HeroesWorld
  • Log in
  • Create account
  • Mode
    Interface scale

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

Rating systems.
5.0 (1 rating)
Open
Which rating system should I choose? (see the text for details)
33 voters
Single choice
Sign in to participate in this poll.
Poll results will be visible after you vote or when the poll closes.
User Avatar
Offline AlexeyPank
Registered:
Posts: 2,396
#804
Auto-translated
Actually, the bonus will range from almost 0 (if players conduct the tournament in a completely uninspired way) to 50, if they perform twice as well as expected. In any case, even the sum of the linear component and the bonus will be less than the non-linear one. If you've noticed, the results of the leaders are almost always the same (fluctuations are around 1/10 of the total rating). In the grand scheme of things, this isn't too important. Iron, in my opinion, has more than earned first place in the overall ranking due to his activity and consistent results. Wouldn't you prefer that fewer tournaments always result in more points than more tournaments?
Мы спасемся? Я не знаю. Верьте...
Геройский Интернационал
Клан Homo homini - основатель клана
Член РКСМ с 07.07.07.
ФЛУДОВСКИЕ ССЫЛКИ!- сообщить о бесполезной теме/сообщении.
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Fireball
Registered:
Posts: 886
#805
Auto-translated
Actually, the bonus will range from almost 0 (if players simply "don't play" the tournament) to 50, if they perform twice as well as expected.
Be more objective; for the leaders, the bonus will most often range from 20 to 30.
If you've noticed, the leaders' results are almost always the same (fluctuations are around 1/10 of the total rating). In the grand scheme of things, this isn't too important.
Exactly, that's what I noticed. Therefore, this is absolutely not a bonus based on the strength of the tournament, but rather an unclear addition, almost constant. And you can't track the difference between a warm-up tournament and a major one.
Wouldn't you want fewer tournaments to always award more points than more tournaments?
I'm sorry, but I wrote
If you want to "hold back" the leaders, then the final effective rating should take into account its average value. Or you could limit the number of tournaments per year, for example, to 12. If they play more, they choose the best results. But is that necessary?
You have greatly distorted my thought. I was just saying that your bonus won't help to get closer to the leaders, and may even hinder it.
Although you should understand that the additive nature of the rating hides unpleasant and inevitable pitfalls.
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline AlexeyPank
Registered:
Posts: 2,396
#806
Auto-translated
Actually, I suggested implementing an additional multiplier for tournaments: King's Bounty - 1.2, Heroes of Might and Magic - 1.4. This would increase their prestige and allow players to earn a higher rating in them.
Мы спасемся? Я не знаю. Верьте...
Геройский Интернационал
Клан Homo homini - основатель клана
Член РКСМ с 07.07.07.
ФЛУДОВСКИЕ ССЫЛКИ!- сообщить о бесполезной теме/сообщении.
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Fireball
Registered:
Posts: 886
#807
Auto-translated
Actually, I suggested implementing an additional coefficient for tournaments: King's Bounty - 1.2, War of the Vikings - 1.4. This would increase their prestige and allow players to earn a higher rating in them.
The coefficients should have meaning and reflect the strength of the tournament. For King's Bounty, 1.2 is too low for a tournament with three players, but too high for a tournament with four. And if War of the Vikings turns out to be only 1.4 times stronger than an ordinary tournament that barely met the quota, then it can be safely considered unsuccessful and not worthy of its name.
In the system I proposed, the multiplier would naturally follow from the composition of the participants, rather than being arbitrarily assigned. And the differences between tournaments could be much more significant.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to AlexeyPank
User Avatar
Offline Kamikaze
Registered:
Posts: 1,700
#808
Auto-translated
AlexeyPank;105583
Iron, in my opinion, fully deserves first place in the overall ranking due to his activity and consistent results. Wouldn't you prefer that fewer tournaments always result in more points than more tournaments?
Of course, Iron fully deserves first place. It's all about his activity. I also agree that the most active players should be at the top. But bonuses have nothing to do with it, don't you think?
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Kyle
Registered:
Posts: 2,153
#809
Auto-translated
Greetings, Lords,
I would like to share my opinion on this matter:
1) The Kamikaze VS Fireball debate: I support the latter.
This quote perfectly illustrates my opinion:
Fireball
Therefore, the rating should rely more on logic and less on coefficients (i.e., personal perception).

