Connection ErrorBad RequestSession 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.
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.
to IronAxe: I will not answer in numbers, as I believe they would not convince you. I will answer simply, in words. Let's take your situation for example and transfer it, say, to a running race—a hundred-meter dash. What we see is that runner E reasonably takes third place in the second Competitive event, and he won't be remembered for trailing the leader by just a little bit, but rather that someone else overtook him. i.e., he is third. In competitions, it's not the leader's result that is determined, but how many people wedged themselves between the leader and the runner. No one cares how many seconds someone trailed the leader (well, except for the runner himself and his coach, of course :D). Consequently, place must be taken into account in the rating.
Respectfully.
P.S. to Kamikaze: please do not make such large quotes.
Кто состоянием своим доволен, тому жить весело. (с)Алекса́ндр Васи́льевич Суво́ров
Fireball
Auto-translated
2IronAxe
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)
Players A, B, C, D, and E received a zero rating in all systems because these tournaments cannot be considered ranked.
AlexeyPank
Auto-translated
Something terrible happened. The system crashed, and with it, all the tables and results were lost. Therefore, I cannot provide my calculations for the time being. As soon as I sort things out, I will calculate everything immediately.
I won't provide numbers because I don't think they will convince you. I'll explain it simply, in words. Let's take your situation as an example and imagine it's a 100-meter race.
I've already heard examples about motorcycle racing and ping-pong. Now it's come down to the 100-meter dash :) But we're not actually running. We're running in place. Kyle;105814
What we see is that runner E reasonably takes third place in the second Competitive event, and he will be remembered not for being just a little behind the leader, but for the fact that another runner overtook him. That is, he is third.
But I see that player D simply entered the second Tournament, not the first. And the results of B and E are absolutely identical. If D had entered a different Tournament, the player rankings would have changed in the opposite direction, which shows that a player's rating depends on random factors and on the composition of the Tournament. Kyle;105814
In Competitive events, what matters is not the leader's result, but how many people are between the leader and the runner. And how many seconds someone is behind the leader is of no interest to anyone (except, of course, the runner himself and his coach :D).
In Competitive events, the place does matter, and no one gives a runner 100 points and then compares the results of the others to that 100. But in our game, one of the main points of the system is that the leader is given 100 points for his wins. Kyle;105814
Therefore, the place must be taken into account in the ranking.
Therefore, the place should not be taken into account in the ranking in the Heroes game at all.
Added 4 minutes ago Fireball;105817
2IronAxe Players A, B, C, D, and E received a zero rating in all systems because such Tournaments cannot be called ranking Tournaments.
There are still a lot of letters in the alphabet; I can create an example specifically for you where there will be a quorum. But I'll make it simpler. Both Tournaments were official. And according to the rules, a rating for an official Tournament is always awarded, even without taking into account the quorum. Let's calculate and see the results; don't make excuses. In this example, everyone will see how the systems with place taken into account mess up. With equal game results, players will receive different ratings. And this is not justified by anything. Neither by the 100-meter dash nor by motorcycle racing.
Added 9 minutes ago Kamikaze;105800
to Iron Your exaggerated example is not quite suitable, because I won't calculate the rating for two or three players :D
The example is called exaggerated because it does not take into account the quorum (consider it official Tournaments). It clearly shows how even in such a simple situation, the "place" parameter messes up. Kamikaze;105800
And regarding the fact that E will get a lower rating than B, this is absolutely fair because he lost to more people.
But why should players receive DIFFERENT ratings for REAL IDENTICAL results, just because player D decided to enter the second Tournament instead of the first?
P.S. In my opinion, both the "place" parameter and the oscillator may reflect the rating more accurately, but only within the framework of ONE Tournament. And in order for them to continue to work without errors in other Tournaments, it is necessary that the composition of participants from Tournament to Tournament be CONSTANT, which is impossible in principle, especially for tracking a universal rating. Good luck to you in creating the formula; it's not going to happen until you realize that the "place" parameter needs to be removed from the formula. Why are people coming up with all sorts of bonuses and coefficients for the oscillator? Why doesn't anyone apply these things purely to the NON-LINEAR part of the formula?
