Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.Auto-translated
And you are wrong again. Let's say we have players A and B, and they participated in 9 Tournaments together. In the first eight, player A consistently showed a result of 31 days, and player B just as consistently showed 32 days. The winner always had 30 days—basically, BB-type maps. But in the ninth tournament, B showed the same result as the winner (the organizers decided to change the heroes version for variety, for example, to Heroes 4) with a result of 3 days and took second place. Player A took third place with 4 days. Who was closer to the winner more often? Correct, player A (8 out of 9 times). And who gets a higher rating? Correct, player B. A - 849.19 B - 850.00
:) You're twisting the numbers nicely. The part highlighted in black is "showed the same result as the winner" in your post. Since placements are not taken into account at all in my system, player B, unlike player A, managed to match the map leader's result once, whereas player A simply didn't manage it, which is why B overtook him by 0.81. And what the hell does your example show :) It shows EXACTLY what I said: that players A and B almost always stayed near the leader in any of the Tournaments, they have roughly equal ratings, and player B got lucky that he also grabbed a hundred for leadership, unlike player A. Where is the contradiction? Your version is completely incomprehensible. If someone considers your bonus in Heroes 4 (out of 55 points earned, you got 28 purely for your placement) as a good boost for themselves, then by all means, let them vote for systems that account for placement. In my system, you would have received only 27 points purely for your result relative to the near-limit result, which is fair for offline tournaments.Fireball;105963
This is not a flaw, but a virtue.
:) Well, obviously :D Fireball;105963
You know, I'm ready to forgive a 0.1 rating point margin of error in any system.
But at 0.81, you're already losing it :) What kind of "0.1 margin of error" is that? I'm telling you that in the 4th stage you got 28 free points :) I didn't get any freebies in that tournament. And you're trying to pretend that I also got a freebie in Heroes 4 :) uh-huh—the limit result there is based on days and points. Players should not be held responsible for the attendance or absence of other players in a tournament with their rating!! Nor should they receive free rating points because other players didn't show up. Attendance is the organizers' headache, not the players'. Fireball;105963
Conclusion: beat strong players and you'll get your rating. Especially if we count separately by versions, then everything is fine.
You're quite a pro at drawing conclusions. Then tell me, which strong players did YOU personally beat in the fourth stage? Specifically for that version :) 28 free points—and everything is fine :)
Added after 9 minutes Kyle;106027
and? you don't like the first option? In my opinion, everything is correct. :smile01: Two sixths and one twelfth is roughly equal to one first place. IMHO.
Even three twelfth places are better than one first place and nothing else :) Where is the guarantee that if the Prophet had played as Alexei did in the following two tournaments, he wouldn't have grabbed two twentieth places there? But he didn't play, and that's great :) After all, the more tournaments a player plays, the more chances they have to lose; beating the strongest is NOT always possible :)
Added after 9 minutes Fireball;106001
The problem is exactly that everyone sees it differently. You see that the placement/days ratio should be 3 to 7, while Alexei sees it as roughly 1 to 2 (including the bonus). Kyle and I believe it should be 1 to 1, and Topor considers placement an evil and wants to ignore it entirely. If the vast majority (or the administration) spoke out specifically for one ratio, then the question could be closed.
As for the placement parameter, I don't just want to ignore it, I've ALREADY ignored it a long time ago :) However, if it comes to a vote and systems that account for placement take over (meaning I see the system without placement failing), then I will give my vote to the one that has a greater ratio in favor of the actual result rather than the placement (for example, 3 to 7 as Kamikaze suggests). And if there are other people who understand the flaw that placement introduces into the rating and suddenly vote for my system, I will urge them to vote for Kamikaze's system instead. 1:1 is a "must-give" freebie :)
You're really manipulating the numbers. The part highlighted in black shows that in your post, it "showed the same result as the winner." And since my system doesn't take placement into account at all, player B, unlike player A, did manage to match the leader's result once, while player A couldn't do it at all, which is why B overtook him by 0.81. And what's so great about your example?
