Posts from Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

How do you suggest we determine the winner? I understand that the system isn't perfect, but we need to find a way to identify the winner. Judging solely based on the number of days is clearly insufficient. A simple example: in football, two teams can finish in the same position with the same number of points. In that case, the goal difference, number of wins, and other factors are considered. And no one argues with that.

Exactly.
I myself only remembered the results of the winners (well, I also remember my own). And I looked at yours here:
/topic/2077/

I'll count it later – I need to check what you calculated there first :)

I would even say they are the highest (but higher for your own, agree?). But we’ll see. Have you seen Alex R's signature?

Well, that's obvious :). But in my case, there are no bonuses, and as far as I understand, the "General" nomination is not a primary one, just something extra. It's better to compete for nominations in each version - that's more prestigious :). And here, I have little chance. For now, I can only hope for Version 4, and that's all :( Even then, it depends on which part of real life the second stage for Version 4 falls into :)

You probably don't remember, but at one time I approved the idea of relating days, and I still approve it now. It's great for evaluating systems and testing.
But I was talking about your system, not your "criticism."

And I'm talking about calculation systems and comparing them based on the ratio of simplicity + quality. Hence the criticism. Plus, there are flaws everywhere. The more complex the system, the more flaws there will be, and the calculations will be more difficult, IMHO.

You speak the truth. The system for determining the winner of the World Cup should not coincide with the rating. All stages are equal in the World Cup, but this cannot be said about Tournaments.

I’ve been saying this for a long time – I just can’t be bothered to look for posts. I said that the game rating calculation system is one thing. And the system for awarding Grails is another - you can also take descriptions into account here. And determining the winner of the World Cup is a third thing. And I said that the VDV Grail calculation system is suitable for this purpose - just remove all sorts of nonsense like descriptions, etc., from it. So what? Who listened? Who supported or something? Now they suddenly realized :) when everything has already been mixed together :)

But did you check the example? And it's not just about the winner; wouldn't that certain player with 4 first-place finishes deserve the first place in the ranking? By the way, you always claim that the level of play is determined by the number of days, and the parameters are just a factor. You say the main thing is to grasp the idea. But that's not entirely true either. The player with more parameters plays more carefully and can focus on the parameters, which means they play better. Moreover, remember the 3rd stage of the World Cup and compare vbn's playthrough and my completed one by DmitryA.S. up to 7 days. They have completely different ideas, and the playthrough with the sphere is better because the sum of the parameters will be higher. And if it had been done in a tournament, it should have been rated higher.

How do you suggest calculating it? I understand that the system is not perfect, but we need some way to determine a winner. Just by days is clearly not enough. The simplest example: in football points, two teams take the same place. Then the difference between goals scored and conceded is counted, the number of wins, and so on. And no one disputes this.

Let's take the VDV scale and calculate points based on the place taken, just like back during the first tournament for 5 :) Then all stages are equal and nothing depends on days for shit. Nor does it depend on the number of players. Because players of one version aren't to blame that others don't play it. And then, based on these tournaments, betting shops a-la Axe, Amber, Alex Pank—oh wow, another one—FireBall will calculate player ratings however they damn well please. Which will to some extent reflect the strength of players by versions and as an all-rounder. And here, let everyone be as creative as they want and determine for themselves what will affect a player's rating (days, place, bonuses, average strength, cosines, tangents) and what won't.

Added after 9 minutes

But did you check the example? And it's not just about the winner—surely some player with 4 first places doesn't deserve first place in the rating?
By the way, you always claim that the level of play is determined by days, and parameters are just secondary. That the main thing is to grasp the idea. But that's also not true. The one who has better parameters did everything more carefully and was able to focus on parameters, and therefore played better. Moreover, remember the 3rd stage of VK and compare vbn's walkthrough and my finished DmitryA.S. one up to 7 days. They have completely different ideas, and the walkthrough with the sphere is better because the sum of parameters there will be definitely higher. And if it had been done at a tournament, it should have been rated higher.

There are tons of ratings and formulas for calculating them. What do you mean "doesn't deserve"? He will take first places in the ratings specifically for each version except one. As for the all-rounder, I haven't calculated that example yet. But roughly speaking, if he specifically screwed up so bad in one of the versions that he doesn't qualify as an all-rounder, I don't see anything wrong with that. It's not the main nomination :)
And regarding secondary parameters, I already gave you the football example above. The score is 4:4, but those who ran in red shorts did it more beautifully and covered more kilometers (meaning they collected more oil), so to hell with them :)
I also wrote that a player might be super strong, but didn't have real time to further polish the walkthrough for secondary parameters. Yes—he'll lose the tournament, lose out in the grails, but he won't lose his Gameplay rating under my system because of this. I have the right?

Added after 31 minutes

But did you check the example?

I have questions.
1. The first player—not me :) who did you copy from—are these real results from a tournament?

Added after 1 hour 10 minutes
PS. As far as I understand, the system with a Virtual Player with 1 day causes no objections specifically for ONE tournament. Moreover, it eliminates the flaw of lacking a strong player with a good result. That is, players who would have followed him won't move up to a higher place and consequently won't take a free rating for that place. I am not talking about the number of players in the tournament at all and don't want to hear about it :)
In the system, as before, the leading and only parameter is DAYS!

