competitions are given to the players while a plurality of players belonging to a different group B are given ratings on the basis of competition results in the group B similarly. If a player A1 belonging to the group A and a player B1 belonging to the group B compete with each other later, then in the Elo rating system, although a result of the competition is reflected on the ratings of the players A1 and B1 who competed directly with each other, the competition result is not reflected on the other players who belong to the groups A and B. Also this problem does not occur in the evaluation value calculation process of the present embodiment by which an analysis is carried out taking a directed graph which reflects all competition results of the players in the groups and the players between the groups as a target.
In the following, several modifications to the trace process are described. First, a modification to the selection criterion in the process of selecting a next target user indicated at S4 of
Alternatively, the evaluation value calculation unit 22 may determine, in response to the number of victory or defeat, which user is to be selected as a next target user and whether or not the random tracer is to be actually moved to the next target user. As a particular example, it is assumed that the competition record of the user A against the user B is 2 wins and 4 losses (more wins than losses of the user B) and the competition record between the user A and the user C is 2 winds and 2 losses (even). In this case, the total match number 10 of the user A is determined as the denominator, and the random tracer hops to the user B at a probability of 4/10 in accordance with the number of wins of the user B but hops to the user C at a probability of 2/10 in accordance with the number of wins 2 of the user C. Further, the movement of the random tracer is ended at a probability of 4/10 corresponding to the total number of wins 4 of the user A without hopping to any user. In the present example, the competition record between the user A and the user C totally is a draw. However, since the user C is two wins against the user A, even a case in which the random tracer hops from the user A to the user C occurs. Further, although the user A suffers more losses than wins, since the user A has two wins to the user B, the random tracer may hop from the user B to the user A. It is to be noted that a similar process may be carried out taking not the numbers of wins and losses but the sum total of obtained points and lost points as a target.
Alternatively, the evaluation value calculation unit 22 may evaluate the reliability of a competition history and use the evaluation result to select a next movement destination of the random tracer. Even if the number of wins of the user B to the user A is greater than the number of wins of the user C to the user A, where the absolute specimen number is small, there is the possibility that such a competition result as described may have been obtained by chance, and the reliability is low in comparison with that in an alternative case in which the number of specimens is great. Therefore, in the case where it is selected to which movement destination the random tracer is to be moved in response to the number of wins, where the total number of wins is small, the probability is varied at random. As a particular example, where the user B has one win to the user A and the user C has two wins to the user A, since the ratio in number of wins between the user B and the user C is 1:2, according to the example described above, the random tracer selects the user B at a probability of ⅓ and selects the user C at a probability of ⅔. On the other hand, also where the user B has 50 wins to the user A and the user C has 100 wins to the user A, since the ratio in number of wins is 1:2 similarly, one of the users B and C is selected at an equal probability. However, in the former example, the total numbers of wins of the user B and the user C to the user A are small (three), and therefore, the possibility that the ratio in number of wins may reflect the abilities correctly is low (in other words, the reliability of the data of wins and losses is low) in comparison with the latter example. Therefore, the evaluation value calculation unit 22 varies the probability at random taking the reliability into consideration, and selects the user B at a probability of ⅓+α and selects the user C at a probability of ⅔−α. Here, α is a value determined at random in response to the reliability of the action result data, and can assume positive and negative values centered at 0. The evaluation value calculation unit 22 decreases the deflection width of α as the reliability of the action result data increases to raise the possibility that the value of α approaches 0. On the contrary, where the reliability is low, the evaluation value calculation unit 22 increases the deflection width of α to increase the possibility that the absolute value of α may become high. By this, where the reliability of data is low, a random element can be taken into account when a next target user is to be determined. Where a movement destination of the random tracer is selected taking not the number of wins but the difference between the numbers of wins and losses, the winning percentage or the like into consideration, since it is considered that, where the number of specimens of data is small, the reliability is low similarly, the value of α may be increased as the number of specimens of data decreases.
When the reliability is to be determined, also a factor other than the number of specimens of data may be taken into consideration. For example, where the number of persons who compete with the user A is greater, the reliability may be higher. Alternatively, as the user A has played a game more lately, the reliability may be higher, and after a longer period of time elapses after the user A played last, the reliability may be lower. Further, where there is such a deviation that the winning percentage of the user A is extremely high or low, there may be the possibility that the winning percentage may not originate from ordinary game plays but may be artificial. Therefore, in such a case as described above, a next target user may be determined deciding that the reliability is low.
