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 have 15 players who have a clearly defined rating. Their sum is the criterion, i.e., 10*60+5*20=700, which is clear. Next, you adjust the final sum by an amount equal to the number of players with a formed rating multiplied by the average beginner's rating... Why? The essence of this adjustment is not intuitively clear...
I tried to explain the essence of this adjustment in post 612 . If such a notation causes intuitive misunderstanding and rejection, it can easily be replaced with ∑(Ri)+20(or 30)*n(a) . I repeat, physically it is almost the same thing. If this is simpler and more visual, let it be so; from now on in all discussions we will calculate using this, only specifying the beginner's rating . After all, the main idea is clear: each participant increases (linearly, but not significantly) the tournament coefficient.
I tried to explain the essence of this correction in post 612. If such a notation causes intuitive misunderstanding and rejection, it can easily be replaced with ∑(Ri)+20(or 30)*n(a) . I repeat, physically it is almost the same. If it is simpler and clearer this way, then let it be so, from now on, in all discussions, we will use this calculation, but we will specify the beginner's rating. After all, the main idea is clear: each participant increases (linearly, but not significantly) the tournament coefficient.
The problem is that we have a misunderstanding of the notation format, and from this, all other discrepancies arise in the discussion. Let me explain.
1. ∑(Ri)+20*n(a) = R(1)+R(2)+...+R(i-1)+R(i)+20*n(a) This is exactly how I understand the algebraic notation of the formula and propose this method of interpreting it.
2. Your version: ∑(Ri+a)+20*n(a) = R(1)+20+R(2)+20+...+R(i-1)+20+R(i)+20+20*n(a)
That is, you each time consider 20 as an addend when forming the expansion of the formula into a series... This is not correct.
That is, you are not taking into account the parentheses in the formula notation again:
I've been thinking about the rating again. After all, the minimum Walkthrough time (in theory) is a necessary element for accounting for the strength of a tournament. For example, the winner completed the map in X days. But theoretically, it can be completed in X/2 days. In that case, the real tournament coefficient will be K=(X/2)/X=0.5. The strength of the tournament will be: S=K*(Average value of the linear rating). This coefficient can be inserted into my bonus formula. Bonus=((M(r)-M(t))/n)*sqrt(S), where M(r) is the player's rank in the rating, M(t) is the place in the tournament, and n is the number of players. To make this bonus more significant, an increasing coefficient can be introduced. This coefficient can essentially be arbitrary, as it will affect everyone equally. Of course, the increasing coefficient could be linked to what VDV_forever proposed for Grails: Regular tournament = 1. VK stage = 1.4 VoV = 1.6
I didn't say that the formulas are mathematically equivalent. And I didn't say that ∑(Ri)+20*n(a) is equal to ∑(Ri+20).
I said that they are physically equivalent, i.e., they describe the same model in a similar way.
In post 616, I wrote:
∑(Ri)+20 (or 30)*n(a) I repeat, physically, this is almost the same. If it's simpler and clearer this way, let it be. From now on, in all discussions, we will use this formula, but we will specify the beginner's rating.
I ask you to read my posts more carefully (although I understand that they are long). I may have missed a parenthesis once, assuming it was clear anyway. But now I can't make mistakes in the formulas (because I double-check them) and I can't misinterpret mathematical symbols.
To avoid further misunderstandings between us, we define the multiplier as:
(∑(Ri) (summation for those with a rating) + 20 (or 30)*n (number of beginners)) / 1000
And we move on to further discussion
I thought about the rating again. The minimum completion time (in theory) is still a necessary element for assessing the strength of a Tournament.
Absolutely correct. However, this (theoretical) minimum cannot be determined unambiguously... And if you say that "these guys believe that the map can be completed in N days," for me, it will be the same as "these guys believe that your rating is X"... This is a theory that cannot be proven. And conversely, if you say that you do not know anyone who has completed the map faster than N days, this does not mean that such people do not exist...
Therefore, the map completion limit itself cannot be taken as a criterion because it is unknown. And it cannot be proven. And someone's opinion should not be the basis for making a decision. So, let's start with an evidence-based approach. But this is not solvable... Why build castles in the air? It is not worth focusing on the map's completion limit.
Sorry for the academic style of presentation... ;) Fireball;103589
(∑(Ri)(summation over those with a rating) + 20 (or 30) * n (number of newcomers))/1000 And we move on to further discussion.
Fireball;103537
Of course, I calculated using the original formula: (10*(60+20)+5*20)/1000=0.9
Your two posts are not related to each other. The inconsistency is highlighted in red... Unfortunately, I cannot yet understand your calculation mechanism.