However, in reality, the flaw appears when calculating an All-rounder Rating under such a system (I pointed out Fireball's flaw). A small artistic touch (from "art" meaning "bad") and we get a universal system again tied ONLY to days. No games—only sport :) Now there are minimum flaws. In each tournament, the result of each player is compared not even to the leader (it's possible that even the leader didn't find the optimal option), but to the ideal option of the Virtual Player.
----------------------------------------
Calculation of All-rounder Rating according to
the system with a Virtual Player completing
any maps and any stages in ONE day.

player Axe
1st stage - 13 - 769
2nd stage - 13 - 769
3rd stage - 9 - 1111
4th stage - 3 - 3333
5th stage - 17 - 588

Total 55 days - 6570 points

All-rounder Rating of player Axe:
6570/55=119.45

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

player X
1st stage - 12 - 833
2nd stage - 7 - 1428
3rd stage - 7 - 1428
4th stage - 6 - 1666
5th stage - 9 - 1111

Total 41 days - 6466 points

All-rounder Rating of player X:
6466/41=157.71

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

Fireball, now can you find something to nitpick again in this system??? :) The calculation is shown for five tournaments across different versions of the game: Heroes 1,2,3,4,5. But the same can be done if all five tournaments were, say, only for one version, say Heroes-1.

Drawback: All-rounder rating now cannot be calculated if the tournament is not for speed, but say for experience, skeletons, resources. I don't know yet how much experience or skeletons an ideal virtual player should gather and how to bring this to a common denominator with the previous speed tournament. However, both previous systems and mine also suffered from this slightly. Because ratings for speed tournaments and skeleton tournaments were previously a bit absurd when compared to each other; it's just that we always relied on a real leader, but who could claim their walkthrough was ideal.
The same way I see the solution for now—we'll have to calculate however-the-hell much theoretical skeleton collection there can be on a map or how much maximum experience can be obtained and accept this as the ideal option for an ideal virtual player. But it will still be a bit absurd because imho you cannot bring a skeleton collection tournament and a speed tournament to one common denominator. But this trouble was observed before, although we calculated these tournaments using all three systems.

Another trouble—if we are calculating an all-rounder, then only if they played all five stages. Otherwise, I'd play just one 4th version. I'd grab some points there and demand an all-rounder rating of 3333/3=1111 :) And what the hell kind of all-rounder are you if you didn't play at least one of the versions?
Here, the organizers should have their say :) My opinion—if you couldn't handle the all-rounder, fight in your version for a prize place—that's even better and you'll only spend two months on it :)

If anyone has a sensible proposal on this matter—please step forward.
And maybe someone else will find some flaw, but please project it onto your own calculation systems as well and see what comes out of them. We are waiting :)

PS. Actually, to hell with all of it. I won't appear here until I finish the sixth stage :)

Added after 7 hours 3 minutes

How do you suggest calculating it? I understand that the system is not perfect, but we need some way to determine a winner. Just by days is clearly not enough. The simplest example: in football points, two teams take the same place. Then the difference between goals scored and conceded is counted, the number of wins, and so on. And no one disputes this.

Well, when it turns out at the end of the VK championship that two people took the same place, then you can count the difference in goals scored and conceded. But you are already assuming from the start that a draw is NOT POSSIBLE in a single separate match :) By the way, with the VDV scale—it's the same thing.
And now for the theses (July ones :)
1. Determining the winner by nominations in each of the versions is more or less clear. In principle, any of the three systems Pank uses to calculate the championship rating can be applied there, or even just the VDV system. But how will the All-rounder nomination be determined?
2. By summing the points obtained from each nomination, or by finding the average number of points by dividing the sum of all points by the number of games played, or the method I proposed above: finding the average number of points by dividing the sum of all points by the number of days spent by the player on completing all games? Imho nothing fits, because everyone will play a different number of games and the smartest person would stop at one game where they took first place. He'll beat everyone on average and THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED—whoever doesn't understand this can go to same garden :)
4. There is a greater chance that a player who played only in their favorite version will get a HIGHER average than a champ player who played all of them, because they might have played some versions for the first time and got hammered there, so the average will be LOWER. With the sum it's also clear—whoever missed more rounds has less chance of winning as an all-rounder.
5. Here we either count the all-rounder only among those who didn't miss a single round. Or if Pank says they will count EVERYONE who played at least 6 rounds, THEN those who played more than SIX rounds must be given the right to choose the best results of 6 rounds from all their played rounds and inform the organizers that for the all-rounder calculation only the rounds specified by them should be taken into account!!!
6. Fireball :) Will you say it's demagoguery again? :) Regarding your statement that all VK stages should be equal—you guessed wrong—that will NOT happen. Example: Player A is strong in 4, player B in 3. At the stage for 4, there were hardly any people. Strong player A took 1st place there, and player B took 2nd place even though they play very poorly in 4, simply because there were hardly any people there. And as we see from Pank's and Amber's systems, PLACE gives a decent bonus (28 points :). What chance does player A have of taking SECOND place in the 3rd version (if they play the third one as crookedly as player B plays the fourth) given that in the third there are people like cockroaches and plenty of pros. Player A will clearly be pushed way further than 2nd place there. And where is the equality of stages for 3 and 4 for players A and B? Mathematicians, hello? This nonsense of inequality will manifest more in Pank's and Amber's systems. In mine, the manifestation of this nonsense will not be as great—only days are taken into account there, and it doesn't matter what place you took or how many people were there. But the ideal remedy against this flaw is the system mentioned above using a virtual player purely in Axe's system, where eventually they calculate the ratio of total points from all stages to the days spent completing all stages. Or not all stages, but only the six best stages for each player. Right?
7. Since not all players play all stages, and the minimum bar is limited by organizers to SIX. I think it's a good idea—to give players who played more than six stages the right to choose their 6 best for the ALL-ROUNDER calculation. Players get at least some options and more people will enter the All-rounder nomination on more equal terms.

