VDV_forever
Auto-translated
1. Has this calculation mechanism already been approved, or are changes possible?
Changes are possible, minimal ones!;)
2. How seriously do you personally take the point mentioned below?
I agree, it's less of a headache for me. Therefore, we exclude this point!:)
3. How justified is the use of a 1.5 coefficient for SUCH a tournament? Rough estimates show that you are adding a full two months of "penalty" gameplay time to participants who chose a Normal save in exchange for a small amount of resources... Imbalance. And for the future, this can be disputed — resources provide an advantage exclusively in the first days of a Walkthrough. After a week, they no longer matter... The computer's strength for Normal difficulty is the same as it is for Impossible.
A small amount of resources... How should I put this... To me, on the contrary, it's quite a lot. Normal is by definition easier, which is why the coefficient is lower! Everything is very well balanced! As for the future, less experienced players can eventually move to a harder level with a higher coefficient.
THE COEFFICIENTS AS WELL AS THE FORMULA PROPOSED BY IRONAXE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REVISION!:cool:
Do you think those who play on normal pay attention to the rating? I won't be categorical, of course, but nevertheless — with a very high probability, I think they don't particularly care about their rating... I don't want to offend anyone, but my understanding is this — if you want to participate in the rating, take impossible and fight. That will be the most worthy and respected choice.
That's exactly it: that is your opinion and understanding, but users are all different and everyone has different opinions. Some play strongly, some weakly!
If we follow your logic, then users who play on normal should not even be perceived as players! Do I understand you correctly?
:confused:
I assure you that many people play on normal, including in the offline Heroes 3 tournament currently taking place, and there will be no such discrimination on our resource as exists on other internet resources dedicated to Heroes.
What difficulty level did you yourself start playing Heroes on? I'm 90% sure it was NORMAL! So why should beginners play on the hardest immediately? Where is the logic?:confused:
P.S. I don't know of any other same-game internet resource where players are given the opportunity to play on several difficulty levels.
Let's see what percentage of tournament participants send a save from normal, and we will draw conclusions based on that...
Even if there is only 1 (and there are already more than one), I will be happy — happy that beginners also enjoyed the game and learned something, and took part in the tournament. I will be happy knowing that new and new players are coming to Heroes, who perhaps in the near future can show us veterans how it's done!;)
In my view, it is better to spend effort on teaching game mastery to all those interested so that they can comfortably start on impossible, rather than trying to fit tournament work under several player ranks. And there will be one save for everyone and no arguments or explanations... And it's better to do this as quickly as possible while there are still people willing to create something...
So who is stopping you from teaching? Teach, but you must not hinder those who want to start gradually! After all, one must understand that many play only for pleasure! Why should we deny them this? And if a beginner starts immediately on impossible, they might lose the desire to play Heroes AT ALL! Have you thought about that? Honestly?
Let me first figure out how many grails will be paid on normal and on impossible — is it the same?
It's simple: on normal, all accruals remain exactly the same as on impossible, except for the RATING (GRAIL) which will be reduced by half. i.e.
For first place 25 Grails, for second 23 (rounded), for third 20, etc. Skills, resources, description REMAIN UNCHANGED!
So that next time no one has to explain anything about difficulty levels, slightly inflated coefficients were introduced. These coefficients automatically clarify at what difficulty level one should strive to play. And the text about the rating explains that we will also count normal so as not to leave beginners without their starting rating, therefore we introduce such coef., especially since the accrual has experimental status and furthermore nothing prevents these players from increasing their rating in the future. If it were without these coefficients, I'd get tired of explaining what I wrote in the previous post. And regarding your point that no one should have to explain anything to anyone — well, here I am answering you how and why, even though no rating has been assigned to anyone yet. Suppose you don't need it, but there are other people who do. How to handle this? Deriving these damn formulas for the rest of my life and still not calculating anything. If you are aware, VDV already calculated a rating and is calculating one, but many didn't quite like that it constantly increased and therefore by definition cannot remove same-day ghost players. In the proposed system now, much is linked. There is rating aging; the rating can increase or decrease depending on the player's result taking days into account. Each person's rating is determined relative to the leader's result per day. The closer your result is to the leader's result per day, the higher it is. Obviously, the system isn't perfect, but it's something. Moreover, VDV put forward simplicity as one of the requirements for the system. Therefore, I believe that a rating system even in this form will be better than the one VDV used before. Have I explained everything more clearly now or what?
My system is also not perfect, but it is more or less acceptable for adequate Grail accrual. If there is a better one, we will definitely use it!
So, why am I saying all this? Because dividing by difficulty levels according to a fixed system leads to absolutely different results depending on the map. On large and complex maps, the advantage of normal is minimal. On small ones — undeniable. And how should this be accounted for in the rating? Is it really justified to apply a 1.5 coefficient in both cases?