For some reason, nothing is highlighted in red for me, but it's not important.
These posts are separated in time. The second quote is from post 620, where I agree to modify the formula (now the coefficient will be 0.7 in the described case). And the first quote is from post 612, where such an agreement did not yet exist. You calculated using one formula, and I used another, which are physically equivalent but NOT mathematically. Obviously, we were getting different NUMERICAL results.
Now there is an agreement; for the accepted formula, the coefficient is 0.7. I hope this resolves the issue.
Regarding the map minimum:
AmberSoler is right about the evidence base. And here, there can only be one – a completed walkthrough with the best result. That is, some tournament participant must spend additional time on a new walkthrough to reduce their own rating (instead of participating in a new tournament to increase it)? Or even worse, allow a non-participant to use the winners' month-long efforts to then reduce their rating? This could seriously damage the relationships between forum members. Do we need that?
Even without any prior gameplay data. You can still simply apply an increasing coefficient to the rating, and consider newcomers not a priori as the worst, but a priori as having a strength of 1/3. I will try to recalculate the ratings with these changes and see the results.
I'm a bit confused here... Please explain to a newbie what stage the development of the new ranking system is in, or whether the existing one is being reworked... Almost every time I log in and try to read about it, but when I try to understand, I feel sick from such detailed explanations... Thanks in advance for clarifying.
sigh.. naive... I know one person who I think would want to argue... :D
I won't argue much :) I have very little time right now. The sixth stage of Kanigem is ending - and I haven't even downloaded the map yet :( I've abandoned my alternative Rating, I can't get myself together. I hope I still find the time to recalculate all the missed tournaments, so that by the end of the year I can compare all three systems used by AlexPank for calculating ratings with his alternative one featuring aging. I intend to calculate a blitz tournament of five rounds in it as follows: I'll sum up each player's ratings over the five rounds. The leader gets 100 points for their figure. For the others, depending on how far their figures lag behind the leader, I'll calculate based on my own formula. That's it. The alternative Rating will do just fine as is. But how will AlexPank calculate the rating for a blitz in one of the three rating systems he manages called the "IronAxe system"? I would suggest doing it as I described above.
Added after 14 minutes Fireball;100278
the rating from IronAxe does not differentiate participants with the same days, but DIFFERENT places, which is not only illogical, but also reduces the role of more popular stages (especially the top three) where results are inherently tighter
Yes, I focus ONLY on the primary criterion for determining the winner in a tournament. If it's days - then days, if skeletons - only skeletons, if experience - then experience. Perhaps a person who lags behind the leader in secondary parameters simply didn't have enough time to polish their Walkthrough for the SECONDARY parameter as well. Although they grasped the essence of the Walkthrough according to the PRIMARY parameter just as correctly as the leader did. I believe such an argument has a right to exist and is not devoid of logic. The same person who has time to polish the Walkthrough by both primary and secondary parameters for a given tournament, but it happened that they share a place with someone who lost to them in the secondary parameter and received the same RATING, according to the site administration's design SHOULD receive compensation in GRAILS, as that is exactly where the occupied place SHOULD be taken into account and where the secondary parameter - for example mercury or money - already affects the place. In other words, my rating considers the main tournament parameter and does not consider the place or number of participants. Simply put, the best of the best should receive COMPENSATION in the form of grails for their bells and whistles regarding secondary parameters. Like, collected more resources - get more grails. And the rating will have to be shared with those who didn't lag behind in the main tournament parameter.
Added after 11 minutes Fireball;100484
There is only one principle so far: the difference between places should grow as you get closer to the winners.
And I don't understand why that's necessary. Just get as much as you lagged behind the leader in the main parameter and that's it :)Fireball;100484
But this condition is unequivocally impossible to fulfill; one will have to pull numbers out of thin air one way or another, because everything comes down to how quickly the rating curve should drop with the place. When that is known, you can simply write some power from 0 to 1 in the oscillator formula instead of the expression n-1/N-1 and get any curvature of the curve. And this is far from the only way. Therefore, to avoid endless arguments, which also won't have objective arguments, I suggest taking an already existing distribution system, using the VDV Forever system as an example.
And how is VDV_forevera's curvature better than the curvature that players will get depending on their lag behind the leader's result in the main parameter? Lagged behind the leader by one day - small curvature. Lagged by 100 days - totally skewed :) specifically.
Added after 5 minutes Kyle;100517
Regarding the introduction of this formula, we need to think... but not about the formula, but about the philosophy of our system, i.e., we need to precisely determine and understand what we want from the rating! Who it should reward, and who it should punish. And after that, writing a formula that satisfies our criteria is no longer difficult.. ;) Respectfully.
