AmberSoler
Auto-translated
Well, essentially, almost everything is stated correctly, except for one point that I will elaborate on below. So, two independent but mutually influencing ratings are to be considered.
1. Current rating. It dynamically reflects the current state of affairs, taking into account the player's actual result in the tournament and the player's activity.
Features:
1.1. The rating must undergo a mandatory periodic aging procedure. The aging coefficient determines the rate at which the rating results are updated. Obviously, the higher this coefficient, the greater the influence random factors have on the position of players in the table.
A leader’s accidental (forced) absence from a tournament (an objectively strong player) throws him down to the middle of the table at best, while a combination of negative circumstances for leaders can bring a random and not very strong player to the top spot. IronAxe’s argument – “let every player have a chance to be at the top” does not hold up because this “chance” is due not to the game itself (not to the strength of the player, as the rating should confirm), but to random failures of opponents, which have nothing to do with the game (missing one or two tournaments).
Therefore, I proposed reducing the aging coefficient to 1/10, which will increase the elasticity of the rating and prevent relatively random events from significantly affecting the ranking table. Stronger players will dominate weaker players for longer. This is what the rating should reflect, in my opinion.
Otherwise, the rating will only reflect the last one or two tournaments, which, if a leader doesn't participate, automatically deprives him of the right to be considered a strong player. But is that really the case? Naturally, refusing to compete gradually negates the player's rating (the rating will halve after six missed tournaments). Which seems closer to reality.
Note: by proposing to reduce the aging coefficient, I did not mean that aging would take place after each ranked tournament across all versions of the game. It was about only those tournaments in which the player can participate. If a player participates in a doubles tournament, then tournaments in a four-player format do not affect his rating. By “each” tournament, I meant that there would be no delays of a month and indulgences for missing a tournament for anyone – after a tournament is missed for any reason (within their version), the player’s rating must be recalculated. That is what was meant.
1.2. General current rating. Combining players into a single rating makes sense only when applying a uniform approach to conducting tournaments in different versions. With a different number of tournaments in different versions – which is the case, it is incorrect to compare players with each other due to the possible positive dynamics for some and "stagnation" for others, and this is not the player's fault. You can reflect the current rating, but it should not be compared; i.e., a player who occupies a higher position relative to his opponent from another version should not be considered a stronger player. Only players from one version will be compared with each other. In this case, the absurdity of bringing all players into a single table becomes obvious at first glance. This will not bring the expected effect from a unified rating.
2. Cyclic rating. It is maintained for a certain period of time, after which results are summed up, a winner is determined, and the result is reset.
2.1. It does not undergo an aging procedure, consists of the sum of tournament ratings for tournaments in which the player participated, accumulates its value over a specific and predetermined period, and is reset after the final results are announced.
3. Tournament rating.
Of the three proposed options, there were positive comments about option #1 (non-linear calculation based on comparing the leader’s result with the player’s result), as well as option #3 – an oscillator designed to adjust the first option depending on the total number of participants in the tournament, as well as their mutual positions. That is, the absolute result of a player does not guarantee him a fixed rating. Everything will also depend on how many participants his result surpassed in the tournament.
For example, completing a map in 25 days with a leader's result of 8 days will give the player a fixed 32 points (in a 100-point scoring system) according to the first option. In the case of an oscillator, if the player took second place at the same time (i.e., there is a large gap from the leader), then the oscillator will correct the result upwards due to the strong performance of the player. And if, at the same time, the player took one of the last places, the oscillator will hardly make any adjustments for this player. In other words, the player's result in the tournament is more objectively assessed, which is not the case in the calculation of option #1. Option #2 is linear and serves auxiliary functions for the oscillator.
I agree that the second (linear) component of the oscillator has an unequal impact on the participants in the tournament table, but this can be adjusted. The question is – should we introduce an oscillator at all?
4. Scale. It was proposed to introduce a 100-point scale for evaluation in order to have a more convenient mechanism for calculating (linking to a percentage scale) and possibly abandoning fractional numbers, i.e., operating only with integers.
