Posts from Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

In this thread, I propose that we discuss a unified ranking system for tournaments across different installments of the Heroes series, specifically for the tournament “named after Van Canningham.”
Currently, the following rating proposals exist:
1 - /topic/1565/ - the rating proposed by Iron Axe and VDV_forever.
2 - /topic/1406/ - the rating proposed by VDV_forever.
3 - /topic/at/47275/ - the rating proposed by me.
4 - A rating based on combining the first and second ratings.
5 - A rating based on combining the first and third ratings.
6 - A rating based on combining the first and third ratings + a certain prize pool distributed in a specific proportion.
The overall game rating will be calculated ONLY for players who have participated in at least 3/5 stages of the tournament (for the "Van Canningham" tournament; for other tournaments, the ratio may change). This proposal was made by Alan, and I would like to thank him separately.
Also, please pay attention to posts #8 and #9 and express your opinion regarding them.
I ask everyone to share their suggestions and vote. The ranking system that wins the voting will have the opportunity to become definitive on our forum (if other tournament organizers agree).

The first option calculates a purely game-based rating! The second option calculates both a purely game-based rating and the number of grail rewards for the placement in the tournament! The third option calculates the number of grail rewards for the placement in the tournament! DEAR FORUM MEMBERS, PLEASE PARTICIPATE ACTIVELY IN THIS POLL, spend 10 minutes reading the options - it's not that much, and vote for one of the options or leave your suggestion. Only 4 people voted out of 22 views - does everyone not care?

Yes, indeed, please be more active. And please don't hesitate to express your suggestions; they will all be taken into account. The "Van Cunningham" tournament should start in February, but we haven't yet reached a consensus on how to determine the results.

Comrades, let's be active... the tournament starts soon...

What about the player receiving a specific currency, for example gold, for certain achievements (participation in Tournaments, helping with projects...)? This gold would be kept in their wallet and accumulate throughout the year; they could use it to buy everything: experience, skills, troops... etc. All prices would be taken accordingly from Heroes. That way, everyone creates their own hero all year long, and at the end of the year, the best are determined—not necessarily a fixed number of people, maybe around five, but if one or two others are close to those five in terms of development, I think it makes sense to add them too. And let's say five heroes emerge at the end; then in December, a separate tournament is held for them, while for everyone else there is a General tournament—meaning anyone who wants to join—where they have to take down exactly those five heroes, so to speak, for fun. Then, by the next New Year, the overall winner is announced, and after same, everything starts from scratch.

Sorry, I haven't been very active in the discussions about player ratings... so I'll ask a small question first, and then I'll write my suggestions and wishes...
1. Do you want a single rating for the different parts of the game?

Sorry, I haven't been very actively involved in the discussions about rankings... so I'll ask a small question, and then I'll write my suggestions and wishes...
1. Do you want a single ranking for the different parts of Heroes?

Ideally, yes.

I just don't understand... how can you create a General rating for different games? It's like trying to figure out who jumps better, a pole vaulter, or someone who just jumps, or jumps for distance... Let's say someone takes first place in two games, and someone else takes first and second place in four games, and second place in five games. So what? Does that mean the first player is better than the second? In my opinion, it's nonsense; their abilities don't overlap, and they can't be compared. Now, regarding the rating system itself, I think the simplest approach is to award points for each placement (e.g., 1st place = 20 points, 2nd place = 16 points, 3rd place = 13 points, 4th place = 11 points, 5th place = 10 points, etc.). If you miss a Tournament, that's your problem, however harsh it may sound. You are organizing Heroes Tournaments... All these bonus points for resources/skills, etc., in my opinion, shouldn't be taken into account (it's like runners competing in a 100-meter race, and before the start, they are told, "the prize fund is 100,000, and the winner will receive it. But the one with the most blue stripes on their shorts and red squares on their t-shirt will receive 10,000"). Each stage should have a specific task (e.g., win the map in the shortest time), and points should be awarded accordingly. If there is a tie in the priority tasks, you can determine the winner within the Tournament itself based on some alternative criteria, but this shouldn't affect the General rating. So, I've expressed my opinion a bit chaotically... If you have any questions, feel free to ask, and I'll participate in the discussion. P.S. I selected the "None" option in the poll.