Here's what I want - for the rating to reward or punish no one - introduce GRAILS faster for this purpose. Rating in my understanding, especially in Heroes, is a relative value, the reference point of which can only be the result of the leader of a given tournament and the results of other players in relation to them, and ONLY according to the main parameter-criterion for determining the winner (for mercury, place, and number of participants - pile up GRAILS by the bagful :)
Added after 9 minutes Fireball;100544
This is a motorcycle racing system, the probability of crashing when you're riding at the limit is quite high. Therefore, the reward for victory should be appropriate. In VDV Forever, the difference is 2 times smaller. Take your pick, I don't want to.
Everyone on motorcycles :) Let's hit the off-road and sloppiness with a road trip :) Joke - kirgudu :)Fireball;100544
Logicality and clarity are not the same thing. A logical function is one that satisfies some properties we need. And a clear one... I think it's obvious what I mean. Everything is determined by the mathematical preparation of those around. And I mentioned the power just as an example. I completely agree, the main question is indeed in the philosophy of the system, but this question is highly subjective.
On one hand, you want to make the rating calculation philosophy clear to everyone, and consequently, you want the rating calculation formulas to be clear to the masses, BUT on the other hand, you're trying to screw some god-knows-what onto the philosophy and rating I proposed :) An oscillator, coefficients + rewards and punishments, a function with power and a gap between places by curvilinear straightness, and throw in motorcycle racing and ping-pong here too :) - what for? People are already starting to howl from such over-intellectualizing :) PS. And anyway, who will be responsible for accidents?? This is if someone, following Fireball, decides to conquer 500 with a post limit, but turns out not as strong as Fire. What if some glitch hits someone on the head? :) Joke - kirgudu :)
Added after 16 minutes AmberSoler;100637
1.2. Number of participants. It matters. Moreover, it's directly proportional - the more opponents you managed to bypass, the higher the level of play. A tournament for five players and a tournament for a hundred -
And it seems to me that Radik and Dmitry won't care in the top three whether they bypassed five newbies or a hundred :) Here you are hoping that the more people there are, the MORE LIKELY it is that many strong players will be there - but what if there AREN'T any like them and no one even comes close, then they'll rake in an awesome jackpot for a hundred newbies. Isn't it simpler to give everyone what they deserved :)AmberSoler;100637
1.3. Average strength of players in the tournament. It is fundamentally important - even more so than the number of players. Bypassing the five strongest opponents in a tournament with only ten participants is more significant than beating a hundred conditionally weak players in a tournament where strong ones didn't participate. But for this, one needs to consider the current rating of the player, as well as evaluate the strength of all new participants, which is fundamentally impossible.
Until the simplest rating calculation system builds up a LARGE database of player ratings. Which is what I advocated for at first. I chose what was simpler and didn't intend to complicate it, however, some kind people were found :) and decided to improve the system immediately without having a rating database for players.
Added after 13 minutes AmberSoler;100690
Correct comparison is only possible for those players who participated in all VK tournaments. Otherwise - we're choosing the best football player among hockey players... :)
Agreed. Therefore, if there will be some ONE single player who doesn't miss a single round - they will be the winner, like a self-taught universalist :) However, if there are many players who don't miss a single round - they will fight for that title. At the same time, as AlexPank says - winners in each version will be announced. But then there will be two stages in each version. And there might also be players who take part in only one of the stages and so what? Whose fault is it? Points will surely be summed up over both stages and that's correct!
Added after 5 minutes AlexeyPank;102991
Iron had an idea to set limits for maps of different sizes. I don't know if he considers them now or not. And the second point is indeed very difficult. But it is precisely what gives the objective level of the tournament (even if only champions gathered there, but they lagged behind the minimum completion by 20 days - then the level of the tournament will be low).
The second point is very easy for you mathematicians. Like, the minimum limit for completing ANY map can be taken as one :) Even if it's impossible. And then see who and how approached this limit ;) That is, we introduce a Virtual Relative Leader Cheater who completes any map in ONE day with MAXIMUM secondary parameters :) All other player results are compared with the result of this virtual player and rating is awarded. The hundred always goes to the virtual one :)
Added after 18 minutes
:smile19: Removed :smile19: Kyle: flood!
Added after 3 minutes :smile19: Removed :smile19: Kyle: flood!
Added after 3 minutes AmberSoler;103308
There is no way to prove that one calculation method reflects the strength of a player more accurately than another. Most likely, several calculation systems of equal accuracy will exist. And the simplest one should be chosen...