Why should players receive DIFFERENT ratings for REAL, IDENTICAL results, just because player D decided to register for the second tournament instead of the first? :)
Because it's a competition. And since many people participated, they should receive a corresponding rating.
Кто состоянием своим доволен, тому жить весело. (с)Алекса́ндр Васи́льевич Суво́ров
There are plenty of letters in the alphabet; I can easily create an example where a quorum exists. But I'll make it simpler. Both tournaments were official. According to the rules, a rating for an official tournament is awarded without fail, even without considering the quorum. So, let's calculate and present the results, instead of making excuses. In this example, everyone will see how the systems make mistakes when considering the placement. With equal game results, players will receive different ratings. And this is not justified by anything. Neither by a 100-meter sprint nor by motorcycle racing.
So, let's not complicate an already problematic topic... a request to Fireball :smile19: Removed :smile19: Reason: insult. Sincerely. and Iron, please come up with a more realistic example... for example, with at least 8 participants!!! 3 participants is nonsense, IMHO!!!
Fireball
Auto-translated
Both tournaments were official. According to the rules, a rating for an official tournament is awarded without fail, even without considering the quorum. Let's calculate and see the results, instead of making excuses.
This is impossible because the participants' ratings are unknown. And it doesn't make sense because the example is not real.
2Kyle I see that you also have a competitive spirit. I understand you, and that's why I can't imagine a rating without a place. Results are important in training, but in competitions, your place in the final standings is almost all that matters.
Results matter during training, but in competitions, almost everything depends on your position in the final standings.
Exactly, and at that point, it doesn't matter how much you trailed the leader! Only the position matters because many rankings for competitions (with a large number of stages) are calculated based on points that directly depend on the position and do not depend on the result itself.
Кто состоянием своим доволен, тому жить весело. (с)Алекса́ндр Васи́льевич Суво́ров
The example is called exaggerated because it doesn't take quorum into account (consider this official tournaments). It clearly shows how even in such a simple situation, the "occupied place" parameter fails.
You mean that we should simplify it to the extreme and ignore important components. :rolleyes: Besides, I showed you that my rating turns out to be the same :D P.S. There won't be three participants in official tournaments.
to IronAxe Could you please tell me the reason why the rating calculation in your system has been suspended since April? And does this also apply to the nomination of the 13 best warriors?! :confused:
Exactly, and at that point, the difference in score doesn't matter! Only the placement matters. Because many rankings for competitions (with a large number of stages) are calculated based on points that directly depend on the placement, and not on the result itself.
Yes, and tell me the opposite - the result determines who goes out. :eek:
Yes, and also say the opposite - the result at the end. :eek:
I didn't understand your message... :o For those who don't understand, please explain...
Кто состоянием своим доволен, тому жить весело. (с)Алекса́ндр Васи́льевич Суво́ров
Kamikaze
Auto-translated
to Kyle:
You say it's not important how far behind you are from the leader.
And I'm saying, you might as well say we should remove the scoring component altogether.
Kyle, how can it not be important how far behind you are from the leader?
to Kyle: You say it’s not important how far behind you are from the leader. And I’m saying, you might as well remove the scoring component altogether. Kyle, how can it not be important how far behind you are from the leader?
Well, initially, the VDV_forever system was exactly like that. Of course, that’s not very correct either... that’s why, in my opinion, taking into account both the result and the position in equal proportions is the most correct solution.
Sincerely.
Кто состоянием своим доволен, тому жить весело. (с)Алекса́ндр Васи́льевич Суво́ров
Well, initially, the VDV_forever system was exactly like that. Of course, this isn't entirely correct either... therefore, taking into account both the result and the placement in equal proportions is, in my opinion, the most correct solution.
Best regards.
That's what I've been saying from the beginning; help me determine the correct ratio.
Kyle