Now, a modification to the point added to the evaluation value of a target user set as a movement determination of the random tracer by the process at S6 is described. In the foregoing description, the number of points to be added to the evaluation value by passage of the random tracer is always 1, and therefore, the evaluation value obtained finally coincides with the number of times of passage by the random tracer. However, the evaluation value calculation unit 22 may otherwise change the number of points to be added to the evaluation value of a user corresponding to a node depending upon which movement route is followed by the random tracer until the random tracer reaches the node.
For example, the evaluation value calculation unit 22 changes the number of points to be added to a user corresponding to a node in response to the number of times of hopping until the random tracer reaches the node. In particular, the evaluation value calculation unit 22 may set the number of points to be added at S6 to each user at which the random tracer arrives after it hops one or more times so as to be greater than the number of points to be added to the starting point user at S2. Further, the number of points to be added may be determined such that, as the number of times of hopping until a certain node is reached increases (namely, as the number of target users selected till then increases), the number of points to be added to the user corresponding to the node may increase.
Alternatively, the evaluation value calculation unit 22 may change the number of points to be added to a certain noted user in response to contents of an action (number of competitions or the like) of a user before the random tracer hops to the node of the noted user (namely, an action of the defeated user defeated by the noted user). In particular, where the total number of competitions of the defeated user is small, it is estimated that the user has just started the game, and there is the possibility that, even if the noted user wins such a user as just described, this may not prove that the noted user has higher ability. Therefore, if the random tracer hops from a defeat user whose number of competitions is smaller than a predetermined value to the node of the winning user, the number of points to be added may be reduced from that where the random tracer hops from the defeat user whose number of competitions is equal to or greater than the predetermined number.
Further, the evaluation value calculation unit 22 may vary the number of points to be added to the noted user in response to an attribute of action result data corresponding to an edge along which the random tracer hops to the node of the noted user. For example, in the case where the random tracer hops from the user A to the user B, the number of points to be added to the user B is changed in response to when the competition between the user A and the user B is carried out. Where the competition history of the two is of competitions old in time, there is the possibility that the competition history may not reflect the ability at present. Therefore, when the random tracer hops following an edge corresponding to competitions in the old time, the number of points to be added to the user after the hopping is reduced. By this, an analysis in which a comparatively new competition history is emphasized can be carried out. It is to be noted that the evaluation value calculation unit 22 may carry out an evaluation value calculation process ignoring a competition history in the past by more than a fixed interval. By this, for example, a ranking according to competition records in the latest one week or one month can be generated.
In the foregoing description, competition results included in action result data indicate results of one-to-one game competitions by two users. However, the evaluation value calculation unit 22 may otherwise use a competition result of a team competition as an evaluation target. For example, if a directed graph is created assuming that, when the team A to which the users A1 and A2 belong and the team B to which the users B1 and B2 belong compete against each other and the user Al wins the users B1 and B2 and also the user A2 wins the users B1 and B2, then the strength of each user can be evaluated in a similar manner as in the case of individual competitions. In such a case, if the degree of contribution to the victory of each user who belongs to the winning team can be evaluated, then the movement destination of the random tracer may be selected in response to the degrees of contribution. As a particular example, in the case of such a game that the outcome of an entire team depends upon the cumulative of the scores acquired by the users belonging to the same team, to which one of a plurality of users belonging to the winning team the random tracer is to be hopped may be determined depending upon the scores acquired by the individual users. Alternatively, the probability at which each user is to be selected as a movement destination may be determined in accordance with a role of each user in team competitions. Further, while it is described in the foregoing description that an evaluation value is calculated in a unit of a user using a directed graph in which the user is regarded as a node, an evaluation value in a unit of a group may be calculated by carrying out an analysis of results of team competitions in which a user group (team) configured from a plurality of users is regarded as a node. In this case, the action result acquisition unit 21 acquires action result data indicative of results of actions (here, team competitions) carried out between user groups. Then, the evaluation value calculation unit 22 executes an evaluation value calculation process in which a user group is regarded as a node (evaluation unit) in place of a user described hereinabove and calculates evaluation values of each of the user groups.
Here, a particular example of information provided by the evaluation information providing unit 23 on the basis of evaluation values calculated by the evaluation value calculation unit 22. For example, the evaluation information providing unit may sort all users with an evaluation value to carry out ranking of the users and provide rank information of each user. In this case, rankings within different periods may be calculated by determining a today's competition result, competition results in this month, and all competition results so far as a processing target.