You speak the truth ;)
Added after 6 minutes Fireball;103316
I want to summarize and add something. Rating system - map size does not affect the rating
There is also such a concept as map complexity. It affects it. In this tournament where the starting save is the same for everyone - that's one thing. But in the next tournament - the map is easier than the previous one, and a strong player didn't arrive at the tournament and a less strong one on this map shows the same result as the leader in the previous tournament. And how to account for map complexity??? Map size, number and quality of monsters that need to be broken through, etc. After that, you can just hang yourself :)
Added after 10 minutes Fireball;103316
I want to summarize and add something. Rating system - map size does not affect the rating
Therefore, map size somehow accounts for complexity. At least there, most likely based on practice, there will be more castles and enemies that need to be destroyed and the distance to them is also greater than on smaller maps. Fireball;103316
- we ignore the theoretical minimum, there are many problems with it, but little use
Is that so? The theoretical minimum is ONE day :) And there is a use in that.Fireball;103316
- accounting for place, result, number of participants and their strength in the system is not a problem.
The result, yes. But at this stage of rating development, you're unlikely to account for strength, as AmberSoler clearly stated. And other parameters - place (read: oil) and number of people (let's say there will be 100 not very strong players) in an OFF tournament - personally, it seems to me that accounting for these parameters will only introduce imbalance. You yourself spoke, for example, about the lack of time for completion according to the main parameter. And here you're also bringing in secondary parameters.
Added after 13 minutes Fireball;103358
I cannot answer for others, but personally your system really does not satisfy me. And there are 2 big complaints to it (I hope you will treat the criticism with understanding): 1. The difference in linear ratings for 1st and 2nd places is equal to the difference for 11th and 12th. This not only belittles the role of first places, but also with a large number of participants very quickly splits this difference between them. And yet, to be completely honest, for strong players it makes no difference whether there are 30 or 40 participants. They will sort things out among themselves within the top ten at most.
Oh, Fireball perfectly shows that accounting for the number of participants is not so important. By the way, outsiders also don't give a damn how many people piled up :) And although they are seemingly unnecessary and not in the way, accounting for place and number of people in the tournament can hit them hard. But why?
Added after 12 minutes AmberSoler;103360
What function do you propose for building the curve, if linear does not satisfy you? The function must in any case account for the number of players, even if it is non-linear.
And if nothing of this is taken into account (neither place nor number of players), then the curve or line results by itself depending on the ratio of player results to the leader's result. Especially if an ideal player who we assume completes any map in ONE day is taken as the leader with 100 points.AmberSoler;103360
Then by what criteria will you make a difference between a warm-up tournament and BB? The only criterion, imho - only
Only by the main ones (speed or experience or skeletons or minerals) without considering secondary victory parameters.AmberSoler;103360
the composition of opponents. That's all. What difference does it make to run a hundred meters or 400 meters, if Ben Johnson is racing next to you, for example?.. And again
We know that Ben is a virtual player - so it's worth running with all your might :) Because personally your strength will be measured relative to him. The closer you get to his result - the more chances you have.AmberSoler;103360
returning to our sheep - without knowing the opponent's strength, one cannot calculate the relative significance of your victory, and therefore correctly account for this result in your rating.
We know the strength - Ben is a SUPER-RUNNER. The relative significance of your victory will be visible immediately and most importantly - it will be comparable with other real players.
Added after 2 minutes AmberSoler;103360
What can be proposed? By default, provide each player with a conditional strength parameter equal to five on a ten-point scale (or 50 on a hundred-point - it doesn't matter). Then from game to game this parameter will be adjusted one way or another. Any newcomer receives exactly the average parameter, not zero. Because the average value of the strength spread of any set of players will tend toward the median as the sample size increases. Previously we started from zero, maybe that is where the error lies... One cannot underestimate the true strength of unknown players, thereby unjustifiably lowering the tournament rating... And in every tournament there are a sufficient number of players whose rating is not yet determined...
Furthermore, we calculate the level of relative strength of opponents in this tournament and consider it as a parametric coefficient when calculating the bonus. And no numbers can be taken from thin air! Someone said here that in mathematics and physics many coefficients are taken out of thin air, and nothing happens... :) I am not aware of such mathematics yet...
No numbers can be taken from thin air says AmberSoler and immediately screws 50 points to the first random player encountered at the tournament :) One cannot underestimate the true strength of unknown players? And how will we know it. He appeared once with 50 points - raised the tournament rating and bailed. And there could be a dozen such people in a tournament. No way - I prefer ZERO :)
Added after 6 minutes AmberSoler;103366
No one is proposing to use a linear rating in its pure form. That goes without saying. It is only a component of the rating calculation, as it reflects the number of tournament participants... This component cannot be abandoned, otherwise in your example second and third place would receive the same rating, which is also not entirely correct...