5. Minimum guaranteed rating. It was proposed as an option to introduce a minimum guaranteed rating for participation. For example, 10 or 20 points. IronAxe’s position was opposite – it was argued that a bonus for participation could be offered through grimoires or something else, but the game rating has nothing to do with it. I agreed, recognizing this argument as convincing.
P.S. By the way, refusing a minimum guaranteed rating solves the problem with the oscillator. There is no longer a question of "pulling up" an outsider undeservedly high because both parameters are calculated from zero, and their average sum also tends towards zero...
6. Tournament qualification. It was proposed to introduce a coefficient reflecting the qualification of each individual tournament depending on the composition of the participants. To calculate it, the current rating of players will be used and compiled in the form of a quotient obtained by dividing the average rating of a certain number of leaders (for example, 5) participating in the tournament by the average rating of all participants in the tournament. The essence of this coefficient is: the higher the strength of the competitors, the higher the coefficient, the more significant the result of the player shown in the tournament. The coefficient increases the number of rating points awarded to the player for the tournament. This can somehow compensate for the imbalance caused by the appearance of a strong player in the tournament, who significantly “lowers” the bar with his exceptionally strong performance....
Here are the main points of the conversation briefly outlined.
All that remains is to make a final decision on each of the issues:
1. The value of the aging coefficient is 1/10.
2. Rating scale – 100-point.
3. Is it advisable to combine players into a single current rating if there is no tournament parity?
4. Final formula for calculating the tournament rating (non-linear formula or oscillator).
5. Minimum guaranteed rating.
6. A coefficient that increases the qualification of the tournament and its impact on the calculation of the rating.
P.S. And one more thing. Outside the discussion of the rating, there is a proposal, as an exception, not to apply the reducing coefficient to participants in the past BB tournament at the "Normal" level, but to take their result into account in the overall results (without depriving any of the "Impossible" players). It must be admitted that saving on "Normal" was no easier than saving on "Impossible," and sometimes even harder... :) But this issue remains within the competence of the respected VDV_forever. Still, rules are rules...
1. Current rating. It dynamically reflects the current state of affairs, taking into account the player's actual result in the tournament and the player's activity.
Features:
1.1. The rating must undergo a mandatory periodic aging procedure. The aging coefficient determines the rate at which the rating results are updated. Obviously, the higher this coefficient, the greater the influence random factors have on the position of players in the table.
A leader’s accidental (forced) absence from a tournament (an objectively strong player) throws him down to the middle of the table at best, while a combination of negative circumstances for leaders can bring a random and not very strong player to the top spot. IronAxe’s argument – “let every player have a chance to be at the top” does not hold up because this “chance” is due not to the game itself (not to the strength of the player, as the rating should confirm), but to random failures of opponents, which have nothing to do with the game (missing one or two tournaments).
Therefore, I proposed reducing the aging coefficient to 1/10, which will increase the elasticity of the rating and prevent relatively random events from significantly affecting the ranking table. Stronger players will dominate weaker players for longer. This is what the rating should reflect, in my opinion.
Otherwise, the rating will only reflect the last one or two tournaments, which, if a leader doesn't participate, automatically deprives him of the right to be considered a strong player. But is that really the case? Naturally, refusing to compete gradually negates the player's rating (the rating will halve after six missed tournaments). Which seems closer to reality.
Note: by proposing to reduce the aging coefficient, I did not mean that aging would take place after each ranked tournament across all versions of the game. It was about only those tournaments in which the player can participate. If a player participates in a doubles tournament, then tournaments in a four-player format do not affect his rating. By “each” tournament, I meant that there would be no delays of a month and indulgences for missing a tournament for anyone – after a tournament is missed for any reason (within their version), the player’s rating must be recalculated. That is what was meant.