The example refutes your claim
that the player with a higher rating showed results closer to the leader in terms of days in tournaments.
Player B showed a result closer to the leader only once out of 9 times.
And in your case, it's completely messed up. If someone considers your bonus in the fourth stage (out of 55 earned points, you received 28 purely for the placement) to be a good advantage for themselves, then let them vote for systems that take placement into account.
According to my system, in the 4th stage of the World Cup, I would have received 50.37, i.e., 23.1 more than according to your system. You, as a great expert on the fourth stage, claim that this is unfair. Let it be, but let's consider the 6th stage of the World Cup. Due to the ease and speed of the map, you boldly give yourself 70 rating points for a run that is easier and faster to complete than even 11 days in the 4th stage. According to my system, for an average run and a placement closer to the end of the tournament table, you would have received 45.33, which is 24.67 fewer free points. And whose system has more freebies?!
Players are not obliged to be responsible for the attendance or non-attendance of other players in the tournament with their rating!!
But should they be responsible for the characteristics of the map?
You're good at drawing conclusions. So, answer, who of the strong players did YOU personally beat in the fourth stage?
And who did you beat among the strong players in the 4th stage? If a coefficient is introduced for him, almost everyone would be left without a rating.
Even three twelfth places are better than one first place and nothing else. Where is the guarantee that if Prophet played as well as Alexei in the next two tournaments, he wouldn't have grabbed two twentieth places there. But he didn't play and that's it.
Do you even believe that yourself? He would have created two more great runs (and would definitely have been among the leaders) and clicked your iron beak two more times. First place should be better than several twelfth places.
However, if it comes to a vote, and systems that take placement into account gain the upper hand (i.e., I see that a system without placement is losing), then I will cast my vote for the one that will have a greater ratio in favor of the result rather than the placement (for example, 3 to 7, as Kamikaze suggests).
That's your right, but I hope there won't be a general vote, and the administration will figure it out on its own.
Based on my system, in the 4th stage of the competition, I would have received 50.37, which is 23.1 more than what you would have received. You, as a big expert on the fourth stage, claim that this is unfair. Let's assume that's true, but let's consider the 6th stage of the competition. According to my system, for an average performance and a place closer to the end of the tournament table, you would have received 45.33, which is 24.67 fewer points.
Where is the system or table?Fireball;106121
First place should be worth more than a few tenths of a point.
I agree!!!Fireball;106121
It's your right, but I hope there won't be a general vote, and the administration will sort it out themselves.
It depends on who is meant by "administration." If it's the Creator, I don't think that's what he wants!!! So, we, the participants, need to decide.
People, especially Fireball and IronAxe, that's enough! Stop trying to prove you're right. Everyone already knows your points of view. Let's decide and be done with it. No more arguing.
to Kamikaze: I said that 600 posts ago... back then, IronAxe and AmberSoler had a serious disagreement... but, as you can see, these appeals didn't work...
oh, I found it... post 230...
Кто состоянием своим доволен, тому жить весело. (с)Алекса́ндр Васи́льевич Суво́ров
Why didn't they work, though?.. I stopped participating in this completely useless chatter a long time ago. But it didn't die down... So, it wasn't my fault! :D
With some changes, I will repeat my post #603.
Let N players participate in the tournament. Each i-th player has an average rating in this part of the game – Ri. Then, we define the tournament category as:
K = (∑Ri) / 1000 - where the rating of a beginner is equal to 25.
The basic rating of a player consists of 2 parts:
1. For days: Rd = 50(M/m), where m is the number of days the participant has played, and M is the number of days the winner has played.
2. For place: Rp = 50((N-n+1)/N)^2, where n is the participant's place, and b is a regulating constant.
Rb = Rd + Rp - basic rating
The final rating is equal to the product of the basic rating and the tournament category:
R = KRb
To determine the winner of the War of the Kingdoms (WotK) tournament, all categories are considered equal to 1, i.e., the basic ratings are summed.