Added after 2 hours 21 minutes
:smile19: Removed :smile19:
--Flaw with player rating protection--

Systems that include PLACE and the number of players in their formulas have weak protection against cunning actions, if people are found who decide to use a breach in the defense.

1. Number of players—one can use a clone or several clones of their nicknames. Alternative—several players during the tournament discuss and develop a joint walkthrough plan, but then each performs the walkthrough independently. Proving a violation is IMPOSSIBLE. Amber! Confirm the correctness of this statement, otherwise I'll find YOUR post where you talk about this myself!
2. In such a layout, we have an example.
Player A - 2 days - 1st place.
Player D - 4 days - seems to be aiming for 2nd place.
But then two groups of players B and C appear. As a result, we have:
Player A - 2 days - 1st place
Player B1 - 3 days - 2nd place
Player B2 - 3 days - 3rd place
Player B3 - 3 days - 4th place
Player C1 - 4 days - 5th place
Player C2 - 4 days - 6th place
Player D - 4 days - 7th place
(pushed to the back, here even secondary parameters for determining the winner helped)
We assume that group B developed walkthroughs jointly and group C also developed a walkthrough jointly, but separately from group B. But such a thing can happen. Amber himself recently bothered me with a stupid example from the Landless Tournament on HP. He even said that all options, even theoretical ones, must be considered to check the system's viability :) Well damn, now consider YOUR SYSTEM with an oscillator :)
3. Player D is specifically pushed down in rating DUE TO the accounting of the PLACE taken, because a lot of cunning people appeared (accounting for the number of players in the tournament) + accounting for secondary parameters for determining the winner. If the proponents of rating systems that account for place, number of people, and secondary parameters for determining the winner DO NOT FIND PROTECTION AGAINST THIS FLAW, then they can go to the bathhouse :)
Your demagoguery regarding honesty, honor, and other virtues DOES NOT INTEREST me. In this system, a player cannot feel protected from artificial lowering of their rating because it will be impossible to prove. Now project this situation onto Axe's rating. Nothing for all the cunning ones! The Axe has iron protection :) Player D doesn't care about any bullets in such a system. Only DAYS are tied there and he gets his honest rating corresponding to his result in the tournament, which will correspond to THIRD place, not SEVENTH as per the mathematicians' system :)
4. Conclusion: The more parameters a Heroes rating calculation system takes into account, the more flaws related both to the work of the formula itself, protection, and many other things :) Study your materials, mathematicians :)
--------------------------------------------
PS. In the discussion of the last tournament, where there was a small fuss with the Boots clan, I wrote a post saying that as an accountant, I don't give a damn whether they developed the walkthrough jointly or separately, because the rating of players whom they pushed and who took places below them WILL NOT SUFFER. The pushed players will get the rating that CORRESPONDS TO THEIR RESULT IN DAYS. And Amber wrote something like "let the accountants think for themselves what is what," but first HE himself shoved a damn oscillator at them :)
PSS. Amber, good luck coming up with a coefficient that eliminates this flaw, which in my system is already absent by itself! As you can see, not everything can be accounted for by mathematics :) I state once again that a rating calculation system without accounting for place, number of people, secondary parameters, and bonuses is MORE STABLE and RELIABLE. Its price-quality ratio is much higher than any other :)

Moreover, it eliminates the problem of the lack of a strong player with a good result.

In your first system, the maximum rating was 100, regardless of the leader's result. As a result, all tournaments using this rating system were equivalent, and, for example, a leader would receive the same rating for an easy map with no worthy opponents as they would for a tournament held on a difficult map with a large number of contenders for first place.

In the system with a "Virtual Player," another problem arises: now, a leader will receive more rating for a map that can be easily completed in 3 days than for a map that takes at least 100 days to complete.

