DmitriyAS
Auto-translated
I already told you that you are a great clown – such characters are always in fashion. You create a favorable environment for others. It's fun for others. Life isn't so boring with you.
Sage, please provide a couple more examples of a similar rating system from sports (specifically for the "athlete") – otherwise, he won't calm down until he gets a good kick in the pants.
Your reactions to my examples in the style of "whatever" are very informative. Well, time waits for no one, your turn to enter the arena... The circus applauds!
Judging by the decrease in morale, I'm not the only one who doesn't like this circus. But all is not lost. Perhaps the administration will remind everyone of the forum rules.
Added 3 hours 54 minutes ago
Let's get to the point:
The rating system proposed by IronAxe is undoubtedly suitable for summarizing the results of a single tournament.
It is not suitable for calculating several tournaments, and the creator himself stated this.
If we summarize the results of several tournaments, we can discover its flaw, namely, considering the difference in results between participants in the tournament over several tournaments, we undertake the obligation that:
- the maps in these tournaments were of the same size, which is, in principle, impossible even within a single version of the game, let alone "mismatched" stages in memory of Van Kanegem.
- the maps in these tournaments were of the same complexity, which is also impossible.
- the task for the tournament within a single version of Heroes was the same.
As we can see, it is impossible to create an ideal situation to ensure that players have equal opportunities to "improve" their rating.
That is, in each of the tournaments, players have different potential opportunities to create a "difference," even with the same amount of effort and time invested by each of them. Therefore, when considering the difference in results, one player may get so far ahead of the competitors on that map (tournament), where it actually provides such an opportunity, that it will be unattainable, no matter how hard the competitors try to catch up. The competition is lost.
Let's take the multi-event competition (athletics) mentioned by Sage. In each of the events, a balanced system is used to reward athletes for each unit of result. That is, each meter, each second of the result is multiplied by a coefficient that is calculated empirically. This system allows athletes to compete until the last event, identifying the winner. That is, in each of the subsequent stages of the multi-event, athletes have the same chance to improve their score compared to the previous one. And even if you introduce a standard unit of measurement for the Van Kanegem tournaments (days), different versions of Heroes create that very mess that will arise when considering the difference in results. If there are several such measurement systems (days, skeletons, experience), this does not reduce the subjectivity, since the opportunities for a difference in results when completing speedruns in days, collecting skeletons, or gaining experience are absolutely different.
This is a significant drawback, much more significant than the "free" rating you mentioned, which, allegedly, the system I proposed gives. There is no freebie; you take a place, you get rating points. Again, the difference in results can only be applied to a specific tournament. But if it is not needed to create a general rating, then why create confusion?
A multi-day cycling race. A huge distance (about 1000-1500 m) is divided into stages. The difference in results at the end of the stage goes into the overall standings. In the next stage, the athletes start together again.
That is, in heroic terms, this is like completing one large campaign in Heroes. Something similar can be seen in the "race for the leader" tournament.
But there are still the same "buts." In essence, a multi-day race is one large road divided into stages. You get on your bike and pedal, earning yourself a lead. Everything is straightforward.
In Heroes, however, the version of the game, different maps, and different tasks for the tournaments turn the overall rating into such a mishmash when considering the difference in results that no one will like it.
Therefore, there is only one way out: to consider only the place taken when calculating the rating, both in individual tournaments and in the overall rating for several offline tournaments. The main thing is to preserve the principle of competition, which I have repeatedly spoken about.
In order to somehow level the difference in the class of players (it is this class that affects the "free" rating, according to your statements), it is necessary to hold qualifying tournaments and create several leagues, as you rightly noted, which is currently not possible. So for now, we will have to be content with what we have.
Sage, please provide a couple more examples of a similar rating system from sports (specifically for the "athlete") – otherwise, he won't calm down until he gets a good kick in the pants.
Your reactions to my examples in the style of "whatever" are very informative. Well, time waits for no one, your turn to enter the arena... The circus applauds!
Judging by the decrease in morale, I'm not the only one who doesn't like this circus. But all is not lost. Perhaps the administration will remind everyone of the forum rules.
Added 3 hours 54 minutes ago
Let's get to the point:
The rating system proposed by IronAxe is undoubtedly suitable for summarizing the results of a single tournament.
It is not suitable for calculating several tournaments, and the creator himself stated this.
If we summarize the results of several tournaments, we can discover its flaw, namely, considering the difference in results between participants in the tournament over several tournaments, we undertake the obligation that:
- the maps in these tournaments were of the same size, which is, in principle, impossible even within a single version of the game, let alone "mismatched" stages in memory of Van Kanegem.
- the maps in these tournaments were of the same complexity, which is also impossible.
- the task for the tournament within a single version of Heroes was the same.
As we can see, it is impossible to create an ideal situation to ensure that players have equal opportunities to "improve" their rating.
That is, in each of the tournaments, players have different potential opportunities to create a "difference," even with the same amount of effort and time invested by each of them. Therefore, when considering the difference in results, one player may get so far ahead of the competitors on that map (tournament), where it actually provides such an opportunity, that it will be unattainable, no matter how hard the competitors try to catch up. The competition is lost.
Let's take the multi-event competition (athletics) mentioned by Sage. In each of the events, a balanced system is used to reward athletes for each unit of result. That is, each meter, each second of the result is multiplied by a coefficient that is calculated empirically. This system allows athletes to compete until the last event, identifying the winner. That is, in each of the subsequent stages of the multi-event, athletes have the same chance to improve their score compared to the previous one. And even if you introduce a standard unit of measurement for the Van Kanegem tournaments (days), different versions of Heroes create that very mess that will arise when considering the difference in results. If there are several such measurement systems (days, skeletons, experience), this does not reduce the subjectivity, since the opportunities for a difference in results when completing speedruns in days, collecting skeletons, or gaining experience are absolutely different.
This is a significant drawback, much more significant than the "free" rating you mentioned, which, allegedly, the system I proposed gives. There is no freebie; you take a place, you get rating points. Again, the difference in results can only be applied to a specific tournament. But if it is not needed to create a general rating, then why create confusion?
A multi-day cycling race. A huge distance (about 1000-1500 m) is divided into stages. The difference in results at the end of the stage goes into the overall standings. In the next stage, the athletes start together again.
That is, in heroic terms, this is like completing one large campaign in Heroes. Something similar can be seen in the "race for the leader" tournament.
But there are still the same "buts." In essence, a multi-day race is one large road divided into stages. You get on your bike and pedal, earning yourself a lead. Everything is straightforward.
In Heroes, however, the version of the game, different maps, and different tasks for the tournaments turn the overall rating into such a mishmash when considering the difference in results that no one will like it.
Therefore, there is only one way out: to consider only the place taken when calculating the rating, both in individual tournaments and in the overall rating for several offline tournaments. The main thing is to preserve the principle of competition, which I have repeatedly spoken about.
In order to somehow level the difference in the class of players (it is this class that affects the "free" rating, according to your statements), it is necessary to hold qualifying tournaments and create several leagues, as you rightly noted, which is currently not possible. So for now, we will have to be content with what we have.
