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.
Iron, I suggest you look at things this way:
1. You have a great and simple system that everyone understands and is part of other, more complex and obscure systems.
2. There are people who, in addition to the game, have other interests, such as finding a way to calculate the rating more efficiently than your system does. I think you won't argue that such an opportunity exists - your option is not perfect.
3. The search for any solution is fraught with difficulties - sometimes you have to go through complexity to get to simplicity, that's life. Maybe we will succeed, maybe not... It depends. At the moment, we are having a dialogue in our language, which we understand, and there is no goal to comment on our thoughts in your language. I know both languages, both the everyday (yours) and the academic (for specialists). In this case, it is more convenient for me to speak in the second one - this is my right.
4. Our conversation is private, although anyone who wishes can read it and participate... If the topic doesn't bother you, just pass by, but don't interfere, you won't say anything smart - you create quote collections by breaking up another person's post into ten parts and commenting on words, admitting that you don't understand anything about it yourself.
5. I am NOT interested in your personal opinion, I am NOT asking you to express it here. I am talking to another person who has a different view of things. The other point of view is of interest, not yours, which has already been taken into account everywhere.
6. Why are you raising a dispute? We are not offering any solutions and are not demanding that anything be changed - we are simply developing another calculation option. No more, no less. Maybe it won't even affect your rating by a comma - time will tell. No one seems to be forbidding us from doing this...
7. Conclusion: :smile19: Removed :smile19:
Are you stuck on calculating formulas? Most players don't understand your incredibly clever calculations and don't need them.
Most players haven't even tried to understand it yet, but if they put in a little effort, they will succeed.
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.
I tried calculating. With a virtual player and one day, you get 33.(3) points for winning the 4th stage, while vbn gets 14.26 points for winning the 3rd stage, even though the tournament in the trio was much stronger and more representative, and both reached the real limit of the map in terms of days. Do you think that's how it should be?
:smile19: Deleted :smile19: Kyle: spam!
I don't know what you wanted. But I showed you that according to the Amber and Panka system, you got 28 free points in the fourth stage of the Kanighem tournament.
You showed that I got 28 points more, but the fact that it was "free" is your personal opinion. By the way, I was immediately reminded of a case in a tournament for 1 hero, when the winner spoke disrespectfully about the walkthrough and reasoning of the second-place finisher. The latter indignantly objected that if you speak so badly about second place, how will you speak about the rest. Prorock was the first then. Do you happen to remember who took 2nd place then?
Yeah, of course, it's nonsense, especially when I showed your 28 free points. What if they choose the winner based on one of these systems? Who would like to hear that? But I'm not going to please anyone here.
The nonsense, at the very least, is that you wrote that Alexei in VK gets a bonus for progress, which is not true. I received those ill-fated additional 28 points solely for 2nd place, for being the best among the worst. It's not a very cool title, but still...
Rest. My system - once again - is for the deaf, it is one of the components of both the Amber system and the Panka system - therefore, these systems suffer from this flaw, and they also suffer from other flaws that my system does not have, which I described earlier in those 500 posts that you carefully read and should know.
You need to rest, mathematics tires you out. I'll show you with our favorite example, the 4th stage of VK. The crude system: you have 100, I have 27.27. We add 10 mega-players, you have 100, I have 27.27. We remove you, I have 100, everyone else has (11/3) more. See the fluctuations. Alexei's system: you have 100, I have 55.3. We add 100 mega-players, you have 100 (even if you are in 101st place, somewhere at the end), I have 16.44. We remove you, I have 100, everyone else has more, but not even twice as much.
Now a virtual player on FIX - we no longer need him, multiply all ratings by 100. player1 - 3333 player2 - 1666 player3 - 666 player4 - 500 player5 - 100
This really reflects how each player performed relative to the SUPER result.
