Overall rating for all games. — Rating systems.

No ratings yet — be the first to rate!

1
2
3
Next
Last

AlexeyPank

19 years ago

Auto-translated

I tried to calculate the general rating across all parts. I only considered tournaments with more than five participants, namely: the first Heroes 5 tournament, the first Heroes 1 tournament, the second Heroes 2 tournament, the New Year's Heroes 2 tournament, the Heroes 3 BB tournament, all three stages of VK, and the skeleton collection tournament.
I used the following formulas for the calculation:
1 - R1(n)=S(1)/S(n)*100, where R1(n) is the player's non-linear rating, S(1) is the leader's result, and S(n) is the player's result.
2 - R2(n)=100-100/(N-1)*(n-1), where R2(n) is the player's linear rating, N is the number of placed positions, n is the position of the player being considered, and the minimum result = 5 points.
3 - Oscillator R(n)=(R1(n)+R2(n))/2
4 - Bonus = ((R(i) - M(i))/N)*square root of K, N is the number of participants, R(i) is the player's position in the rating of that tournament considering everyone's ratings, M(i) is the player's place in the tournament, and K is the tournament coefficient, equal to the average rating of that tournament for all players.
I suggest everyone review the results.

Kyle

19 years ago

Auto-translated

Excellent, that's exactly how the King's Bounty tournament should be calculated. And the overall player rating as well. Just add the average player rating as a table, "Final table for all versions (sum of all ratings), just for clarity," and a time limit. And no aging! I believe this is the most optimal option.

In reply to Kyle

IronAxe

19 years ago

Auto-translated

Kyle;64888

Excellent, this is exactly how the King's Bounty tournament should be calculated. And the overall player rating as well. Just add the average player rating as a table: "Final table for all versions (sum of all ratings), just for clarity," and a time limit. And no aging! I believe this is the most optimal option.

Carthage must be destroyed.

AlexeyPank

19 years ago

Auto-translated

I suggest creating a separate thread where rankings for all calculation versions will be posted. This will prevent those who are looking for specific information from having to search through a dozen different threads. What do you think?

In reply to AlexeyPank

IronAxe

19 years ago

Auto-translated

AlexeyPank;69942

I suggest creating a separate thread where ratings for all calculation versions will be posted. This is so that those interested aren't burdened by searching for the necessary information across a dozen different threads. What do you say to that?

You mean creating a separate SECTION for THREADS regarding various types of rating calculations. It makes no sense to mix all types of calculations into one thread. I'm not against it, but let the administration move my thread to the correct section themselves — I'm somewhat doubting my own ability to move it. Just so as not to break anything :)
I'm asking what's up with that empty space thing — everyone is silent :(

Oops, pardon — they ALREADY fixed it !! Creator — thank you for the prompt intervention!
But compressing the tags was a mistake :) Updating information will be difficult, but I'll try to bring everything back to normal after the next tournament. I'll remember about the tbody tag now :)

AlexeyPank

19 years ago

Auto-translated

The final rankings, updated to include the results of the recent tournament, have been added to the attachment of the first post. Those interested can review them.

Fireball

19 years ago

Auto-translated

It's a bit strange. Zingel took 1st place in the tournament, but he's in 2nd place in the ranking. And Kyle is the opposite.
P.S. As far as I understand, there's a typo in the "oscillator" column in my result in the "Official Tournament Results" thread.

In reply to Fireball

IronAxe

19 years ago

Auto-translated

Fireball;71874

It's a bit strange. Zingel took 1st place in the tournament, but he's in 2nd place in the ranking. And Kyle is the opposite.
P.S. As far as I understand, there's a typo in the "oscillator" column in my result in the "Official Tournament Results" thread.

AlexPank. Who calculates the rating or points, or whatever it is, for the Canighem tournament? We wanted to get the winners purely based on the Canighem tournament, without taking into account any previous tournaments, right?
PS. And regarding your question, Fireball. I think it's very difficult to calculate and track this bonus coefficient in the AlexPanka system, I mean for the average user. So, you noticed an error in your oscillator – that's good, but try to check if the bonus was calculated correctly for you? AlexPank – there's also a typo in your nickname for the last player – fix it! Yes, AlexPanka has the most time-consuming process for calculating the rating, so I give him kudos for this work ;) And now, explaining why someone overtook someone else is a real challenge :)

Fireball

19 years ago

Auto-translated

P.S. Regarding your question, Fireball. I think it's very difficult to calculate and track this bonus coefficient in the AlexPanka system, especially for the average user. So, you noticed an error in the oscillator – that's good, but try checking if your bonus was calculated correctly. AlexPank, there's also a typo in your username – fix it! Yes, AlexPanka has the most complex rating calculation process, which is why I give him extra points for this work. And now, explaining why someone overtook someone else...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can quite easily understand the arithmetic of the calculation, but the result is somewhat surprising. In my opinion, the winner should always have the highest rating, and if this is not the case, the rating should be adjusted. As I understand it, AlexeyPank took on the task of taking several parameters into account in his rating, and not just the ratio of days, but the formulas should always give a logical result, i.e., the positions in the rating should match the positions in the tournament.