Here's a statement I found by AmberSoler :) --- The only question is whether the ideology behind the ranking will become a victim of its own illusions... --- In a way, AmberSoler doesn't realize that he himself has become the first victim of his own illusions :) as one of the ideologists of the ranking with the oscillator. Do you think that the formula I presented as the final one was the first thing that came to my mind? Of course, initially I wanted to take many things into account there, such as the location, the strength of the Tournament, the number of participants, the difficulty of the map, and the permissible limits. But as I thought about one thing or another, I came up with many situations where the system failed, and I gradually discarded parameters one by one. In the end, there was NOT A SINGLE ONE left :) For some time, I was stumped because there were no more parameters left. And only then did it occur to me that I should only take into account the pure result based on the main condition for winning the Tournament (days or experience or skeletons or resources) relative to the leader's result.

Added 23 minutes ago

In your first system, the maximum rating was 100, regardless of the leader's result. As a result, all Tournaments using this ranking system were equivalent, and, for example, for an easy map where there were no worthy opponents, the leader receives the same rating as for a Tournament held on a difficult map with a large number of contenders for first place. In the system with the "Virtual Player," another flaw arises: now, the leader for a map that can be easily completed in 3 days will receive a higher rating than for a map where the minimum completion time is, for example, 100 days.

Just say that the same flaw or a similar one does not exist in the system of Amber and Pank, and I will laugh. I agree with what you wrote. But let's talk about the situation where these two Tournaments are held on the same version of the game, and both leaders participate in both Tournaments. The flaw disappears for them. They both competed on both an easy and a difficult map against each other and received corresponding ratings that no one and nothing can influence because only their results in days are taken into account, which depended solely on their ability to play the game under any time constraints, since there is no need to focus on secondary parameters. And in your example, you say that Player A played in Tournament 1 and did not play in Tournament 2, and Player B played in Tournament 2 and did not play in Tournament 1. Here, nothing will help ANY SYSTEM without a map difficulty coefficient. Because we assume that there is also Tournament 3, where neither A nor B played, but a newbie played and with a result of 1000 days on a super-easy map receives 100 points according to my first system, just like players A and B in their Tournaments 1 and 2. And if we take the system with the Virtual Player, then in this case, only Player B will suffer a little. And why? Because he missed Tournament N1. I think you can draw your own conclusions if you are capable. Well, Player B will now have to chase Player A and wait for him to miss a Tournament with an easy map and get his revenge. Although, in reality, look at the Tournaments that have actually taken place on the forum. The leaders' results on the maps do not exceed a two-week period.

Leaderboard results on maps do not exceed a 2-week period.

/topic/1754/

Look, the 1st annual "Best of the Best" tournament – the best result is 36 days (5 weeks + 1 day).

I found a quote from AmberSoler :)
---
The only question is whether the ideology behind the rating will become a victim of its own illusions...
---

Listen, buddy... This was said in another thread, and it was about the clan rating, where the issue was that, in order to increase the clan rating, a team could easily discuss the strategy for completing a tournament before it even starts... And therefore, the very idea of calculating the clan rating could be at risk...

Don't use words without referencing the original source - if you're quoting, indicate where it's from. That's the first thing. And I don't understand why you're linking my words to an oscillator? Just because you want to show off the "advantages" of your calculation method again? It seems like you're very doubtful, since you keep advertising it tirelessly... Iron, don't confuse concepts and don't try to mislead people...

Added 7 minutes later

Of course, at first I wanted to take many things into account there, such as the location, the strength of the tournament, the number of people, the complexity of the map, and the permissible limits. But as I thought about one thing or another, I came up with many situations where the system failed, and I gradually discarded parameters one by one. In the end, there was NOT A SINGLE ONE left.

Just because you couldn't find a relationship between the parameters doesn't mean it doesn't exist. These parameters are related to each other, and not taking them into account is at least incorrect. The question is how? That's what we're working on. You're suggesting a scheme like this: "I'm afraid I won't understand your method, and you'll deceive me, so let me do the calculations myself, and everything will be simple and there will be almost no mistakes"... It's your problem whether or not you believe the people who are doing the calculations. And don't rely on the number of posts and words per unit of time. 90% of your statements are aimed at discrediting alternative calculation methods, while there's nothing left to say about the essence of the matter...

Your idea is clear and will be considered. In addition, there are others. There is no need to reject them for contrived reasons. Please answer to the point, and not just throw words around as you usually do.

But let's talk about the situation where these two Tournaments are played on the same version of the game, and both leaders in both Tournaments participated. The disadvantage for them disappears.

IF all participants always participate in all Tournaments, then yes.
But firstly, this is practically impossible, and secondly, in this case, you can use your first system - there will be no disadvantage.

Let's assume that there is also Tournament 3, where neither A nor B played, but Player C played and, with a result of 1000 days on a super-easy map, receives 100 points according to my first system, just like players A and B in their Tournaments 1 and 2.

Let's assume that there is Tournament 4, where player A and B do not participate, but a beginner player participates and completes a super-easy map in 1 day and receives 10000 points. And for the first Tournaments, where player A and B completed a super-hard map in 10000 days, they receive 1 point each. The result is unsatisfactory.

P.S. In your first system, the same rating was given for all Tournaments, while in the second, a higher rating can be given for an easy Tournament than for a difficult one. Draw your own conclusions.