Now calculate the rating for a tournament where the results are as follows:
player1 - 89 days player2 - 130 days player3 - 170 days player4 - 211 days player5 - 400 days (severe case)
From my example, it is clear that if Player 1 did not participate in the Tournaments, none of the bottom four players would still receive any bonus to their rating, either for their placement or for the number of players in the Tournaments. They would receive the same as in the example!!! You could argue that the next Tournaments will be on a more difficult map. And then, a player of the same strength as Player N1 will receive a lower rating simply because achieving a result in three days is practically impossible there. But in that case, you won't be able to do anything in your systems or in the one you are developing. Because then you need to consider the DIFFICULTY coefficient of the map, and nothing else will help. And you are ignoring it, because it is PRACTICALLY impossible to derive the difficulty coefficient of the map, and you yourself wrote about this, which I basically agree with. The only conclusion is: try not to miss the Tournaments :)
Added 1 minute ago AmberSoler;103904
Now calculate the rating for a Tournaments where the results are as follows: Player 1 - 89 days Player 2 - 130 days Player 3 - 170 days Player 4 - 211 days Player 5 - 400 days (a difficult case) And compare the two Tournaments.
Show me at least one real Tournaments where the leader completed it in 89 days, and I will proceed with the calculations :) And if you substitute Player A - 10 days into your table, calculate it yourself. The rating will be realistic and will show that there was more or less one strong player in the Tournaments - the rest are beginners. And the fact that Player A will receive a lower rating than Player 1 from the previous Tournaments, then you should CALCULATE the difficulty coefficient of the map. And I'll see how you go crazy :) Just like with choosing your comparison coefficient of player strength, taken NOT OUT OF THIN AIR
Show me just one real tournament where the leader finished in 89 days, and I'll start the calculations.
If they accept your system, which hasn't been tested on all possible scenarios, sooner or later it will fail. And how often do you see tournaments with results of 3, 6, etc.? You're proposing a system that should always work, no matter what.
However, since we're discussing theory, I ask you to provide a calculation for the scenario I proposed. These sometimes happen. We'll wait.
I tried calculating. With a virtual 1 day for winning the 4th stage, you get 33,(3) points, while vbn gets 14.26 points for winning the 3rd stage, even though the tournament in the 3-player format was much stronger and more representative, and both reached the real limit of the map in terms of days. Do you think that's how it should be?
Yes. Nothing prevented vbn from participating in the 4-player format. I played in the 3-player format. That's when we could have compared the results of both tournaments. But we've already talked about this. vbn will take his place in the 3-player nomination and beat me. But the fact that he won't make it in the universal format is because there are few chances for those who don't play all stages in all versions. I'm to blame for that. Do you think your system will equate one version to another and compare players, one of whom fundamentally doesn't play in the 3-player format, and the other fundamentally in the 4-player format? You're wrong. :)
What I got was 28 more than you showed, but the fact that it was easy is just your personal opinion. By the way, I was immediately reminded of a tournament in the 1 Hero format, when the winner spoke disrespectfully about the walkthrough and reasoning of the second-place finisher. To which he indignantly replied that if you speak like that about second place, how do you speak about the rest? Prorock was first then. Do you happen to remember who took 2nd place?
I took 2nd place, and I said that to Prorock - I don't deny it. But you didn't understand. I respect the fact that you participated in the 4-player format and took 2nd place. I even say that this should be encouraged with GRAILS, calculating them using a formula that takes into account both the place and the number of players in the tournament. But understand this - it's not a reason to add an extra 28 points to your rating for this tournament.Fireball;103903
The absurdity, at the very least, was that you wrote that Alexei in VK gets a bonus for progress, which is not true. I received those ill-fated extra 28 points solely for 2nd place, for being the best among the worst. It's not a very cool title, but still...
If you look at the tables for Pank. One for Axe, another for Ambery with an oscillator, the third for Pank - what - is there only the oscillator there too? :) Yes, well done for taking second place and participating. But there should be 28 fewer of your purely earned rating points there. :)Fireball;103903
You need to rest, mathematics tires you out too much. I'll show you with our favorite example, the 4th stage of VK. The "Axe" system: you have 100, I have 27.27. We added 10 mega-players, you have 100, I have 27.27.
And why is that not correct? The fact that these 10 players completed it in 3 days doesn't make your result any WORSE or BETTER. Right?Fireball;103903
You were removed, I have 100, everyone else has more than (11/3). Did you notice the changes?
I knew about this bug, and the other systems have it too. :) This is only cured by the Virtual Super Player.Fireball;103903
Alexei's system: you have 100, I have 55.3. We added 100 mega-players, you have 100 (even if you are in 101st place, somewhere at the bottom), I have 16.44. You were removed, I have 100, the rest have more, but not even twice as much. The bugs are completely different.