2Kyle
I said this back in post #600... back then, IronAxe and AmberSoler had a serious disagreement... but, as you can see, these appeals have not been successful.
Objectively, everyone can calculate the rating according to their own system. But, as 600 posts ago, one important question remains on the agenda, which should have been resolved back in January: how to distribute places in the WotK tournament. This tournament has leaders - Kyle, AlexeyPank, Alan, plus VDV Forever. This is the basis of the commission to solve this issue. If there are questions about the systems, write to the authors in private messages. At the end, you submit your summary (and if you want, you can choose a single rating system for the portal). That's it, the issue is resolved, and it is impossible to delay it until the end of the tournament.
2AmberSoler
I stopped participating in this completely useless chatter a long time ago. But it hasn't subsided... So, it wasn't my fault!
I didn't participate in the discussion either, so it wasn't my fault.
The million-dollar question: "But whose fault is it?" :D
Are you not tired of these arguments yet? After reading all the posts, I came to the following conclusions:
1. First, we need to figure out what your rating should specifically take into account. If it's the skill of the players, then none of the proposed options have that. Undoubtedly, if Tournaments last for days, the shorter they are, the better, but this doesn't fully reflect the skill of the players. If you calculate ratings based on only one parameter, the calculation should be based on combined parameters.
2. The disadvantages of all ratings are cumulative. Consequently, a newly arrived player (let's say one who plays very well) will find it very difficult to catch up with the leader (their path will be long and arduous). It should be possible for a player to gain or lose rating points after a Tournament (for example, if a strong player makes a mistake and another doesn't, the first should be penalized for this by lowering their rating).
P.S. I've started having trouble sleeping at night because of your arguments about ratings. I keep thinking about what we can come up with that would make sense and satisfy everyone. Although I know for sure: Everything brilliant is simple. The only question is, how do we see this simplicity?
...this completely fails to provide an equivalent measure of player skill if ratings are calculated based on ONLY ONE parameter; the calculation should be based on combined parameters.
The question arises: what combined parameters are you talking about???
Added 3 minutes later K0Lb@zzeR;106261
First, we need to figure out exactly what your rating should take into account. If it's skill, then none of the proposed options do that. Undoubtedly, if tournaments last for days, the shorter the time, the better, but this still doesn't provide an equivalent measure of player skill if ratings are calculated based on ONLY ONE parameter.
And based on how many parameters?...if it's based on time, then it's days; if it's based on experience, then it's the number of experience points. Everything is absolutely correct...and very simple, by the way;), just like everything brilliant!
According to my system, in stage 4 of the competition, I would have received 50.37 points, which is 23.1 more than you. You, as a great expert on stage 4, claim that this is unfair. Let's say it is, but let's consider stage 6. Due to the ease and speed of the map, you confidently give yourself 70 rating points for completing it, which is easier and faster than even 11 days on stage 4. According to my system, for an average completion and a place closer to the end of the tournament table, you would have received 45.33 points, which is 24.67 fewer "free" points. And who else has such a system where it's so easy to get points?!
Definitely, it's in yours. There weren't many strong players in stage 4, but a result of 3 days is, in my opinion, the limit (why should my rating be lowered because of the strength of the tournament – how would this affect my result in days? Who would try to complete that map in two days?). You were 11-3=7 DAYS behind the leader. In stage 6, there were many strong players for this version. I was 10-7=3 DAYS behind the leader. What more proof do you need? Your system only proves once again how the placement in offline tournaments is flawed, depending on the presence or absence of players of a certain level. Nevertheless, even though we messed up in stage 6, we weren't as far behind the leader in days as you were in stage 4. You were just lucky that there were no more players in stage 4. And I was unlucky that they were in stage 6. That's all there is to it. Luck is NOT OUR METHOD :)
Added 7 minutes ago Fireball;106172
I wasn't participating in the discussion back then, so it's not about me. The million-dollar question: "Then who is it about?" :D
Here's an answer for a ruble. AmberSoler, when leaving this discussion, wrote: ------------- I think it's not worth getting hung up on. All possible calculation options that do not take into account the place (or similar parameters) turn out to be quite cumbersome, difficult to understand intuitively, and inconvenient to use. In essence, Iron's option is the optimum in terms of simplicity, clarity, and relative accuracy. If we assume that the average tournament does not have large gaps between the leader, then, with the condition of abandoning the place, this method can be left as a working one...
