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
We can try, but any participant in the Tournament should have the right to challenge the decision of the committee by providing a better Walkthrough, for example, within a certain period after the official results are announced. But based on the experience of previous stages, such a committee will not be particularly needed.
Regarding the possibility of challenging – that’s correct, but only for Tournament participants!!! And as for the fact that the committee is not needed – is that really a problem... no budget money needs to be allocated for the committee meeting ;) Fireball;103149
Here, a simple vote is completely inappropriate. 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 anyone who comes in and clicks. It would be better to organize an expanded committee (about 15 people), discuss it, and then vote. Then it will make sense for those who want to form their own views on the system and present it to a fair assembly.
But no one is talking about a simple vote... of course, only Tournament participants should have the right and must participate in choosing the system.... and as for 15 people - you're exaggerating... their opinion might be more objective (which is not a fact), but it is better when everyone votes.... For example, I might not be on the committee, but why shouldn't I have the right to choose how my rating will be calculated?:smile32:
Personally, I would suggest including all organizers, winners (they are experts), and those who participated in a certain number of tournaments (e.g., 5) during the year in the voting process. The main thing is that the selection should be based on an objective criterion, and not just because someone is a nice person.
For example, I might not be included in the committee, but why shouldn't I have the right to choose how my rating will be calculated?
It is very difficult to satisfy everyone's wishes, but any regular tournament participant (and therefore you personally) will be able to influence the choice of the system.
The rating system isn't finalized yet. No system has been officially recognized. And I believe that only after receiving clear information in the form of the results from the WCG and WoW tournaments, will we be able to evaluate all the systems. Then we can choose, and then we can make it the standard.
This information won't be clear because there will be nothing to compare it to. It's impossible, by definition, to study the reliability of a closed system from within. Ideally, after receiving the final results for three different rating systems, we should compare them to some abstract standard, and the calculation system that produces the most reliable results could claim to be the best. But there is no standard, because it would itself be the optimal calculation system, and others wouldn't be needed...
Therefore, there's no point in waiting for the tournament series to end. It's better not to have illusions than to lose them later... :)
Added 7 minutes later Alex_R;103218
And no one is talking about a simple vote... of course, only the participants of the tournament should have the right and should participate in choosing the system... and about 15 people - you're exaggerating... their opinion might be more objective (which is not a fact), but it's better when everyone votes....
I don't want to offend anyone, I just doubt the rationality of your approach. To vote, you need at least an understanding of what you're voting for... And also, you need to have some basic mathematical knowledge... How many people, do you think, will delve into the essence of the rating calculation? And how much will your vote give you if it's accompanied by a comment like: "I didn't understand anything you wrote here, but I like option X - I got the highest score there." :)
This information won't be illustrative because there's nothing to compare it to. It's impossible, by definition, to investigate the validity of a closed system from within. Ideally, after obtaining the final results for three different rating systems, you should compare them to some abstract standard, and the calculation system that produces the most reliable results could claim to be the best. But, there is no standard because it would itself be the optimal calculation system, and others wouldn't be needed... Therefore, there's no point in waiting for the series of tournaments to finish. It's better not to have illusions than to lose them later... :)
There is no standard yet, but we can get closer to it... simply by comparing the final results not to some ideal system, but for each individual component, and hoping that there will be no contradictions.... After all, in principle, we have almost determined which components the formula should take into account... to put it all together, we need some coefficients (arbitrary), but we can conduct a separate analysis.... However, Fireball promised a ready-made formula.... And I support him in the idea that we can select appropriate coefficients for each comparison criterion!!!
It would also be good if the system took into account the size of the map and the minimum possible Walkthrough time. Perhaps that would be enough.
The first criterion does not provide any information about the difficulty of the map. The second is extremely subjective. Of course, if each map had a record of its Walkthrough time (regardless of who and where it was set), that would be a very powerful tool.
However, I will present one argument that will outweigh all the others – everything depends on the starting save. A different save allows you to complete the map several times faster (for example, having the Dimension Door spell in the pyramid near the starting castle will give an unattainable advantage on a "water-mountainous" map with complex logistics), and therefore only the saves of the participants in this tournament can be compared. And the existence of an optimal Walkthrough among them is very doubtful.
Therefore, both of these criteria will have to be disregarded.
Added 2 minutes later Alex_R;103290
There is no standard yet, but we can get closer to it... just compare the final results not with some ideal system, but with each individual component, and hope that there will be no contradictions....
Ah, if you provided clear examples to illustrate your words, it would be easier to understand what you are talking about...
I don't want to offend anyone, I just doubt the rationality of your approach. For voting, it is necessary to at least understand what you are voting for... And also have a minimum of mathematical knowledge... Do you think many people will delve into the essence of the rating calculation? And how much will your vote give you, if it is accompanied by such a comment - "I don't understand anything you wrote here, but I like option X - I got the highest score there". :)
The rationality of the approach is justified by the lack of a better one!!! Since it is not yet possible to clearly define a single rating calculation system, we need to take into account the opinions of the participants as much as possible.... In life, it's exactly the same... isn't
The rationality of the approach is justified by the lack of a better alternative!!! Since it is not yet possible to clearly define a single rating calculation system, we need to take into account the opinions of the participants as much as possible.... In life, it's exactly the same... isn't it?