I have some questions.
1. Regarding the first player — not me — who did you copy them from? Are these real tournament results?

Yes, these are real results of the winners.

Fireball, now can you find something else to nitpick in this system??? The calculation is shown for five tournaments across different versions of Heroes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. But the same could be done if all five tournaments were, for example, only for one version, say Heroes 1.

Let's begin the debrief.
You are proposing to calculate the rating using the formula

R=10000(∑(1/Ni))/(∑Ni)

Welcome to our friendly company of "9th-floorers"
This formula distorts the rating in favor of fast maps less than your previous creation, but it still does so very significantly.
Let's look at the same imaginary player who won 4 stages, but got 4th place in the fourth (13 days); he will lose to you, even though you didn't even make it into the prizes anywhere except the fourth, and the 5th is almost a complete... well, you get me. It's just that in 5, there are no "drops," no "graveyards," and a bunch of other legalized bugs/features specifically for the official version. And creating such gaps while playing not against absolute noobs is simply impossible. In general, a person who won 4 out of 5 tournaments, and took 3rd place in one, should never lose on the sum, especially to someone who made it into the prizes only once.

Another example. Let's say there is a person who, like you, plays 4 and 5. And let's say he didn't have time for timeKilling in 4, playing through a bunch of battles (since you wrote that you played everything "cleanly," didn't use Ares anywhere — I'm almost afraid to imagine how many hours you spent on that) and polishing unit movement paths. In most versions, this would likely lead to a loss of parameters, but in this case, with a high degree of probability, it led to +1 day.
That is, let's say the player's result in 4 is 4 days (2nd place), and in 5 it's your same 17 (but with higher parameters). For the first stages: 12 (1st place), 12, 7 (1st place)
Total: the player plays better than you in 3 versions (and equally in two), beat you in 4 out of 5 tournaments, has two 1st places and one 2nd place, but loses to you in the rating.
If you wish, you can check both examples and see the failure of your latest idea.

Fireball, will you say it's demagoguery again? Regarding your claim that all VK stages should be equal — you're out of luck — that's NOT going to happen. Example: Player A is strong in 4, Player B in 3. In the 4 stage, there were very few people. Strong Player A took 1st place, and Player B took 2nd place even though they play 4 very poorly, simply because there were very few people there. But as we see from Punk's and Amber's systems, PLACE gives a decent bonus (28 points). What chance does Player A have of taking SECOND place in 3 (if they play 3 as crookedly as Player B plays 4) given that there are cockroaches' worth of people in 3 and plenty of pros. Player A will clearly be pushed way past 2nd place there. And where is the equality of stages for 3 and 4 for players A and B? Mathematicians, hello?

I'll explain. If Player A is truly strong in 4, they will win it and get 100 points. Identically, Player B will get 100 points for 3. The results of A in 3 and B in 4 will be heavily influenced by the pool of participants, I agree. It turns out that 2 out of four results are distorted. With the introduction of a 1-day virtual, all 4 results are distorted, because neither A nor B is responsible for the actual possible map minimum.
Absolute equivalence of stages will never happen in practice, but the distortion with the virtual is many times greater.

Now about creating clones in tournaments.
If you had bothered to look at the dependencies more closely, you would have noticed that such actions, even with 12-15 participants, would only slightly push back those behind the cheater and have almost no effect on those ahead. And it takes quite a bit of time to create a clone that doesn't get caught. Who needs that? So far, there have been no such cases. As for several people discussing tactics among themselves, that distorts any system, as they can together achieve a better result, even in terms of days.

4. Conclusion: The more parameters the rating calculation system for Heroes takes into account, the more glitches there will be, related both to the formula itself, as well as protection and many other things. Learn the fundamentals, mathematicians.

The point is, I know the fundamentals many times better than you do. And I can state with full confidence that your assertion is false. When a problem cannot be solved exactly, more data is always taken, and certainly more than one parameter. And practically always, more complex calculations are used to obtain more accurate results.

My last post from work was interrupted, and I lost my internet connection. I was editing my last message like this:
-----------------------------
They both competed against each other in both the easy and difficult maps and received corresponding ratings that no one and nothing can influence because only their pure results in days are taken into account, which depended solely on their skill in playing Heroes, regardless of the time constraints, since there is no need to focus on secondary parameters. And in your example, you say that Player A played in Tournament 1 and did not play in Tournament 2, while Player B played in Tournament 2 and did not play in Tournament 1. Nothing will help ANY SYSTEM without a map difficulty coefficient. Because we assume that there is also Tournament 3, where neither A nor B played, but a newbie played and, with a result of 1000 days on a super-easy map, receives 100 points according to my first system, just like players A and B in their Tournaments 1 and 2. The philosophy of THIS rating system is: who is to blame for the fact that the newbie received ONE HUNDRED? Answer: players A and B. One of them should have participated in the tournament. Since they didn't, accept the newbie into your group and then be frustrated by his rating :)

And if you take a system with a Virtual component, then in this case, only Player B will suffer slightly. The philosophy of THIS rating system is: why did Player B suffer? Because he missed Tournament N1. Well, Player B will now have to deal with Player A and wait for him to miss a tournament with an easy map and get his revenge. Although, in reality, look at the real tournaments that have taken place on the forum. The results of the leaders on the maps do not exceed a 2-week period.