But tolerable :) Is the argument over a couple of glasses of oil? Compensate the winner with GRAILS :) And for the sake of excitement, leave them equal ratings for the next tournament :)
This is a way to show the difference between a serious tournament and a warm-up match. Awarding 100 points to both the winner of the Battle Vault (BV) and the winner of a small, informal match is not right.
It depends on the level of the players who participated in the informal match and whether those super monsters were present in the Battle Vault (BV)??? :)
Added 6 minutes later :smile19: Deleted :smile19: Kyle: spam!
If you don't take any of this into account (neither the map, nor the number of players), then the curve or straight line will emerge on its own, depending on the ratio of the players' results to the leader's result. Especially if you take an ideal player with 100 points as the leader, who we assume can complete any map in ONE day.
The leader completed it in 100 days, the underdog in 170, for example... And as a result, (if compared to the virtual completion in one day), both received approximately the same score towards the rating... :D No, the leader will get a point, and the underdog will get half a point... That's how it is! :D Iron, the rest didn't help... :) Calculate yourself what you are suggesting at first...
AmberSoler says that no numbers should be taken out of thin air, and then immediately assigns 50 points to the first random player at the tournament. :)
This is not a rating - it's the player's strength for calculating the tournament's boosting coefficient... These 50 points have nothing to do with the rating. You can give 5 points, you can give 500. The only question here is to compare the players with each other in terms of strength.
I understand that it's difficult to absorb so much information in one evening and write your comments... Nevertheless, read more carefully about what we are talking about here...
The leader completed it in 100 days, while the underdog took 170 days, for example... And in the end, (compared to a virtual playthrough in one day), they both received approximately the same score towards their rating... :D No, the leader will get a point, and the underdog will get half a point... That's how it is!
Wow :) And I didn't know that it would be difficult for such mathematicians as you to calculate such a rating in relation to the result of a virtual player in one day, with an accuracy of, for example, four decimal places, and then multiply these numbers by 100 or 1000. The meaning of the rating will not change. First, you advocate for the idea and philosophy of calculating the rating, and when you are offered it, you start coming up with silly excuses. Although at the same time you claim, give us a point of reference and we will turn the world upside down :) - we will create any formula :)AmberSoler;103837
:D Iron, the rest didn't do you any good... :) Calculate yourself what you are suggesting...
Who told you that I was resting - I was drinking :) But, as can be seen from my last post and your mathematical intricacies, my drinking had more benefit. My philosophy of calculating the rating should be simple and understandable to everyone, or at least to most. The formula by which the calculation should be performed is as simple as possible - the result (if you compare the rating tables for the three systems) is comparable to yours, AND EVEN BETTER. Improving this calculation by introducing a virtual player, relative to whom the strength of each player will be measured, only strengthens this rating calculation system. I can calculate what I propose - can you?AmberSoler;103837
This is not a rating - it is the strength of a player for calculating the tournament's increasing coefficient... These 50 points have nothing to do with the rating. You can give 5 points, you can give 500. The only question is to compare players with each other in terms of strength.
I'm listening further - so, how many will you put - 5, 50, 80, 500 ??? Justify, tell me how you will compare the strength of players with each other? :) I feel like you're going to come up with some nine-story formula :) I'm laughing, these 50 points have nothing to do with the rating?? They do have a relationship for calculating the tournament's increasing coefficient, which WILL STILL have a relationship with the rating one way or another. Otherwise, why do we need this coefficient??? Thus, it turns out that the number you pulled out of thin air will affect the calculation of the rating - you have always been strongly against this :)AmberSoler;103837
I understand that it is difficult to absorb so much information and write your comments in one evening... Nevertheless, read more carefully about what we are talking about...