I agree... But each vote should have a justification explaining why the voter acted in that way... And those votes whose justification is deemed "far-fetched" should not be taken into account in the final result... (don't ask "who decides" - it's clear that this should be done by experts). If this option suits you, then we can consider that we have reached an agreement... :) Otherwise, for example, I will
However, I will present one single argument that outweighs all others – everything depends on the starting save. A different save allows you to complete the map several times faster (for example, having the Dimension Door spell in the pyramid near the starting castle will give an insurmountable advantage on a "water-mountainous" map with complex logistics), and therefore only the saves of the participants in this tournament can be compared. And the presence of an optimal solution among them is very doubtful.
Unconvincing!!! ...because: 1) We have a fixed save, as well as all objects and possibilities on this map, therefore, it is possible to determine the minimum!!! At least, this component can be divided into two... "Theoretical minimum," which can be determined after the results, and the practical minimum, which will be equal to the leader's result!!! More often, they coincide!!! AmberSoler;103291
Ah, if you provided clear examples to explain your words, it would be easier to understand what you are talking about...
Starting from post #559, there is a discussion about the components that make up the ideal scoring system!!!
Starting from post #559, there's a discussion about the components that make up an ideal scoring system!
I remember that... :)
...the result (completion time), the relative result (place in the tournament), the strength of the tournament, the number of players, and many other important factors...
What do your words mean (?):
...simply compare the final results not with some ideal system, but for each individual component, and hope that there will be no contradictions....
Provide a clear example using abstract results from an abstract tournament, showing how you will compare the values for these indicators within a single tournament and how you will hope to avoid inconsistencies. How can you compare the strength of a tournament with the completion time? In my opinion, the problem lies in the very formulation of the question, which is why I asked for clarification...
I agree... But the voter must provide a valid reason for their decision... And the votes whose justification is deemed "far-fetched" should not be counted in the final result... (don't ask "who will decide" - it's clear that this should be done by experts). If this option suits you, then we can consider that we have reached an agreement... :) Otherwise, I, for example, will be against it; the explanation is above. Lenin's "cooks at the helm of the state" have repeatedly proven that everyone should do their own job...
With an incompetent governing body, even an erroneous opinion of the people is more just (to the people themselves) than a "far-fetched" decision from the governing body itself!!! And regarding whether I agree with your terms... I might agree, but it seems that it's not up to the two of us to decide... this issue can be resolved without your proposal or without my consent. ;)
Added 5 minutes later AmberSoler;103300
Provide a clear example using abstract results from an abstract tournament, showing how you will compare the values of these indicators within one (!) tournament and how you will ensure the absence of errors... How can you compare the strength of a tournament with the time it takes to complete it? In my opinion, the problem lies in the very formulation of the question, which is why I asked for clarification...
Coefficients will help us!!! And they, as well as the formula itself, are still under development!!! P.S. Everything can be compared... even a cow with a dog, and a dandelion with a helicopter!!!;)
When the governing body is incompetent, even an incorrect opinion of the people is more just (to the people themselves) than a far-fetched decision made by the governing body itself!!!
Well, since we're the only two discussing this right now, we can deviate from mathematics a bit and delve into the psychology of crowd behavior.
Look, if you give each individual in the crowd a voice (a part of the collective mind), but don't force them to take responsibility for the decision, the result will most likely be determined solely by the charisma of the leaders... The crowd is not rational, and its behavior is NOT the sum of the desires of all participants... The opinion of the people will not be "incorrect"; it will be shaped to favor a minority – which is why knowledgeable people find it convenient to hide behind democracy (which is what you're suggesting) to promote their own mercenary goals. The people, having been given a voice, don't know how to use it and hand it over to the first "expert" they come across... The main thing is to grab it quickly... :)
However, if you give each individual in the crowd a voice, but require them to take responsibility for their decision, then most people will not exercise this right at all, simply because their opinion is not formed. There are many reasons for this – a lack of interest in the topic, a lack of understanding of the processes, and so on... The final result will contain the opinions of a smaller number of people, but it will still reflect the opinions of all participants – only most of them will simply have a zero (no position), and this result will be more rational. Everyone who wants to can express their opinion. And if you have nothing to say, either think about it or just be quiet... But, most importantly, in this case, there will be no obvious distortion of the result... I'm voting for this person because he's a good friend of mine, or because he's from my village, etc. – these are distorting factors, and they need to be removed from the analysis. And that's what's being proposed.
Any anonymous voting, as a rule, does not lead to a fair outcome.
Well, this is just a theory... Although, to some extent, it is applicable to our conversation – the issue of making a final decision cannot be left to chance... :) Everyone votes! – that's not our approach...