Yes, I agree, and there are exactly ONE more of them in Pank's system. :) You need to rest. It's not the non-buggy formulas that you're trying to derive that are incomprehensible to anyone. :)
:smile19: Deleted :smile19: Kyle: off-topic!
Added 2 minutes ago AmberSoler;103902
Iron, I suggest you look at things this way:
1. You have a magnificent and simple system that everyone understands and is part of other, more complex and incomprehensible systems.
2. There are people who, in addition to playing, have other interests, for example, finding a way to calculate the rating more effectively than your system does. I don't think you'll argue that such a possibility exists - your option is not ideal.
3. The search for any solution is fraught with difficulties - sometimes you have to go through complexity to get to simplicity, that's life. Maybe we'll succeed, maybe not... It depends. At the moment, we are having a dialogue in our language, which we understand, and there is no goal to comment on our thoughts in your language. I know both languages, both the everyday (yours) and the academic (for specialists). In this case, it is more convenient for me to speak in the second - this is my right.
4. Our conversation is private, although anyone can read it and participate... If the topic doesn't bother you, just pass by, but don't interfere, you won't say anything smart - you create quote collections, breaking up another person's post into ten parts and commenting on words, admitting that you don't understand anything about it.
5. I am NOT interested in your personal opinion, I am NOT asking you to express it here. I am talking to another person who has a different view of things. The other point of view is of interest, not yours, which is already taken into account everywhere.
6. Why are you raising a dispute? We are not offering any solutions and are not demanding that anything be changed - we are simply developing another calculation option. It may not even affect your rating by a comma - time will tell. This is not forbidden to us, is it...
7. Conclusion: rant and be done with it. Don't interfere.
So that I don't interfere with you, go to private. Come here with a ready-made formula. Don't confuse people here. They already don't understand which system to choose, and you're trying to add more. I have the right to discuss what is being discussed on the forum. Even if, in your opinion, I don't understand anything. :)
Added 7 minutes ago AmberSoler;103909
If they accept your system, which has not been tested on all options, then sooner or later it will fail. In response to you - how often do you see tournaments with a result of 3, 6, etc.? You are proposing a system that should always work - in any case. Nevertheless, since we are discussing theory, I ask you to provide a calculation for the scenario I proposed. These sometimes happen. We'll wait.
Yours is already failing, and I haven't seen many examples from you before. You better prove the correctness of your system with examples, using your own table as a basis for the calculation. And even better, recalculate this stupid table using the three systems: Pank (for Axe, Ambery, and Pank, and add a fourth option with a virtual player). And I'm not a calculator. I'm a mathematician, after all. :) And I know that you won't do it, because the calculation will show the flaws in your systems. And I'm tired of you constantly demanding examples when I've already provided enough of them, unlike YOU. Make an effort yourself. It's not about deriving non-buggy formulas that no one understands
2 IronAxe Well, I'll do the calculation myself, because I quite possibly think you're trying to come up with a new interpretation of your words right now.
Introducing a virtual player in my example will give the following picture:
player1 - 89 days - 112 points player2 - 130 days - 77 points player3 - 170 days - 58 points player4 - 211 days - 47 points player5 - 400 days - 25 points
Comparing the two tournaments shows the absurdity of your proposal. I think there is no need to show exactly what this absurdity consists of - the results differ by an order of magnitude, and your tournament map may be very primitive compared to my version. How to get out of this situation? It's elementary! Bring the two tournaments to a common denominator by evaluating the leader's result at 100 points, and the rest - relative to it, according to the shown result.
In this case, your tournament option needs to be multiplied by 0.03, mine - by 0.893, and as a result, we will get two tournaments:
player1 - 89 days - 100 points player2 - 130 days - 69 points player3 - 170 days - 51 points player4 - 211 days - 42 points player5 - 400 days - 22 points
What do we see? We ended up with the same ranking, which can be calculated without involving a virtual player. Your proposal was initially unreasonable, and you are trying to cling to it instead of admitting a logical error.
Nevertheless, since we are discussing the theory, I ask you to provide a calculation for the layout I proposed. Such situations sometimes occur. We'll wait.