I did absorb it, but I realized from Bootik's penultimate post that your formulas annoyed not only me :) But you, apparently, cannot grasp my comments on your disputes with Fireball. Although this is understandable :) My posts do not contain nine-story formulas. And it is difficult for you to understand what is written when there are no such formulas in the post :) But I hope that others will be more understanding of my comments than of your intricate formulas. You need to go to a symposium of mathematicians for a Nobel Prize, not play Heroes. But I think you won't be understood there either :)
PS. Is anyone trying to analyze the rating tables for the Kanighem tournament, which AlexPank maintains??? Look at the first five places in the Amber and Pank systems - the results are one and the same. Differences appear closer to the end of the tables - this is clearly visible - does it matter to anyone? The calculation according to the Axe system - we see that the results of the top five differ from the previous systems. Moreover, as FireBall wished. The distance between the first and second places is still significant, because there are no bonuses in this calculation that gratuitously encourage or punish someone - everyone gets what they earned based on the main criterion for winning in each tournament. However, the results closer to the end of the table in the Axe system are practically the same as the end of the table in the Pank system. The Amber system continues to stomp on the underdogs :) Pank simply pulls the underdogs up to my results with bonuses. But the leaders are slightly affected by these coefficients, so that the gap between the leaders is not greater than what Fireball is unhappy about. Fireball justifies this by saying that a player may not have enough real time and may show a result worse than in the previous game in the same version of Heroes in the second stage. And Pank's bonus will do its dirty work, it will slightly affect this player's rating in the negative. My system does not suffer from this - EVERY PLAYER GETS EXACTLY WHAT HE EARNED IN THIS PARTICULAR TOURNAMENT, RELATIVE TO THE RESULT OF THE LEADER, who always gets a hundred for leadership. There are no bonuses or penalties. Do any of the players need them? Speak up, anyone?
PPS. Fireball, look at our results in Heroes 4 according to all three systems. According to Axe, I got 100, I couldn't get more physically based on the calculation system, you got 27.27 relative to me according to the main criterion for speed. That is, you got what you earned. However, in other systems, I also get 100, and you get 55.30. The extra bonus is approximately 28 points !!!!!! According to the Amber system, this is obtained by a tricky averaging of a non-linear and linear component (you were rewarded purely for 2nd place). There are no rewards for 1st place. But what does this 2nd place mean? There were simply no players like Zveroboy, Under, and many others that I know. Perhaps they would have beaten me, or we would have had the same result, but they would have pushed you out of 2nd place. Accordingly, this reward for a place that is not related to the result you received makes no sense. I am not against rewarding according to the rules. There is a point here - you are not to blame that they did not show up. But to distort the game rating - IS NOT LOGICAL !! And according to the Pank system, you get exactly the same reward bonus, because you have not played 4 before, but took 2nd place on the first try, again due to the absence of higher-level players in the tournament. The absence of players of the proper level in the tournament should NOT GIVE ANY rating bonuses to the player - this introduces a direct distortion of the game rating for the players. You disagree? Let's assume there was no me there either, then even in my system you would get a hundred. But all the systems that we currently have on our forum suffer from this drawback. And here, the introduction of a virtual player in my system can help, who supposedly always completes the map in one day. Then the leader's result will be brought to the proper value, and the results of all other players will also be. I have mentioned this before, but everyone ignored it and rushed to improve the systems in a different direction and started calculating based on what exists and what they came up with. And since none of the systems have been adopted officially, I also abandoned this idea with a virtual player so as not to burden myself with calculations with an accuracy of N decimal places. Now, if you want to improve something, then think better about this idea, taking into account the above reasoning.
Wow. I didn't know that mathematicians like you find it difficult to calculate such a rating relative to a virtual player's result in a single day with, for example, four decimal places, and then multiply those numbers by 100 or 1000. The meaning of the rating wouldn't change. First, you champion the idea and philosophy of rating calculation, and when it's offered to you, you start coming up with silly excuses. Although at the same time you claim, "give us a lever and we shall move the earth" — we'll whip up any formula.
There has been no greater stupidity in this thread than the suggestion to set the minimum equal to 1 day. In such a rating variant, it doesn't matter at all who plays or how. The main thing is how many days it actually takes to complete the map, whether 3 or 11. Everything else is just trivial. You get into a tournament with a very fast map = you rake in points; you get into a BB tournament = you collect crumbs.
:smile19: Removed :smile19:
Refining this calculation by introducing a virtual player into the calculations, relative to whom the strength of each player will be measured, only strengthens this rating system.
It will only make it worse.
I can calculate what I'm proposing — can you?
With such a load, the computer wouldn't care.
And it seems you are unable to grasp my comments on your disputes with Fireball. Although that's understandable — my posts lack nine-story formulas.
Where did you see nine-story formulas? Are you intimidated by a summation sign and 2 multipliers??? Poor thing, how did you even finish school, it must have been a struggle... And the meaning of your comments is absolutely transparent: your system is the best because it's yours and there is no math in it.
You shouldn't be playing Heroes; you should go to a mathematicians' symposium for a Nobel Prize. Though I think they wouldn't understand you there either.
I'm already ashamed of my knowledge of mathematics.
Moreover, just as FireBall wanted. The distance between first and second place is still significant.
Did you even read my posts? I wanted the rating difference for the top places with the same number of days in a tournament to be greater than for those in seventeenth place.
Is anyone trying to analyze the rating tables for the Kanigem tournament managed by AlexPank???