2) The AlexeyPank VS Fireball debate: again, I support the latter.
Let's clarify what Tournament Strength means. It is either the prestige of the tournament (which is not related to the difficulty of the task) or the difficulty of the task in the tournament.
At the same time, the difficulty of the task is a very subjective thing, and, in my opinion, it is impossible to assess it. The participation of strong players in a tournament is not an indicator of the tournament's strength. IMHO.
However, the prestige of the tournament is a different matter. But it can be easily determined using an oscillator. All that is needed is to increase the maximum number of points for the tournament.

Players' strength based on their previous games is, in my opinion, a completely unnecessary parameter, because only the result of the played tournament should be taken into account in the rating, and it doesn't matter how they played in the past! What matters is how they performed in the current tournament. Otherwise, we may end up with a rating that reflects not the player's strength, but their ability to "play" with these bonuses.

AlexeyPank
The oscillator does not reflect:
1 - The strength of the tournament.
2 - The strength of the players based on their previous games.
From what is written above, it follows that these parameters are not critical.

However, the oscillator can be improved by replacing the linear component with some non-linear one.

Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely.

Кто состоянием своим доволен, тому жить весело. (с)Алекса́ндр Васи́льевич Суво́ров
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Kamikaze
Registered:
Posts: 1,700
#810
Auto-translated
I believe the bonus should be larger, and it should exist in the first place – if a participant overtakes players in the final standings who are (or were) ranked higher than them in the overall ranking, and that's based on this particular version. Because HOMM3 and HOMM4 are really very different games. Otherwise, it turns out that someone has never played the fourth game (ranked 29th), but is an ace in the third game (ranked 2nd). What is the justification for a bonus here? Or, the bonus could be introduced within a single tournament, for example, the World Cup. Here, you can award bonuses from stage to stage because it's a single entity.

Added 4 minutes later
Kyle;105596
Greetings, Gentlemen,
I will express my opinion on this matter:
1) The Kamikaze VS Fireball debate: I support the latter.
This quote very well illustrates my opinion:

Message from Fireball
Therefore, the ranking needs more logic and less of subjective perception.

And who says I'm against this – I completely agree. How does my option not fit this interpretation???
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Kamikaze
User Avatar
Offline Kyle
Registered:
Posts: 2,153
#811
Auto-translated
Kamikaze;105597
I believe the bonus should be larger, and in general, it should exist – if a participant overtakes players in the final standings who are (or were) higher than him in the overall ranking, and that too, based on this version. Because HOMM3 and HOMM4 are indeed very different things.
Otherwise, it turns out that someone has never played the fourth game (occupies 29th place), but is an ace in the third (occupies 2nd place). Why should there be a bonus here???
Or, the bonus should be introduced within a single tournament, for example, the World Cup. Here, you can reward from stage to stage because it is a single entity.
I completely disagree! Bonuses are not needed in principle!
Instead of ranking bonuses, you can give grail bonuses.
That is, according to AlexeyPank's formulas, give a bonus not to the ranking but to the grails.
In this way, we will maintain interest in achieving the maximum ranking and rid the ranking of unnecessary additions that do not reflect the player's real gaming strength.

Sincerely.

Кто состоянием своим доволен, тому жить весело. (с)Алекса́ндр Васи́льевич Суво́ров
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Kyle
User Avatar
Offline Kamikaze
Registered:
Posts: 1,700
#812
Auto-translated
Kyle;105600
I completely disagree! Bonuses are not needed at all!
Instead of rating bonuses, we can give Grail bonuses.
That is, using the formulas of AlexeyPank, give a bonus not to the rating, but to the Grails.
In this way, we will maintain interest in achieving the maximum rating and eliminate unnecessary additions from the rating that do not reflect the player's actual skill.
Kyle, why are you against bonuses? After all, it's interesting. But if everyone wants simplicity, then we can do without them - my ratings are calculated without bonuses. So, let's give bonuses in Grails, then we can use Alexei's formulas in the bonus calculation: p, they give good bonuses.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Kamikaze
User Avatar
Offline IronAxe
Registered:
Posts: 1,495
#813
Auto-translated
:) I see the meeting is spontaneously continuing. Once again, I'll pop up with my simple, foolish example. Let each of the system developers apply their system to this example and publish the results. The example is simple, and if a system doesn't work on it, then what is there to talk about. We have two independent Tournaments. In one, players A and B play. In the other—players C, D, and E. The map is THE SAME in both tournaments (well, that's just the example (different organizers simply :) , so that even mathematicians understand :)
Results of Tournament 1:
A - 5 days (sum of skills 16, oil 15)
B - 20 days (sum of skills 20, oil 30)
Results of Tournament 2:
C - 5 days (sum of skills 15, oil 16)
D - 6 days
E - 20 days (sum of skills 20, oil 25)