The philosophy of both rating systems is that you shouldn't miss tournaments :) I'm at a crossroads now, but for now, I'm thinking of sticking with my FIRST system (without the Virtual component). Because I'm leaning towards the conclusion that there will definitely be someone from the more or less decent and strong players who will show a normal result (even if not ideal) in the tournament. And I think that a system with a Virtual component will be worse because the probability of different maps of different difficulty being present in different tournaments is high. And then you need to come up with a map difficulty coefficient and just give up :)

Added 14 minutes ago

Hey, buddy... This was said in another thread, and it was about the clan rating, where the question was that, in order to increase the clan rating, a team can easily discuss the walkthrough of a tournament before it ends... And therefore, the very idea of calculating the clan rating may be at risk...

Hey, buddy... And with your system with an oscillator, this team can also lower the rating of the "right" guys :) What are you not saying? :)

:smile19: Deleted :smile19: Kyle: off-topic!

words about the oscillator? Just to once again show the "advantages" of your calculation method? You clearly doubt it, since you tirelessly advertise it... Iron, don't change the subject and don't try to mislead people...

And you don't avoid direct questions either. I don't need advertising. But I showed the flaws of your oscillator, I'm showing them, and I will continue to show them, no matter how much you don't want it.

If you couldn't find a relationship between the parameters, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. These parameters are related to each other, and not taking them into account is at least incorrect. The question is how? That's what we're working on. You are suggesting such a scheme: "I'm afraid that I won't understand your method and you will deceive me, so let me calculate it myself, and everything will be simple and there will be almost no mistakes"... These are your problems to believe or not to believe people who are doing calculations. And don't put pressure with the number of posts and words per unit of time. 90% of your statements are aimed at discrediting alternative calculation methods, while there is simply nothing left to say about the essence...

This is about the safety of your system :) I understood everything in your system, and it's flawed :)

Your idea is clear and will be considered. In addition, there are others. There is no need to reject them for far-fetched reasons. Please answer the question directly, and do not throw words around as you usually do.

You tell yourself that, :smile19: Deleted :smile19: I answer all questions promptly. "Your idea is clear and will be considered." Three times ha-ha. Don't feed me breakfast. You want to gloss over the answer to a direct question :) You perfectly understand that if the system takes into account the place, then the method of artificially lowering the rating by a group of players that I described, you will not be able to eliminate in any way :) And in this system, the player will not feel that his rating for the tournament is protected. :smile19: Deleted :smile19:

Added 13 minutes ago

IF all participants always participate in all tournaments, then yes. But firstly, this is practically impossible, and secondly, in this case, you can use your first system - there will be no problem.

I have already come to this conclusion - it's just the end of the month, and I ran out of internet at work at the time when I was writing the post in response to yours. I mean, I proposed the Virtual component, this system eliminated one flaw, but introduced another, which I didn't notice right away. But if you add some kind of calculation of coefficients to this idea (this is for the smart guys), then maybe something would work out. But they are stuck in searching for a balance, although their systems are already flawed just because they take into account the player's place. Plus, there is a loophole in the protection of player ratings.

we assume that there is Tournament 4, where Player A and B do not participate, but a newbie participates and completes a super-easy map in 1 day and receives 10000 points. And for the first tournaments, where Player A and B completed a super-difficult map in 10000 days, they receive 1 point. The result is unsatisfactory.

I agree. The solution is to try not to miss tournaments, which is unrealistic. That's why I came to the conclusion that I won't change anything in my system for now. It already works well enough. The flaw of a strong player not being in the tournament is a small probability. But even if that happens, it's better for the newbie to get a hundred, just like the leader on another map, than to make him an order of magnitude higher :)

P.S. In your first system, the same rating was given for all tournaments, and in the second, a higher rating may be given for an easy tournament than for a difficult one. Draw your own conclusions.

I did. I didn't say that I would definitely use this system. I presented it as another idea, thinking that it might improve something. It's not a fact that it doesn't have further development. I'm just not a master at coming up with formulas with 9 levels :)

You can tell that to yourself, smart guy. I answer all questions promptly. "Your idea is understood and will be considered." Ha ha ha, three times. Don't feed me empty promises.

Your idea has already been considered, and its absurdity has been clearly (and promptly) demonstrated. You've come up with another "brilliant idea," but read post 671. As in the previous case, it shows that it's not much better than the first one.
Are you talking about rating security again? Read the same post 671.
Your system is protected from clones (which wouldn't even make sense, except maybe in the fourth game, but due to the ability to view the game in progress, this needs to be done very carefully, i.e., it takes a long time), but it suffers from everything else just as much. And I'll add another question for you: how is your system going to prevent a player from cheating (someone takes and asks a friend to help them with a monster) or neutralize the effect on Tournaments in the fourth game of a certain cheat method, etc.
Tournaments are played for fun, and you shouldn't assume massive hardcore cheating.