Further, the evaluation information providing unit 23 may select a user (recommendable user) who becomes a candidate for an opponent with whom the requesting user is to carry out a game competition subsequently and provide information of the recommendable user to the requesting user in accordance with a request from the requesting user. Further, in this case, the evaluation information providing unit 23 may provide information relating to actions carried out in the past between the recommendable user and the requesting user to the requesting user. As a particular example, the evaluation information providing unit 23 selects a user whose evaluation value is proximate to that of the requesting user as a recommendable user. Alternatively, the evaluation information providing unit 23 may select a user whose evaluation value is higher than that of the requesting user (namely, a user whose ability is higher than that of the requesting user) or a user whose evaluation value is lower as a recommendable user.
The embodiment of the present invention is not limited to that described above. For example, while, in the embodiment described above, the game server 4 carries out processing of a game, each user terminal 3 may execute processing of a game such that, upon game competition, the user terminal 3 directly exchange data to and from the user terminal 3 of the opponent.
Further, in the foregoing description, the evaluation value calculation unit 22 selects a user who wins a target user during execution of a trace process as a next target user. However, not only a winning user, but also a user whose competition result with the target user is a draw may be made selectable as a new target user. Further, the evaluation value calculation unit 22 may not select a winning user but select a user defeated by the target user as a new target user. In this case, a user having a competition result by being defected by other users is provided with a higher evaluation value. Therefore, ranking of users can be obtained by sorting the users in the ascending order of the evaluation value obtained by the evaluation value calculation process.
Further, the processing target to be determined by the totalization server 2 in the embodiment of the present invention is not limited to action result data representative of competition results of a game, and the management server 2 may determine data relating to results of actions carried out between various users as a processing target. As a particular example, each user may input information of evaluation of an opponent when a game completion is carried out, and the totalization server 2 may analyze action result data indicative of contents of evaluation obtained by such information inputting to calculate an evaluation value indicative of in what manner each user is evaluated by an opponent or opponents. In this example, the game server 4 acquires and accumulates information indicative of evaluation of an opponent from each user when game competitions are carried out. Then, the game server 4 provides action result data indicative of contents of such evaluation to the totalization server 2 separately from action result data indicative of competition results. This evaluation may relate to whether the play of the opponent is good, whether the opponent is fair, or whether the opponent is preferable as an opponent, and may not necessarily relate to the ability of the game. For example, when the user A takes action to positively evaluate the user B, a directed graph having an edge from the user A representing such an action result toward the user B can be created. The evaluation value calculation unit 22 carries out, for the directed graph, a trace process similar to that in the case of competition results. In particular, where the user A evaluates the users B and C and is selected as a target user at present, the evaluation value calculation unit 22 selects one of the users B and C as a next target user, hops the random tracer to the node of the selected user and adds a point to the evaluation value of the node. By carrying out such an analysis as just described, the evaluation value calculation unit 22 can calculate an evaluation value of each user such that a user who is evaluated by a greater number of users has a higher evaluation value and a user who is evaluated by a user evaluated high has a higher evaluation value.
In the example described above, when contents of evaluation carried out by a user are indicated by multi stages, the evaluation value calculation unit 22 may select a movement destination of the random tracer at such a probability that a user who receives a higher evaluation is more liable to be selected by using the evaluation contents similarly as a score of a game. Further, when a certain user carries out a competition with a particular user by a plural number of times, evaluation may possibly be carried out every time a competition is carried out. In such a case, a movement destination of the random tracer may be selected at such a probability that a user who is evaluated by a greater number of times is more liable to be selected making use of the number of times of evaluation similarly as the outcome of a competition.
Further, also in a social networking service and so forth, it is performed by each user to comment in regard to remarks of other users or to operate a button to indicate some positive or negative evaluation with regard to remarks of other users. Therefore, also evaluation actions carried out between such users can be determined as an evaluation target similarly as in the evaluation of game competitions described hereinabove.
1 Information processing system, 2 Totalization server, User terminal, 4 Game server, 11 Control unit, 12 Storage unit, 13 Communication unit, 21 Action result acquisition unit, 22 Evaluation value calculation unit, 23 Evaluation information providing unit.
| Number | Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2013-181631 | Sep 2013 | JP | national |
| Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCT/JP2014/063516 | 5/21/2014 | WO | 00 |