1.2. General current rating. Combining players into a single rating makes sense only when applying a uniform approach to conducting tournaments in different versions. With a different number of tournaments in different versions – which is the case, it is incorrect to compare players with each other due to the possible positive dynamics for some and "stagnation" for others, and this is not the player's fault. You can reflect the current rating, but it should not be compared; i.e., a player who occupies a higher position relative to his opponent from another version should not be considered a stronger player. Only players from one version will be compared with each other. In this case, the absurdity of bringing all players into a single table becomes obvious at first glance. This will not bring the expected effect from a unified rating.
2. Cyclic rating. It is maintained for a certain period of time, after which results are summed up, a winner is determined, and the result is reset.
2.1. It does not undergo an aging procedure, consists of the sum of tournament ratings for tournaments in which the player participated, accumulates its value over a specific and predetermined period, and is reset after the final results are announced.
3. Tournament rating.
Of the three proposed options, there were positive comments about option #1 (non-linear calculation based on comparing the leader’s result with the player’s result), as well as option #3 – an oscillator designed to adjust the first option depending on the total number of participants in the tournament, as well as their mutual positions. That is, the absolute result of a player does not guarantee him a fixed rating. Everything will also depend on how many participants his result surpassed in the tournament.
For example, completing a map in 25 days with a leader's result of 8 days will give the player a fixed 32 points (in a 100-point scoring system) according to the first option. In the case of an oscillator, if the player took second place at the same time (i.e., there is a large gap from the leader), then the oscillator will correct the result upwards due to the strong performance of the player. And if, at the same time, the player took one of the last places, the oscillator will hardly make any adjustments for this player. In other words, the player's result in the tournament is more objectively assessed, which is not the case in the calculation of option #1. Option #2 is linear and serves auxiliary functions for the oscillator.
I agree that the second (linear) component of the oscillator has an unequal impact on the participants in the tournament table, but this can be adjusted. The question is – should we introduce an oscillator at all?
4. Scale. It was proposed to introduce a 100-point scale for evaluation in order to have a more convenient mechanism for calculating (linking to a percentage scale) and possibly abandoning fractional numbers, i.e., operating only with integers.
5. Minimum guaranteed rating. It was proposed as an option to introduce a minimum guaranteed rating for participation. For example, 10 or 20 points. IronAxe’s position was opposite – it was argued that a bonus for participation could be offered through grimoires or something else, but the game rating has nothing to do with it. I agreed, recognizing this argument as convincing.
P.S. By the way, refusing a minimum guaranteed rating solves the problem with the oscillator. There is no longer a question of "pulling up" an outsider undeservedly high because both parameters are calculated from zero, and their average sum also tends towards zero...
6. Tournament qualification. It was proposed to introduce a coefficient reflecting the qualification of each individual tournament depending on the composition of the participants. To calculate it, the current rating of players will be used and compiled in the form of a quotient obtained by dividing the average rating of a certain number of leaders (for example, 5) participating in the tournament by the average rating of all participants in the tournament. The essence of this coefficient is: the higher the strength of the competitors, the higher the coefficient, the more significant the result of the player shown in the tournament. The coefficient increases the number of rating points awarded to the player for the tournament. This can somehow compensate for the imbalance caused by the appearance of a strong player in the tournament, who significantly “lowers” the bar with his exceptionally strong performance....
Here are the main points of the conversation briefly outlined.
All that remains is to make a final decision on each of the issues:
1. The value of the aging coefficient is 1/10.
2. Rating scale – 100-point.
3. Is it advisable to combine players into a single current rating if there is no tournament parity?
4. Final formula for calculating the tournament rating (non-linear formula or oscillator).
5. Minimum guaranteed rating.
6. A coefficient that increases the qualification of the tournament and its impact on the calculation of the rating.
P.S. And one more thing. Outside the discussion of the rating, there is a proposal, as an exception, not to apply the reducing coefficient to participants in the past BB tournament at the "Normal" level, but to take their result into account in the overall results (without depriving any of the "Impossible" players). It must be admitted that saving on "Normal" was no easier than saving on "Impossible," and sometimes even harder... :) But this issue remains within the competence of the respected VDV_forever. Still, rules are rules...