Let's start the post-mortem.
You suggest calculating the rating using the formula
R=10000(∑(1/Ni))/(∑Ni)
Welcome to our friendly company of "9th floorers"

Thanks :) No way, forget it. It's easier for me to admit this idea is a dead end and return to my first system; that one doesn't really glitch. It works reliably and clearly :)

This formula distorts the rating in favor of fast maps less than your previous creation, but it still does so very strongly.
Let's consider the same imaginary player who won 4 stages, but showed a 4th place result among the top four (13 days); he will lose to you, even though you didn't even make the prizes anywhere except for the fourth, and in the fifth it's almost a complete... well, you get me. Simply put, in the fifths there are no "outs", no graves, and a whole bunch of other legalized bugs/features specifically for off-map. And creating such gaps while playing not against absolute noobs is simply impossible. In general, a person who won 4 out of 5 tournaments, and took 3rd place in one, should never lose on the total sum, especially to someone who made the prizes only once.

What do you mean by "make the prizes" and provide the nickname of the person from your example; I'll at least look at the tables for comparison, because you're saying something but I don't understand you.

Another example. Let's say there is a person who, like you, plays both 4 and 5. And let's say he didn't have time to engage in timeKilling in 4 by playing out a bunch of battles (since you wrote that you played everything cleanly, didn't "Ares" anywhere—it's scary even to imagine how many hours you spent on this)

And what am I supposed to write according to you? You should have checked if you had the desire and opportunity and knew how. I spent practically that entire month on this map—half a month doing scouting, half a month doing a clean Walkthrough. I reported the battles, provided saves for the end of each day, offered any saves, answered all questions, and wrote a description :) Any complaints? Is the Walkthrough unrealistic?

and polishing unit movement. In most versions, this would likely lead to loss of parameters, but in this case, with a high degree of probability, it led to +1 day.
i.e., let's say the player's result in 4 is 4 days (2nd place), and in 5 it's your same 17 (but with higher parameters). In the first stages—12(1st place), 12, 7(1st place). Total: the player plays better than you in 3 versions (in two they are equal), beat you in 4 out of 5 tournaments, has two 1sts and one 2nd place, but is lower than you in rating.
If you wish, you can check both examples and see the invalidity of your latest idea.

Why are you picking on me and the fifth? I only played really poorly in it because I know absolutely NOTHING about it :) I played there and everywhere else based on what was explained to EVERYONE before the tournament regarding how totals would be calculated. For the general rating, they were supposedly going to sum up ratings by version and this was discussed—where were you smart-asses then? After that, I chose my strategy for the tournament and knew that I couldn't skip a single tournament if I wanted to fight for the general title, which is what I did. And now, halfway through the tournaments, Fireball pops up like a jack-in-the-box and together with AmberSoler they start "refining" something and proving everything is crap because Axe is in first place :) Tell me, what am I guilty of? The fact that I understood it was better for me to get even 5 points for the fifth than ZERO :)

Let me explain. If player A is truly strong in 4, he will win it and get 100 points. Similarly, player B will get 100 points for 3. The results of A in 3 and B in 4 will be heavily influenced by the composition of participants, agreed. It turns out that 2 out of 4 results are distorted. By introducing a virtual with 1 day, all 4 results are distorted, since neither A nor B is responsible for the actual possible minimum of the map.

Well, you could have just come up with some coefficient and strengthened my first version with it, because the virtual fixed a small glitch there which, by the way, exists in all systems (well, I didn't notice that by fixing a small glitch it introduced a larger one, so what? I can admit a mistake—I'm not as stubborn as Amber) instead of trying to improve a formula with an oscillator that is obviously flawed. It's flawed already just because it takes place into account. There's absolutely no protection.

Absolute equivalence of stages will never happen in practice, but the distortion with the virtual is many times greater.

I remember you saying "give me an idea and I'll come up with a formula" :) Well, come up with one so that the distortion from the virtual is minimized. But that's impossible. Because you can't determine—was it a complex map or were there no strong players—because everything here is subjective. I admit this and return to my previous formula—I have somewhere to retreat :). But you don't want to admit that in a system where place is taken into account, there is a specific unfixable glitch. In a tournament with five identical results, you cannot determine whether there was out-of-game discussion between players during the game or not—nevertheless, the rating of the players following them WILL BE LOWERED. IS THIS FAIR? WHAT DO YOU PERSONALLY THINK?

Now about creating clones in tournaments.
If you had bothered to look at the dependencies more closely, you would have noticed that such actions with 12-15 participants only slightly push back those behind the cheater and have almost no effect on those ahead. And it takes quite a lot of time to create a clone that doesn't get caught. Who needs that? There haven't been any such cases yet. But discussion of tactics among several people distorts any system, as they can together achieve a better result in terms of days.

I specifically showed with an example how in my system the PUSHED-BACK player remains with a rating corresponding to 3rd place, and how in this same situation he is pushed down to 7th under the oscillator system. If you don't see the difference and don't understand this, then the conversation is over :)
OR ARE YOU GOING TO CLAIM THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 7th AND 3rd PLACE?