The purpose of this thread is to determine a unified ranking system for tournaments held across multiple versions of the game. For example, one tournament might have one stage played on version III, and another stage played on version IV. To create an overall ranking and determine the winner of such a tournament, we need to establish a unified ranking system. This is the core of the problem.

I recently had an idea. What if each tournament in each version awards a certain amount of "currency"? Then, we could establish an exchange rate for this "currency" relative to the Grail (based on the number of participants in each version)? This would eliminate the issue of a winner in a tournament with five players being ranked lower than 40th place in a tournament with fifty players.

Actually, the calculation of the in-game rating was proposed in only one version (No. 1), and it is precisely suitable for calculating the overall rating across all versions of the game (at least within the framework of the "Van Kaningen" tournament). Versions 2 and 3 have nothing to do with the in-game rating! They only provide an opportunity to experiment with creating a hero in a user profile.

A purely gameplay-based rating includes an element of aging. But how do you account for aging if not everyone will play all versions? That's why it's necessary to somehow combine such a rating with Grails.

I would like to hear your opinion on my idea with different "currencies" to make it easier to convert everything into Grails later?

Some changes suggested by Alan have been made to the first post.

Since it is impossible to make changes to the poll, AlexeyPank and I decided to present my proposal regarding the ranking in a separate post. As before, I don't fully approve of comparing players from different games in one table. However, thanks to our discussion with AlexeyPank, we have developed a compromise. Here it is: My proposed method for calculating points for a map is the standard distribution adopted in many types of sports competitions. Depending on the position taken, a certain number of points are awarded (the balance of these points still needs to be determined; read my post #8 in this thread for more details). And the winner will be determined within a series of games for ONE installment. Now, regarding the overall ranking, it will include players who have played at least 60% or 3/5 of the total number of games from the series of "Van Canningham" tournaments. Thus, this is no longer a comparison of results from different games, but an indicator of a player's versatility. And the winner will be determined by the highest number of points, regardless of the number of matches played, as long as it exceeds the established quota. And finally, if we can reach an agreement with the Admin, I propose adding incentive prizes to the profile. For example, "participant in all stages of the tournament," and so on. That's basically it. Since it was not possible to add an option to the poll, I ask you to express both positive and negative feedback on this proposal. P.S. I also join the other requests to be more active in this thread 8)). Best regards, Alan.

A purely game-based rating includes an element of aging. But how do you account for aging if not everyone will play all versions? That's why it's necessary to somehow combine this rating with Grails. I would like to hear your opinions on my idea with different "currencies" to make it easier to convert everything into Grails later?
Some changes suggested by Alan have been made to the first post.

In the system I proposed, the leader in any tournament receives 50 points. The rating for the rest is calculated based on how close their result is to the leader's, day by day, on a given map. Therefore, combining this rating for tournaments with 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 heroes is not a problem. The issue is aging. An alternative: if a player has played at least one of the rated tournaments within a month, then aging is not applied to them in other versions. And if this rating is also common, then there are no problems at all. In the summary rating table, they have what they have. So stop creating multiple currencies, you counterfeiters :)

The problem lies in the rewards. They don't depend on the rating. But they need to be calculated somehow. That's why I suggest using "currencies" so that there are no questions about why the winner among five players can only buy a keychain, while the third place among fifty can buy the entire set of artwork. :)

That’s why I suggest using “currencies” so there are no questions about why the winner among five players can only buy a keychain, while third place among fifty can buy the entire set of artwork. :)

Well, this only applies to the system you proposed. There is no such inconsistency in VDV_forever's system.