In reply to Fireball

IronAxe

19 years ago

Auto-translated

Fireball;71918

I can easily understand the arithmetic behind the calculation, but its result is somewhat surprising. In my opinion, the winner should always have the highest rating, and if this is not the case, the rating should be adjusted. As I understand it, AlexeyPank took on the task of considering several parameters in his rating, not just the ratio of days, but the formulas themselves should always produce a logical result, i.e., the positions in the rating should match the positions in the tournament.

The thing is, the bonus coefficient is calculated in a tricky way. It takes into account the previous results of the players. You'

Fireball

19 years ago

Auto-translated

Therefore, I think a situation where the placements do not match the rating is acceptable. But whether it is correct or not, I am no longer arguing.That is why I would like to hear the author's opinion on the logic of such a shuffle as applied to this specific case.

You better tell me, do you have any complaints about my rating or not?As such, I have no complaints about author ratings at all; that is why they are called author ratings. It only makes sense to criticize the official rating—for example, the one by which the winner of the Van Kanigem tournament will be announced (I simply do not know who was chosen)—and even then, it's not up to me. But if you are interested in my opinion on your rating, I find it quite appealing, as well as the very idea of dependence on the days ratio parameter. As a weak point, I would highlight the fact that this dependence is relatively weak. It seems to me that it should be strengthened—for example, by squaring it.

AlexeyPank

19 years ago

Auto-translated

Indeed, the bonus coefficient depends on previous results. Since Zingel participated in the previous tournament and took third place, while Kyle did not participate, Kyle's bonus is higher. That's why he performed better in this particular tournament. But overall, considering the results in the first Heroes game, Zingel is still higher. The bonus coefficient encourages improvement compared to one's previous result. That is, if you took fifth place in one tournament, to receive a bonus in the next tournament, you must take at least fourth place. Newcomers always receive a higher rating (they are, in any case, higher than themselves in the previous tournament where they did not participate). But their cumulative result will still generally be lower than that of experienced players (at least after one tournament). I will start publishing the rankings for the VK tournament starting from the second stage, when it will differ from the ranking of a single tournament. Bonuses will only be taken into account for VK and separately for each version. But I can also publish the results of the first stage now, if there are such requests.

Kyle

19 years ago

Auto-translated

to AlexeyPank: so, isn't the rating that appears in the topic: OFFICIAL TOURNAMENT RESULTS! a ranking for the War of Kings tournament?
or am I missing something?...

AlexeyPank

19 years ago

Auto-translated

This is the ranking for the first Heroes game, taking into account the previous tournament. The rankings for ВК are posted separately. They are available for public viewing. All three systems.

In reply to AlexeyPank

IronAxe

19 years ago

Auto-translated

AlexeyPank;72696

Indeed, the bonus coefficient depends on previous results.
.....
The point is that the bonus coefficient encourages improvement compared to one's own previous result. That is, if you took fifth place in one tournament, to receive a bonus in the next tournament, you must take at least fourth place.
.....

In general, the explanation is understandable, but it also reminds me of something AmberSoler mentioned, albeit from a slightly different perspective. That is, a somewhat illogical situation arises. Three players play in the first tournament and take 1st, 2nd, and, say, 5th place. In the second tournament, the first two players also take 1st and 2nd place. And the third takes 3rd place. The first two players do not receive a bonus, EVEN THOUGH they did not play worse. And the third improved their position by 2 places and receives a bonus and may overtake the first two in the ranking. On what basis? Especially if we assume that the players who took 3rd and 4th place in the first tournament simply DID NOT SHOW UP for the second tournament!? On what basis, then, does the third player receive a bonus in the second tournament? The situation is exacerbated if, in addition to everything else, we assume that, in relation to the leader's result, the third player performed even worse in days in the second tournament than in the first, but again, took third place in the second simply because the 3rd and 4th players did not show up. Is this possible? At least theoretically? That is, again, it turns out that taking places into account can introduce an imbalance in the calculation. I don't want to and won't deal with this, but I raised this issue again because new players have become interested in these questions.