It is absolutely justified, because you can never make identical maps. And these coefficients reflect the difficulty level, nothing more.
Hence the conclusion — one save, equal conditions, and therefore — an objective rating. In the case of several difficulty levels, there is no point in calculating a rating, because over time distortions will only accumulate... There is no other way.
I can say one thing for sure: normal is normal, impossible is impossible, and this coefficient clearly reflects this essence, since the rating of a player on impossible will be higher than the rating of a player on normal given equal placements! And distortions have absolutely nothing to do with it!
Esteemed VDV and Prorock, it seems to me this is excessive — it will only take up your precious time, which you already lack for everything. Tell me for God's sake, why do you need to know a valid reason for skipping ??? If they want to, they'll make up so many reasons you'll be crying out of pity for the person. Wouldn't it be better to allow skipping ONCE for any reason? That is, a player can play every other time in your tournaments without consequences for their rating aging. Why not ?
After I calculate the rating for the first time, I will track this point myself from my database. And then no one needs to report anything.
Ok ?
Yes, that's how we'll do it.
It is visible to the naked eye that eventually a system of playing from a single starting save for everyone will be approved. And the level will be impossible. We can even bet, if you want. To what extent must one not respect oneself to fight the computer on a lower difficulty level?
What are we betting on? I'm in! :D
WHAT DOES RESPECT HAVE TO DO WITH THIS? I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE A GOOD PLAYER, BUT THAT BY NO MEANS MEANS EVERYONE IS! I already said that there are players who play only on normal and only for PLEASURE. And at the same time, I know players who are ready to beat their heads against a wall just to see themselves in the top 10. So why should some play while others look at them from the sidelines? I don't understand you, AmberSoler?
I WILL REPEAT ONCE MORE THAT THERE WILL BE NO TOURNAMENT DISCRIMINATION ON OUR GAME RESOURCE!!!
We calculate the rating from this tournament and the difficulty coefficients will show where one should strive to play. But what VDV says about Grail accrual and points for the doll on this and that difficulty level — if he assigns them equally for equal places here and there, is that justified or not? I think it's time to implement AlexPanka's idea that accrued grails should depend on the number of players who sent saves for this and that difficulty level of a given tournament.
I will try to comment on the Grail calculation system proposed by the esteemed AlexeyPanko.
So, having analyzed the proposed system, I have come to several conclusions:
1. The idea with the number of participants is very interesting and requires attention, but only in CLAN wars with fixed tournament participants!
2. The system is relatively unstable according to the proposed scheme; let me explain with an example:
Esteemed AlexeyPank did a calculation for 10 participants of 1 tournament using the formula. Let's consider 2 tournaments.
Let's assume that 50 people played in 1 tournament (TOUR1)! In another tournament (TOUR 2), 4 people played.
We get that the winner of TOUR1 will receive ((50-1)*2*50)+1=4901 Grails!
And the winner of TOUR 2 will receive ((4-1)*2*4)+1)= 24 Grails!
Accordingly, the first 47!!! participants of TOUR1 will collect more grails than the winner of TOUR2! This is simply unacceptable in my understanding.
But that's not all! Let's continue:
The winner of TOUR1 with their 4901 Grails can purchase a completely full set of artifacts for their hero! While the winner of TOUR 2 will have to settle for a centaur's axe or a similar artifact at that price!
This will cause misunderstanding among participants and confusion for organizers.
Therefore, in connection with the above, I consider it my duty to leave the current system unchanged, at least for now!
3. The only addition to the Grail accrual system could be some difficulty coefficient, but who will determine it, and is it necessary? I think we shouldn't complicate our own lives. Especially since there is an experimental PLAYER RATING for this, which takes into account both the number of participants and the difficulty coefficient.
4. First and foremost, it is necessary to adhere to one ideology; otherwise, we will again mix flies with cutlets...
Conclusion: Grails will be accrued for all tournaments conducted by me according to the system currently in effect; tournament participants can exchange these Grails for artifacts, magic, and troops that will be included in the user's profile, and specifically for their hero! This is certainly the first large-scale experiment on our portal, and due to technical implementation difficulties (users cannot buy and attach artifacts, magic, or troops themselves), all transfers will go only through me, at least for now.
For the "Van Cunninghame" tournament, I suggest not deviating from the adopted system and boldly accruing Grails according to it.
For the Best of the Best tournament on normal, all accruals remain exactly the same as on impossible, except for the RATING (GRAIL) which will be reduced by half.
i.e.
For first place 25 Grails, for second 23 (rounded), for third 20, etc. Skills, resources, description REMAIN UNCHANGED!
Respectfully, VDV_forever
