Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.Auto-translated
"This rating does not reflect the player's strength in comparison to others. Rather, it serves as a demonstration of how well the player navigates the diverse world of Might and Magic!"
We will note this in the final report. In fact, that was the idea – to compare only players who have completed at least 6 stages, otherwise, it would be incomparable.
That' same way it will probably go. And at the same time, at least 19 pages of "flood" will need to be deleted. But that is also a simple matter.
unless, of course, his wording doesn't include a phrase something like this: "This rating in no way reflects the player's strength compared to others. Rather, it is simply for demonstration purposes and shows how freely the player navigates the entire diversity of the world of Might and Magic!"
If a mass tournament similar to Van Kanigem were held, rather than one where only a few people participate in most stages, then its results could be used to name the strongest offline players who think versatilely, rather than those who have just trained for a specific version. But for now, this is not feasible.
My bonus directly depends on the average strength of the tournament. It was also not taken out of thin air, but from tennis, where a strong player receives a lower rating for winning against a weak player than a weak player receives for winning against a strong player. Starting from the second round of the tournament, this bonus comes into effect.
Now this is interesting!!! :) Since I believe that the rules are created and adjusted before the start of the tournament, and not during it, the rating calculation systems should remain as they are. However, if someone... for example, Fireball... comes up with a new system that would be more suitable for calculating ratings, then, in principle, we can make an exception and put it to a vote!:smile42:
Let a new system emerge. If it can simultaneously take into account the absolute result (completion time), the relative result (position in the tournament), the strength of the tournament, the number of players, and many other important factors, then its creator deserves a monument.
It would also be good if the system took into account the size of the map.
And what does this have to do with anything? Who said that it's easier to play on Might & Magic than on Heroes of Might and Magic, or vice versa? And the map limit is determined by far more than just its size.
minimum possible completion time
It's easy to take this into account, but how do you determine this minimum? Sometimes it's obvious after the tournament is over, and sometimes it's not.
Iron had the idea to set limits for maps of different sizes. I don't know if he's taking them into account now or not.
And the second point is indeed very complex. But it is precisely this that provides an objective level for the tournament (even if it consists only of champions, but they are 20 days behind the minimum completion time, then the tournament level will be low).
The second point is indeed very difficult. But it is precisely what provides the objective level of the tournament
Let's consider 5 stages of VK: 1. The winner had 12, and if 11 was even possible, then everything depended on the AI behavior. 2. 7 out of 7 3. 7 out of 7 4. 3 out of 3 5. I assume that the map is completed in 7 days (well, no more than 8), the winner had 9. I failed to implement what was intended only due to a huge lack of time (I only had one evening). Plus, I was unlucky with the generations (if I had been lucky, I would have managed even in one evening). So we see that in at least 4 out of 5 Tournaments (and maybe all 5, if I am mistaken about Heroes 5), the winners did everything perfectly. And I think this is not a coincidence, but a pattern. Consequently, the minimum completion correction can be ignored; it is far too poorly defined.
A formula with 4 variables is a minor issue. I can write it for you tomorrow. It will be quite logical (consistent with ALL previously discussed basic principles), it will pass the test for extreme cases, etc., but what's the point? Some coefficients will still have to be chosen arbitrarily, this formula will not be the only possible one (immediately questions like, why exactly like this?), and most importantly, it will be just one of many systems existing on the portal, and everything will remain as it was.
I believe that choosing from the rating systems makes sense at the end of the year, after the completion of the King's Bounty and Warriors of the North tournaments. All the results should be put up for open discussion, and then a decision can be made. Simply put, without sufficient data, it was difficult to choose a rating system, which is why all the systems have been in use simultaneously.
5. I believe the map can be completed in 7 days (or at most 8), and the winner took 9. I didn't achieve what I intended only because of the huge lack of time (I only had one evening). Plus, I wasn't lucky with the map generation (if I had been, I would have been able to finish it in one evening). So, we can conclude that in at least 4 out of 5 tournaments (and maybe all 5, if I was wrong about Heroes 5), the winners did everything perfectly. And I think this is not a coincidence, but a pattern. Therefore, we can forget about adjusting the minimum completion time, as it is too poorly defined.
There's no need to speculate... just create a commission from the top 5 players and, based on votes supported by facts or logically sound arguments, decide what the minimum time should be for this map! For example, we could try this on the 6th stage of Van Koningen's map!!!
Added 4 minutes later Fireball;103016
A formula with 4 variables is a minor thing. I can write it for you tomorrow. It will be quite logical (consistent with ALL previously discussed basic principles), it will stand up to checks on extreme cases, etc., but what's the point? Some coefficients will still have to be taken arbitrarily, this formula will not be the only possible one (immediately questions like, "why exactly like this?"), and most importantly, it will be just one of many systems existing on the portal, and everything will remain as it was.
Regarding the coefficients taken arbitrarily, there's nothing wrong with that... there are many such examples in physics and mathematics... there will, of course, be questions, but this can be solved (by justifying the chosen coefficient). And regarding the fact that this will be another system... what's wrong with that? In the end, I, like many others, haven't voted yet...; I hope there won't be any disputes, but we can always reset the voting and do a new one at the end of the tournament!
No need to guess... just create a commission from the top 5 players and, based on votes supported by facts or logically sound arguments, decide on the minimum score for this map! For example, we could try this on the 6th stage of Van Koningen's campaign!!!
We can try, but any tournament participant should have the right to challenge the commission's decision by providing a better walkthrough themselves, for example, within a certain period after the official results are announced. But, based on the experience of previous stages, such a commission will probably not be very necessary.
And regarding the fact that this will be yet another system... what's so bad about that... in the end... I, like many others, haven't voted yet... I hope there won't be any disputes, but you can always reset the voting and hold a new one at the end of the tournament!!!
A simple vote is not suitable here. To objectively cast your vote, you need to constantly participate in tournaments or their organization, carefully study the behavior of various systems in various cases, etc., and not just have anyone who happens to be around cast a vote. It would be better to organize an expanded commission (about 15 people), have a discussion, and then vote. That way, it will make sense for those who want to form their own views on the system and present it to a fair assembly.
It was simply difficult to choose a rating without enough material.
Only estimated information about the range of the number of participants (and their average number) is needed. Well, maybe also about the range of results. And, as it seems to me, there is already enough of this information.
I think it makes sense to choose from rating calculation systems at the end of the year, after the Van Koningen and War of the Vikings tournaments are completed.
The rating is the law by which the winner in Van Koningen is determined. And the law does not have retroactive effect.
Fifteen people on the commission – where will we find so many? How many people are actually involved in discussing the ranking? Much fewer. The ranking is not yet finalized. No system has been officially recognized yet. And I believe that only after receiving clear information in the form of the results of the Mapmaking Contest and the Tournament of the Week, will we be able to evaluate all the systems. Then we will choose, and then we will make it official.
AlexeyPank