No "simple" modifications can be applied to this calculation option, because we immediately go in the direction of the same problems that we want to avoid. --------------
But new figures have appeared in the form of new system developers. And now everyone is saying in unison that it's not their fault :)
The problem is that you can't come up with a FLAWLESS system that would take into account the place, because in the offline game of Heroes, this is simply IMPOSSIBLE :)
Added 55 minutes ago Fireball;106121
Should they be responsible for the map's features???
It is the direct responsibility of the players to be responsible for the map's features. EVERYONE plays on the same map in the tournament. In another tournament, there is another map, but again, its features are the same for all participants in that tournament.Fireball;106121
Who did you beat among the strong players in stage 4? If we introduce a coefficient for him, almost everyone would be left without a rating.
I asked you first :) Who am I supposed to beat? Find me a person who can complete the map of stage 4 in two days, and I will close the issue and agree with your arguments. And again, I ask you - who among the strong players did you personally beat in stage 4? I answered you :)Fireball;106121
and you clicked on my iron beak twice more.
Kyle wrote that you are resorting to personal attacks. However, he gave you wings for this post. There is a clear bias of the moderator towards a forum participant (me) because he shares your point of view on the rating system and does not share mine. In that case, click on your own hare's beak :)Fireball;106121
First place should be better than several hundredths
PROVIDED that the players being compared have played the same number of tournaments, at least :)Fireball;106121
It's your right, but I hope there won't be a general vote, and the administration will decide for itself.
The problem of finding the optimal rating can be solved in two mutually exclusive ways.
The first, which is called a dispute and which we have, involves finding flaws and shortcomings in the opponent's method in order to highlight one's own advantages... Moreover, in most cases, the advantage is only visible against the backdrop of the opponent's system's shortcomings, but is not actually an advantage in reality. And everyone understands this, but pretends that it is not so... :)
The second option involves finding the advantages of the opponent's method and linking it to one's own... And vice versa. This is teamwork. Until we adopt this method of finding a solution, there will be no progress...
You are 11-3=7 days behind the leader. There were many strong players in this version on stage 6. I am 10-7=3 days behind the leader. What else do you need to prove?
I have been trying to explain to you for a long time that the same difference in skill level on different maps will result in different gaps.
There were many strong players in this version on stage 6.
But I was unlucky that they were there on stage 6.
So, should I now be considered a strong player in the first game??? Hmm, and I, the naive one, thought that I was playing it for the second time in my life.
But new figures appeared in the form of new system developers. And now they all say in unison that it's not their fault.
What can I say about AmberSoler's self-removal: "The poet's soul couldn't handle it."
Kyle wrote here that I was resorting to personal attacks. However, he gave you a pass for this post. This is clearly a biased attitude of the moderator towards a forum member (me).
I did not resort to personal attacks, because I practically quoted your own opinion, namely
that's why I'm afraid that even though the Prophet is gone, what if someone else comes along and gives me another smackdown?
(see the discussion of stage 1 of the Warlord's Keep, post 314). But, to be completely correct, I will add that I believe that if the Prophet were playing, I would also get my ears knocked off, after first taking off my tiara.
Let them sort it out, what's the harm?
No, I don't feel sorry, on the contrary, I will be very happy.
The problem of finding the optimal rating can be solved in two mutually exclusive ways.