If such situations occur, THEN GIVE A LINK so that I can personally verify this :) Or are you just making things up? :)
Added after 53 seconds Fireball;103910
Look at my example about stages 3 and 4 in my previous post.
I told you everything about this - think about it :) and think about it again :)
Don't bother me – go to a private chat. Come back here with a ready-made formula :) Don't waste people's time here.
And you, are you the champion of Batumi? Or the father of this forum? The topic is called "Rating for Tournaments" – and it was created for everyone who wants to participate in the development of the rating. You've already created your own – go ahead and use it. Although I understand that the rating, in general, is nonsense, and it interests very few people. Most players don't care about the calculation mechanism. I'm just interested in finding a more realistic option. Whether it will work or not – I don't know. So you can relax.
2 IronAxe Well, I'll provide the calculation myself, because I quite possibly think you're trying to come up with a new interpretation of your words right now.
Comparing the two tournaments shows the absurdity of your proposal. I don't think it's necessary to show exactly what this absurdity consists of - the results differ by an order of magnitude, and your tournament map may be very simple compared to my version. How to get out of this situation? Elementary! Bring the two tournaments to a common denominator by evaluating the leader's result as 100 points, and the rest - relative to it, according to the shown result. In this case, your tournament option needs to be multiplied by 0.03, mine - by 0.893, and as a result, we get two tournaments:
Go away with your coefficients :) Maybe player1 from your second tournament is a COMPLETE newbie and noob, and the rest are just as bad, and the maps are of the same difficulty, both from the first and second tournaments. Why should I multiply his result to a hundred? Huh? I told you that you need a map difficulty coefficient here, because you won't be able to figure out the relative strength of REAL players at all :) By the way, I mean that in the example, your two tournaments are for the same version of Heroes, not different ones. It will be even worse with different versions. You need to start by figuring out the ranking for one version :)
Added 3 minutes later AmberSoler;103918
Are you the champion of Batumi? Or the dad of this forum? The topic is called "Ranking for Tournaments" - and it was created for everyone who wants to participate in the development of the ranking.
You were the first to tell me to leave. Are you the mom of this forum? You participated in the discussion, and I joined in - I have the right. I suggested a virtual one - and I know that it is correct, there is meaning in it. You're in a bottle, I'm a bottle :)AmberSoler;103918
You've already created your own - and calculate it as you please. Although I understand that the ranking, in general, is nonsense, and very few people are interested in it. Most players don't care about the calculation mechanism. I'm just interested in finding an option that is closer to reality. Whether it will work or not - I don't know. So you can relax.
I'm never stressed. I wish you success. But I will participate in the discussion if I think it is necessary - I have the right :)
The winner of a more challenging tournament shouldn't receive fewer points than the winner of an easier one. Especially if their only fault is that a slower map was chosen for their tournament. You want to make it completely random. In effect, whoever wins the fastest map will win the entire competition. But the stages should be equivalent. For example, let's say a player showed the following results in the stages of the competition: 12, 7, 7, 6, 9 days, winning 4 out of 5 stages. Even with a virtual time of 1 day, they would still lose to you in the ranking. If you think this is normal, there's no point in continuing the conversation.
If you look at the tables for Panku. One for Axe, another for Ambery with an oscillator, the third Panku - what - is it also just an oscillator and that's it??
For the competition, Alexei gives everyone a bonus of 0.
And why is that not right? Just because the top 10 completed it in 3 days, it doesn't make your result any worse or any better. Right?
That's not right. The result is not only about the number of days, but also the placement.
Why are we even bothering to think about this?
If you don't like it, don't read it. If a system had been chosen, I wouldn't have said a word (at least until the end of the tournament), regardless of whose system it was. But as it is, I'd prefer to discuss it, listen to criticism, and offer a ready-made solution. And how the selection will take place is a third matter.
Go away with your coefficients :) Maybe player1 from your second tournament is a complete newbie and noob, and the rest are just as bad.
What if it was just a very difficult map? Should we immediately assume that everyone is a noob? Don't you think you should take back those words... You didn't think it through...
Hehe :) The Landless Tournament – that says it all. Just as I expected and replied to you, following your example. There are also miners there. The last one lasted 988 days :) I can't stop laughing. And this player should also get a free rating bonus, according to your scheme, when multiplied by 100 for the leader :)
AmberSoler