The point is that I know the math much better than you. And I can state with full confidence that your assertion is false. When a problem cannot be solved exactly, more data is always taken, and certainly not just one parameter. And almost always, more complex calculations are used to obtain more accurate results.

:smile19: Removed :smile19:
or show how in your system a player won't lose rating if several "clever" comrades wedge themselves in front of him.

PS. I agree that if a crowd completes it collectively, they might beat me. But in my system, they won't push me back in the rating as they would in yours. :smile19: Removed :smile19:


Added after 3 minutes

The problem of finding the optimal balance has been reduced to a question of proving the invalidity of the ideas of the great combinator IronAxe.
Voting for the calculation system, if one is found, will be conducted among the people who discussed it. The voice of one participant, no matter how loud, cannot create an advantage toward a system if it is not worthy of attention.
Therefore, I suggest not wasting time on uselessness...

:smile19: Removed :smile19:
It's clear that if you take me, you, and Fire for the commission, then I will lose :) Therefore, I support the people who expressed a desire that EVERYONE should vote, not just the chosen few-:smile19: Removed :smile19:


Added after 7 minutes

Your idea has already been considered and its absurdity was clearly (and quickly) demonstrated. You've had another "brilliant thought," but read post 671.
There, similarly to the previous case, it is shown that it's not much better than the first one.

You simply have nothing to answer. And as for my idea with the virtual failing—well, obviously—it was flawed just like the oscillator.

Are you talking about rating security again? Read that same post 671.

Shove it where the sun don't shine :)

Your system is protected against clones (which make no sense to create anyway, except in 4, but because of the ability to view moves, this must be done very carefully, i.e., slowly), but it suffers from everything else just as much. And I'll add another question: how does your system intend to cut off fraud by a player (someone asks a monster acquaintance to help them) or neutralize the effect on 4 tournaments of one lovely guide, etc.

It doesn't—just like your system. I clearly showed that my protection works when a clan discusses the Walkthrough together, while yours does not. And the player's rating in my system is protected, whereas in yours it isn't.

Tournaments are played for fun and one should not assume mass hardcore cheating.

Your demagoguery about valor and honor doesn't interest me; I am interested in the security of the rating.

Added after 7 minutes
I just thought that the idea with the virtual would improve the system. I was wrong. Now you've picked on this and are trying to bully me specifically for the virtual idea. At the same time, you don't want to admit the glitch in the oscillator system, and you can no longer object with anything smart :) The familiar talk about honor and valor has started. To the bathhouse (forget it)! :)

Added after 21 minutes

Tournaments are played for fun and one should not assume mass hardcore cheating.

Even if the cheating isn't mass hardcore but just a single instance, I still don't want someone's rating to suffer from it, especially mine :)

I just thought that the idea with a virtual system would improve the system. I was wrong. Now you are picking on this and trying to belittle me specifically for the idea with the virtual system.

Dear sir, not "now," but "immediately"... :)

If only you had taken off your helmet right away, the issue would have been resolved. But, as always, you rallied everyone to the barricades, and now you don't know how to back down... :) Two people were quietly and peacefully talking, but then you appeared and started pushing everyone around, and now you have complaints that you were cornered... :)

And regarding supporting the community, go ahead, no one is stopping you... But believe me, the community doesn't need this. If there were Tournaments, ten different ways to calculate the rating wouldn't spoil anything...

You've been calculating it for a year now, so tell me, as a person who doesn't follow the rating, who is our strongest player? :) And we will offer him to confirm this title at the next stage of the League... And if he doesn't make it into the top three, then the rating can go to hell... :)

Dear friend, it wasn't "now," but "immediately"... :)
If only you had taken off your helmet right away, the issue would have been resolved. But, as always, you rallied everyone to the barricades and now you don't know how to back down... :) Two people were quietly and peacefully talking, but then you showed up like a lumberjack and started pushing everyone around, and now you're complaining that you were cornered... :)

No one cornered me. I had an idea, and I tested it. I don't believe anyone on their word. I made sure it wasn't suitable. By the way, Fireball and Ataman convinced me the most that the idea was wrong, not you. Also, during the discussion, I found another flaw in your oscillator, and now you have nothing to counter with :)
How is the player's rating protected from being lowered if a group of like-minded people jumps in and the player is pushed down 3-4 positions? Come on, instead of giving a concrete answer, you're just rambling :)

You've been calculating for a year now, so tell me, as a person who doesn't follow the rating, who is our strongest player? :) And we'll suggest that he confirm this title in the next stage of the Competitive event... And if he doesn't make it into the top three, then the rating can go to hell... :)

The question is incorrect :) The strongest player according to the rating, in which version? That's one thing. And if you listened carefully, the rating doesn't always predict the result of the next Competitive event; otherwise, there would be no point in having Competitive events :) So, suggest that you think a little instead of writing complete nonsense, just to avoid answering the specific question about the flaw in the oscillator :) Throw away your oscillator :)