Well, basically, yes :)AmberSoler;106410
The first, which takes the form of an argument and is what we have here—consists of searching for flaws and errors in the opponent's method in order to show one's own advantages against that backdrop... Moreover, in most cases, the advantage is only visible against the flaws of the opponent's system, but is not actually such in reality. Everyone understands this, they just pretend otherwise... :)
I will explain why I chose the first method. 1. It is impossible to devise a perfect system; I believe you also leaned towards this thought somewhere in this thread. 2. To get as close to the ideal as possible, you need to account for a bunch of parameters, each of which will introduce its own errors (the most errors are introduced by the rank/position occupied). To eliminate the errors, we come up with accounting for new parameters and new methods of calculating the rating, which introduce their own errors, and so on. 3. One can delve into this indefinitely. Therefore, defending the position of a simple, clear, and effective system is easiest to do using the first method.AmberSoler;106410
The second option consists of searching for the advantages of the opponent's method and linking them to one's own... And vice versa. This is teamwork. Until we adopt this method of finding a solution, there will be no point...
Well, the advantages are highly doubtful. However, I am not saying that I am against using any other parameters. But I don't fit into a team because all other systems include the occupied RANK in their calculations, and no one wants to see that RANK is subjective, while the result in DAYS is objective. The situation where a weak player ends up as a leader in a tournament and their result is far from the limit on a given map is negligibly small, which we see in practice at least in Kanigem's Tournaments, or let's say the leader might trail the map limit by 1-2 days maximum. But the situation of the random presence/absence of players of a certain level, especially considering different versions of Heroes, happens quite often. Therefore, ideally, imho for me, RANK cannot be considered when calculating the rating; use any other parameters, but then the accounting will be so complex (for example, evaluating map difficulty—who would take that on?) that it'll be a nightmare :) The most I can agree to, imho, is that if RANK is to be considered, its influence on the result in days should not be the dominant parameter over DAYS. Therefore, I consider Kamikaze's system with the innovation of accounting for the ratio of days to rank possible for further development. But how did he actually come to it? Not thanks to reading our discussions and arguments using the first method? :)
Added after 20 minutes Fireball;106411
I've been trying to explain to you for a long time that the same difference in skill level on different maps will result in different gaps.
Suppose you are comparing two players, both played in two tournaments. Considering the RANK they occupied, and in a situation where other players wedged themselves between them in one of the tournaments, wouldn't this difference widen the gaps and distort the actual state of their rating? Meanwhile, we remember that their results in days have a constant character reflecting their overall level of play.Fireball;106411
Meaning I should now be considered a strong player in the 1s ??? Mda, and I, naive as I am, thought I was playing it for the second time in my life.
Well, let's consider Zingel. Why the hell should I care who plays what. There is a result—get a rating. And I believe that in the sixth stage, the map wasn't simple, for example. First of all, besides a map-reveal cheat, I have no reconnaissance tools in version 1. We should have noticed a hole in the mountain—we didn't. Others did. You claim you played for a couple of hours—maybe you're lying. How and who will check this? Well, I played for a day, so what? By the way, I wouldn't say Zingel's result was bad. 12 days or so. A gap of 5 days from the leader? Well, it's been worse :)Fireball;106411
What can I say about AmberSoler's withdrawal: "The poet's soul could not take it"
Well, if anything, we'll help carry out what's left :)Fireball;106411
There was no personal attack on my part, since I practically quoted your own opinion, namely (see discussion of the 1st VK stage, post 314). But to be completely correct, I will add that I believe if the Prophet had played, I would have also been beaten, after first removing the tiara.
You need to quote more accurately :) Okay, drop it.(Kyle: Thank you very much.) However, you didn't comment on the example with player Zingel. Therefore, I cannot be sure that the Prophet would have constantly held first place. Let him come and prove me wrong through play every time. After all, things happen in the game. By the way, I think Zingel gave me the helmet last time. Such are the twists of fate :) By the way, Kyle did too. However, he didn't play the 6th stage. And so what? Following your logic, he should just be given a hundred points. Had he been in the stage, would his result have been among the leaders? Or would he have been next to Zingel again? It's unlikely that anything definite can be said here.Fireball;106411
Kamikaze