Look, if you give each individual in the crowd a voice (a part of the collective mind), but don't force them to take responsibility for the decision made, the result will most likely be determined solely by the charisma of the leaders... The crowd is not rational, and its behavior is NOT the sum of the desires of all participants... The opinion of the people will not be "wrong"; it will be shaped to favor the minority – which is why knowledgeable people find it convenient to hide behind democracy (which is what you are suggesting) to promote their own mercenary goals. The people, having been given the right to vote, don't know how to use it and hand it over to the first "expert" they come across... The main thing is to grab it quickly... :)
If the people don't know, then who does? And regarding my "mercenary goals" – you made me laugh :smile40: .... You might as well say that I am currently the embodiment of Tymoshenko or Bush on the forum :) AmberSoler;103305
If, on the other hand, you give each individual in the crowd a voice, but require them to take responsibility for their decision, then most people will not exercise this right at all, simply because their opinion is not formed. There are many reasons for this – a lack of interest in the topic, a lack of understanding of the processes, and so on... The final result will contain the opinion of a smaller number of people, but it will still reflect the opinion of all participants – only most of them will simply have a zero (no position), and this result will be more rational. Everyone who wants to can express their opinion. And if you have nothing to say – either think about it, or just be quiet... But, most importantly, in this case, there will be no obvious distortion of the result... Any anonymous voting, as a rule, does not lead to a fair outcome.
What is the actual difference between me simply voting (without comments) for the system where I get a higher rating, and if I cleverly and wisely explain why I chose it? Will I be exposed?:smile10: I could even honestly write that I am pursuing personal interests... Do you think that everything around is honest and fair?AmberSoler;103305
Well, this is just a theory... Although to some extent it applies to our conversation – the question of making a final decision cannot be left to chance... :) Everyone votes! – this is not our option...
But the other options are only worse so far... let's modernize my option... for example, we can introduce a coefficient here... for example, the number of votes will depend on the number of games played multiplied by the average rating in the tournament!!! This is, of course, another obligation, but it will at least correspond to your requirements regarding mathematical skills and understanding of the situation....;)
P.S. Everything can be compared... even a cow to a dog, and a dandelion to a helicopter!!!;)
Not quite... For each pair, there are criteria by which they can be compared - for example, mass and apparent size. There are also criteria by which they cannot be compared - which is more useful, a cow or a helicopter? :D The same applies here - not all of the criteria mentioned above can be linked by coefficients. If you haven't tried to do this yourself, don't say that the task "is under development"... It can be developed endlessly and it won't become any simpler... :)
There is no way to prove that one or another calculation method more accurately reflects the player's strength. Most likely, there will be several calculation systems of the same degree of accuracy. And the one that is simpler should be chosen...
Added 2 minutes ago Alex_R;103307
Well, as for my "mercenary goals" - you made me laugh :smile40: .... You'll say next that I am now the embodiment of Tymoshenko or Bush on the forum :)
Hold on, what do you have to do with it? Don't tie my previous post to our calculations. It's just pure theory about what happens if you don't understand the essence of the concept of "democracy" ("power of the people") as a means of managing the crowd... And mercantilism in the general sense of the word is the pursuit of one's selfish goals under the guise of "everyone votes". We create the illusion of collective decision-making, and we embellish it so that any of our decisions will be recognized as collective... There is no need to draw any parallels - I made a reservation that this is just a distraction from the topic of conversation. And that's it.
Added 2 minutes ago Alex_R;103307
So, other options are only worse so far... let's modernize my option....
Well, there is some sense in this... Only then we will again put this principle up for a vote. And will we count the votes taking this principle into account or not? :D A vicious circle... Alex_R;103307
for example, we can introduce a coefficient here too... for example, the number of votes will depend on the number of games played multiplied by the average rating in the tournament!!! This is, of course, another obligation, but it will at least somehow meet your requirements regarding mathematical training and understanding of the situation...
The number of games and the average rating do not indicate an understanding of the essence of the calculation by the player. How many strong players are there who do not understand the difference between the arithmetic mean and the weighted average?.. I think there are many... Let them play, and those who know how to do it should do the calculations. IMHO.
- we ignore the theoretical minimum; there are many problems with it, but little benefit
- accounting for placement, result, number of participants, and their strength in the system is not a problem.
- calculating a rating across all game parts can be done simply. We keep track of each part separately, then divide by the leader's rating and multiply by 100, summing them up across all parts—weighting coefficients can also be used.
Choosing the System
- ordinary voting is garbage.
- to introduce the system, we can show graphs of its behavior under various conditions with a brief explanation of the advantages and disadvantages.
- the commission should include tournament organizers and their regular participants, but there is no point in making it too large.
- only elementary mathematical preparation is required, and besides, the authors of the systems can simply explain many things.
-taking into account the position, result, number of participants, and their strength in the system is not a problem.
Here is my rating system: 1) The result is taken into account (non-linear part). 2) The position is taken into account (linear part). 3) The number of participants and their strength are taken into account (bonus part. It depends on the number of participants and the average rating in the tournament). All of this already exists, but few people are satisfied with it.
Alex_R