Dear developers—send your ratings for the five players to the studio! :)
And don't forget to calculate using my system, so that we can, so to speak, compare.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to IronAxe
User Avatar
Offline Alex_R
Registered:
Posts: 1,766
#814
Auto-translated
IronAxe;105666
:) I see – the spontaneous meeting continues.
Yeah, and there are plenty of observers... I'm still waiting for real tables so I can quickly and easily understand how each system works... for example, bonuses from AlexeyPank.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Alex_R
User Avatar
Offline IronAxe
Registered:
Posts: 1,495
#815
Auto-translated
Alex_R;105667
Yeah, and there are plenty of observers... I'm still waiting for real tables so that it's faster and easier to understand how each system works... for example, the bonuses from AlexeyPank.
A - 5 days (total skills 16, oil 15)
B - 20 days (total skills 16, oil 11)
Tournament 2 results:
C - 5 days (total skills 15, oil 16)
D - 6 days
E - 20 days (total skills 20, oil 25)
I specifically chose an exaggerated example where there are no previous games relative to which bonuses should be given, and there is no data to calculate the strength of the tournament. Here, only DAYS and a subjective placement can be taken into account. The developers who take placement into account in their systems will hardly be able to reasonably explain in this example why player E should receive a lower rating than player B, especially if the secondary parameters are changed, as I did now. If they could remove the PLACEMENT from their systems but include the accounting of secondary parameters, that would be fine, but it's difficult, as AmberSoler is still silent about this, although he promised to think about it. So, what conclusion can be drawn? Since it is impossible or very difficult, it is easier to get rid of these parameters altogether. The result based on the main criterion for determining the winner is quite sufficient in itself, and this can already be seen in real tables.
But based on previous discussions, I support AlexPank and Kamikadze more. Because, although I don't really understand what the catch is, they are trying to reduce the flaws that are introduced into their formulas due to taking PLACEMENT into account with their bonuses and coefficients. Wouldn't it be easier for you to remove it from the formula and simplify your life? Or go ahead and calculate your ratings based on this example and explain the legitimacy of the results
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Kamikaze
Registered:
Posts: 1,700
#816
Auto-translated
to Iron
Your exaggerated example doesn't quite fit, as I wouldn't be able to calculate the rating for two or three players :D
And regarding the fact that E will receive a lower rating than B - that is absolutely fair, because he lost to a greater number of players. But according to my version - let's assume that there are 11 players in the first tournament and 12 in the second, and B and E took 11th and 12th places respectively - B will receive 18.71, and E will receive 18.71 (if rounding to thousandths, B will have 0.005 more) :D
1
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline K0Lb@zzeR
Registered:
Posts: 484
#817
Auto-translated
I've read your posts and the arguments, and I think everyone is right in their own way, but my opinion is this: whatever rating system they decide on, that's what I'll play with – that's for sure. I can only suggest the following, maybe it will give someone some ideas, and maybe even help a lot. It happened a long time ago, back in the days when the cult strategy game StarCraft was at its peak. And so, I was also sitting and thinking about how to create a rating system for this game. And here's what I came up with, and I used this system to calculate ratings, and it worked quite well. Everyone is initially given a rating of 1000 units. Then, when a duel takes place between two players, the ratings of these players change based on the result, as follows: If the loser had a higher rating, they lose a larger number of units, X (which is added to the player with the lower rating, but the winning player). This number of units is determined by how long the game lasted; the shorter the game, the larger the value of X. Also, if the loser had a lower rating, they lose a smaller number of units, Y (which is added to the player with the higher rating, but the winning player). This number of units is determined by how long the game lasted; the shorter the game, the larger the value of Y. But the value of X is always greater than the value of Y, i.e., it is more advantageous for a player with a lower rating to win (they will receive a larger bonus), and it more strongly reduces the rating of the player with the higher rating if they lose. P.S. But I think this system is more suitable for online battles, but who knows, maybe it will give someone some ideas after reading the above.
:smile13: [ТУРНИР] "Гонка за Лидером" :smile13:
:smile28: [M] "Я и моя тень" - "I am and my shadow" :smile28:
:smile16: "Быстрая смерть" - "Fast Death" :smile16:
0
⚖️
0
In reply to K0Lb@zzeR
User Avatar
Offline Kamikaze
Registered:
Posts: 1,700
#818
Auto-translated
to K0Lb@zzeR:
Hmm... you're right, Alexey, these things are more suitable for online play or as bonuses.
0
⚖️
0