VDV_forever
Auto-translated
Here's what it means to be absent for 4 days...
I've managed to grasp almost all the information, and I'll try to comment very briefly.
First, let me clarify that GRAILS and the GAME RATING are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!
For calculating GRAILS, the scoring system must be strictly fixed!
I'm tired of explaining why...
They should be awarded according to the scheme that is currently in effect.
P.S. Soon, a special section dedicated to GRAILS will be created! Where you can discuss, criticize, and express your opinion, and much more.
Initially, I started responding to each post
AnberSoler, post #20:
1) I agree
2) For calculating the rating, yes, there are no Grails. Or do you mean something else?
3) Why do you think that a system based on the number of participants will be more effective than a fixed system? Personally, I don't think so, and I have repeatedly given examples:
Well, okay, I'll give another one:
Rating calculation according to your system
a Heroes 1 tournament was held, with 3 participants.
Player_1 took 1st place
Player_2 took 2nd place
Player_3 took 3rd place
We get:
Player_1 - 23
Player_2 - 21.5
Player_3 - 20 points
A Heroes 3 tournament was held, with 10 participants.
Player_1 - 65 points
Player_2 - 60 points
Player_10 - 20 points
Where is the fairness?
According to my system, or IronAxe's system, the result for 1st place is fixed, and the first places will receive the same number of rating points!
It is impossible to give preference to one tournament or another; all tournaments are good; choose to your taste!
P.S. Although, for the sake of experimentation, we can introduce your system and see which one works better.
4) I agree
5) I agree
6) Thank you for your concern, but it is more convenient for me to use a table with a number for each save when preparing the report. That's why I introduced this requirement.
Alan, post #27: Can you explain to me how your system differs from mine? Of course, apart from the numbers.
I understand that in your scheme, points are assigned fixed and do not depend on the number of participants.
7) I told IronAxe that you shouldn't age the rating, as this will lead to an imbalance...
To be honest, I don't like the aging either.
Sage, AmberSoler, you are absolutely right; the RATING SHOULD BE SEPARATE FOR ALL PARTS OF HEROES! I don't think there's anything to discuss here!
AmberSoler, post #32: Yes, you are probably right about the 50 participants and 2/3. But where were you before?
In any case, my system is best suited for awarding Grails, at least for now... Well, let's think about calculating the GAME RATING.
Regarding the two saves, it is up to the respected AlexeyPanky to decide; I think that one save is enough for this tournament.
,but then I realized that this is not realistic, so I will answer specific questions-answers.
Post 122, AmberSoler
1) Current rating - I agree
2) Cyclic rating - I agree
3) Tournament rating - either I didn't read it carefully, or I don't understand, but why introduce it if there is a Current rating and a Cyclic rating?
Please explain to me:o
4) Scale - I agree
5) Minimum guaranteed rating - not needed.
6) Tournament qualification. How will you determine who is strong and who is weak? Take the situation when a very strong, new player comes along and wins with a huge advantage! What then? I think this point is absolutely unnecessary. It will be very problematic to introduce such a coefficient, and there will be endless questions from participants related to a different coefficient... Why complicate things?
Regarding the two saves, there will still be 2 saves in the Best of the Best tournament. I will try to significantly change them in terms of difficulty next time.
That's all for now:o
Thank you for the lively discussion, dear AmberSoler, IronAxe, Sage!
It's very nice to read your posts! My brain is just boiling, so don't be offended that I didn't read this dialogue to the end; I'm just tired, I swear:o
P.S. Let's come to a common decision and calculate the rating according to this system!
With great respect, VDV_forever
I've managed to grasp almost all the information, and I'll try to comment very briefly.
First, let me clarify that GRAILS and the GAME RATING are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!
For calculating GRAILS, the scoring system must be strictly fixed!
I'm tired of explaining why...
They should be awarded according to the scheme that is currently in effect.
P.S. Soon, a special section dedicated to GRAILS will be created! Where you can discuss, criticize, and express your opinion, and much more.
Initially, I started responding to each post
AnberSoler, post #20:
1) I agree
2) For calculating the rating, yes, there are no Grails. Or do you mean something else?
3) Why do you think that a system based on the number of participants will be more effective than a fixed system? Personally, I don't think so, and I have repeatedly given examples:
Well, okay, I'll give another one:
Rating calculation according to your system
a Heroes 1 tournament was held, with 3 participants.
Player_1 took 1st place
Player_2 took 2nd place
Player_3 took 3rd place
We get:
Player_1 - 23
Player_2 - 21.5
Player_3 - 20 points
A Heroes 3 tournament was held, with 10 participants.
Player_1 - 65 points
Player_2 - 60 points
Player_10 - 20 points
Where is the fairness?
According to my system, or IronAxe's system, the result for 1st place is fixed, and the first places will receive the same number of rating points!
It is impossible to give preference to one tournament or another; all tournaments are good; choose to your taste!
P.S. Although, for the sake of experimentation, we can introduce your system and see which one works better.
4) I agree
5) I agree
6) Thank you for your concern, but it is more convenient for me to use a table with a number for each save when preparing the report. That's why I introduced this requirement.
Alan, post #27: Can you explain to me how your system differs from mine? Of course, apart from the numbers.
I understand that in your scheme, points are assigned fixed and do not depend on the number of participants.
7) I told IronAxe that you shouldn't age the rating, as this will lead to an imbalance...
To be honest, I don't like the aging either.
Sage, AmberSoler, you are absolutely right; the RATING SHOULD BE SEPARATE FOR ALL PARTS OF HEROES! I don't think there's anything to discuss here!
AmberSoler, post #32: Yes, you are probably right about the 50 participants and 2/3. But where were you before?
In any case, my system is best suited for awarding Grails, at least for now... Well, let's think about calculating the GAME RATING.
Regarding the two saves, it is up to the respected AlexeyPanky to decide; I think that one save is enough for this tournament.
,but then I realized that this is not realistic, so I will answer specific questions-answers.
Post 122, AmberSoler
1) Current rating - I agree
2) Cyclic rating - I agree
3) Tournament rating - either I didn't read it carefully, or I don't understand, but why introduce it if there is a Current rating and a Cyclic rating?
Please explain to me:o
4) Scale - I agree
5) Minimum guaranteed rating - not needed.
6) Tournament qualification. How will you determine who is strong and who is weak? Take the situation when a very strong, new player comes along and wins with a huge advantage! What then? I think this point is absolutely unnecessary. It will be very problematic to introduce such a coefficient, and there will be endless questions from participants related to a different coefficient... Why complicate things?
Regarding the two saves, there will still be 2 saves in the Best of the Best tournament. I will try to significantly change them in terms of difficulty next time.
That's all for now:o
Thank you for the lively discussion, dear AmberSoler, IronAxe, Sage!
It's very nice to read your posts! My brain is just boiling, so don't be offended that I didn't read this dialogue to the end; I'm just tired, I swear:o
P.S. Let's come to a common decision and calculate the rating according to this system!
With great respect, VDV_forever