Yes, we analyzed them, unlike you, who wrote nonsense across a screen and a half. When calculating the BK rating, Alex uses only the oscillator, without a bonus. And you didn't even notice that.
Fireball, look at our results for Heroes 4 across all three systems. For Axe, I got 100 — I physically couldn't get more based on the calculation system; you got 27.27 relative to me on the primary speed criterion. Meaning you got what you played for. However, in other systems, I also get 100, and you get 55.30. The freebie profit is about 28 points !!!!!!
But what does this second place mean? There were simply no players like Zveroboy, Under, and many others I know. Perhaps they would have beaten me, or we would have had the same result, but they would have pushed you down in rank. Accordingly, this reward for a place, which is in no way connected to the result you achieved, makes no sense.
Ratings are awarded for the tournament. You wouldn't award fewer points to Wimbledon finalists just because Sampras, McEnroe, and Borg are no longer playing. People not participating in the tournament receive a rating of 0, and therefore lose to all participants.
The absence of players of the proper level at a tournament should NOT GIVE ANY rating bonuses to a player — this introduces a direct distortion of the game rating for the players. Do you disagree? Suppose I wasn't there either, then even by my system you would have received a hundred.
Only your system suffers from such a huge flaw. The appearance of another 100 extra-class players at the tournament would not change the ratings of the other participants at all (even yours; I doubt you think that map could be completed in 2 days), but your absence alone would raise all ratings almost 4 times. And you fail to consider that the same difference in completion level on different maps and in different Heroes will result in a VERY different difference in days. Since you've moved to specific examples, let's recall the 3rd stage of BK. My very first completion of the map took no more than 1.5 hours (of course with cheated elementals) and it was 9 days — exactly your final result (you want to say you spent the same amount of time?). As DmitriyA.S. later showed, this completion can be improved to 7 days maximum. The difference in completion level (skill level) between these results is huge, but in days? Only 2.
And since none of the systems were adopted officially, I've dropped this idea with the virtual player as well, so as not to bother myself with calculations accurate to N decimal places. Now, if you want to improve something, think better about this idea taking into account the reasoning described above.
It's not about the number of decimal places, and if you understand that, then you need to go back to 5th or 6th grade. The idea itself is meaningless.
I didn't know that it would be difficult for such mathematicians as you to calculate such a rating in relation to the result of a virtual player in one day with an accuracy, for example, to four decimal places, and then multiply these numbers by 100 or 1000. The meaning of the rating will not change from this.
As soon as you multiply the obtained values by some number so that the leader has 100 points, you will immediately come to the original option, when we give 100 to the leader, and the rest are based on him. Iron, your extremism is well known, and I won't say that I missed it, nevertheless, take a closer look at what you are suggesting here. Introducing a virtual player to calculate from his result and then multiplying by some number will lead us in circles - two extra mathematical operations... Recalculate any tournament, assuming that the leader should have 100 points, and see for yourself - in the end, you will get the same well-known numbers. Why a virtual player?
I just ask that if you decide to comment again, then first recalculate, and then write your opinion.
I'm listening further - so, how much will you put - 5, 50, 80, 500 ??? Justify, tell me how you will compare the strength of players with each other? :) I feel like you're about to come up with some nine-story formula :) I can't stop laughing, these 50 points have nothing to do with the rating, right?
We can introduce any scale to calculate the relative strength of players - in the end, the coefficient will be around one - and it doesn't matter if we calculate from 5 points or from 500 for each player. These points will only show the mutual location of players on the "strength scale" and that's it. When calculating, one value is divided by another, and only the quotient is considered. For example, it is still the same to divide 700 by 500 or 7 by 5 - in the end we get 1.4, which is the desired coefficient. And the strength points are just a tool for comparison...
We are discussing the issue of rating in this topic only so that everyone who wants to (and understands the essence) can join. This conversation could also be in private, it doesn't change anything. And if you don't understand what the conversation is about, this is not a reason to drag it in your direction, do something else... there is so much interesting things around...
That's it, I won't comment further. Because you can just go back to the beginning of the topic and read your posts. They are already going in circles. And you need to know mathematics for this conversation. And you made me laugh about the three-story formulas... Seventh grade algebra... Here we go...
The most foolish thing, more foolish than suggesting to set the minimum to 1 day, has not yet been said in this thread.
Are you stuck on deriving formulas? :) Most players don't understand your incredibly clever calculations and don't need them.
:smile19: Deleted :smile19: Fireball;103883
It will only make things worse.
That's not a fact – I'll give you an example with a virtual player and one day. Either you and Amber didn't understand the idea, or you didn't try to calculate it.
:smile19: Deleted :smile19: Fireball;103883
Where did you see 9-story formulas? Does the sum symbol and 2 multipliers confuse you? Poor thing, you must have had a hard time finishing school...
I've also seen posts from some players, probably just like me, who don't care about your formulas. Because there are many mistakes in them. And the more complex the formula, the harder it is to identify them.Fireball;103883
And the meaning of your comments is absolutely clear: your system is the best because it's yours and doesn't involve mathematics.
I've never hidden that. On the contrary, I've proven that this formula of mine is one of the important components in both Amber's and Panka's systems.
:smile19: Deleted :smile19: Fireball;103883
Did you even read my posts? I wanted the difference in rating for the tournament for the top places with the same number of days to be greater than for the bottom places.
I don't know what you wanted. But I showed you that in Amber's and Panka's systems, you got 28 free points in the Kanigam tournament. In my system, you won't get any free points. ;)Fireball;103883
Yes, we analyzed it, unlike you, who wrote nonsense on a page and a half. When calculating the rating in the VK, Alexei uses only the oscillator, without a bonus. And you didn't even notice that.
Yeah, of course, it's nonsense, especially when I showed your 28 free points. But what if they choose the winner based on one of these systems? Wouldn't that be unpleasant for someone? But I'm not going to please anyone here. :)
:smile19: Deleted :smile19: Fireball;103883
Only your system suffers from such a big flaw. The appearance of...
Rest up. My system – once again – is for the deaf; it's one of the components of both Amber's and Panka's systems, so these systems also suffer from this flaw, and they also suffer from other flaws that my system doesn't have, which I described earlier in those 500 posts that you carefully read and should know.Fireball;103883
The problem isn't in the number of digits after the decimal point, and if you understand that, then you need to go back to 5th or 6th grade. The idea itself is meaningless.
Well, that's obvious. You and AmberSoler should already be in the Academy of Sciences. But for some reason, you're not going there. :)
Added after 25 minutes AmberSoler;103886
As soon as you multiply the resulting values by some number so that the leader has 100 points, you will immediately come to the initial option, when we give the leader 100, and the rest depend on him. Iron, your extremism is well-known, and I'm not saying I missed it, but still, take another look at what you're suggesting.
I'll have to cure another mathematician. :) Let's assume we have the results of a tournament: player1 - 3 days player2 - 6 days player3 - 15 days player4 - 20 days player5 - 100 days (a difficult case)
Let's assume the virtual player = 1 day Calculate the rating: Virtual - 100 player1 - 33.3333333 player2 - 16.6666666 player3 - 6.6666666 player4 - 5.0000000 player5 - 1.0000000
Now, let's get rid of the virtual player – we don't need him anymore. Multiply all the ratings by 100. player1 - 3333 player2 - 1666 player3 - 666 player4 - 500 player5 - 100
This really reflects who played how well in relation to the SUPER result. If you say now that the underdogs will have a tiny score, then look at the real tables of our systems now. At the top, we have a rating of 300, at the bottom, 2 (150 times less). In my example (33 times less, the lower result compared to the top). IMHO, it's all realistic, without any bonuses, damn formulas, squares, and sines. And you don't even need to graduate from an institute to understand what's what. AmberSoler;103886
Introducing a virtual player to calculate from his result and then multiplying by some number will lead us in circles – two extra mathematical operations... Recalculate any tournament, assuming that the leader should have 100 points, and see for yourself – in the end, you will get the same known numbers. Why a virtual player? Just please, if you decide to comment again, first recalculate, and then write your opinion.
:smile19: Deleted :smile19: recalculate and reread my posts. I don't even understand what you wrote here. I didn't have the condition that the real leader would have 100. Now, the VIRTUAL player takes his 100. Did you get it or not?AmberSoler;103886
We can introduce any scale to calculate the relative strength of the players – in the end, the coefficient will be around one – and it doesn't matter if we calculate from 5 points or from 500 for each player. These points will only show the mutual position of the players on the "strength scale" and that's it. When calculating, one value is divided by another, and only the quotient is considered. So, for example, it's the same to divide 700 by 500 or 7 by 5 – in the end, we get 1.4, which is the desired coefficient. And the strength points are just a tool for comparison...
:smile19: Oh my god, if Botinki now explain to me what you wrote here and say that they now understand everything, then Amber, I will agree with any system of rating calculation that you propose. :)AmberSoler;103886
We are discussing the rating issue in the topic only so that everyone who wants to (and understands the essence) can join.
Let's just get the mathematicians to go to another section. In any case, few people understand what you are calculating here. :)
Fireball
