Auto-translated
WHILE WE WERE CONSIDERING 1:1 and 3:7, I liked the results, especially 1:1;) ... I'm already in 1st place there:smile19:
IronAxe
Posts from Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.
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.
K0Lb@zzeR
Auto-translated
The question is: what aggregate parameters are you talking about???
Added 3 minutes later
And how many parameters?...if it's about time, then it's days; if it's about experience, then it's the number of experience points. Everything is absolutely correct...and very simple, by the way;) , just like everything brilliant!
I was talking about how the game itself calculates the scores, and it takes many things into account. And even if players complete the game in the same number of days, they will have different results. Although even in the third game, this formula is a bit simplistic, but it can be improved by adding, for example, the calculation of parameters and resources (of course, these parameters should be tied to the number of days).
As for my second point, for now, I can only think that to change (increase and decrease) ratings, it is necessary to take the average between the current rating and the rating for the current tournament. Then the ratings will not be cumulative, with one exception: a strong player will always have a good rating, and he will pull ahead, but only until another strong player appears.
:smile13: [ТУРНИР] "Гонка за Лидером" :smile13:
:smile28: [M] "Я и моя тень" - "I am and my shadow" :smile28:
:smile16:"Быстрая смерть" - "Fast Death" :smile16:
:smile28: [M] "Я и моя тень" - "I am and my shadow" :smile28:
:smile16:
AmberSoler
Auto-translated
...to change (increase or decrease) ratings, you need to take the average between the current rating and the rating for the current tournament...
Just for information.
K0Lb@zzeR
Auto-translated
I would like to point out that in this case, a successful performance in the previous tournament will reduce the overall score of the current tournament for that player. Which, based on common sense, is questionable - this mechanism contradicts itself - the worse I perform, the more I get, and vice versa...
Well, you just need to calculate it... and consider all the options.
If a player always has a successful performance, then they have nothing to fear. And the statement that: the worse I perform, the more I get, and vice versa... is incorrect; with each tournament, the rating will decrease if the performance gets worse and worse.
:smile13: [ТУРНИР] "Гонка за Лидером" :smile13:
:smile28: [M] "Я и моя тень" - "I am and my shadow" :smile28:
:smile16:"Быстрая смерть" - "Fast Death" :smile16:
:smile28: [M] "Я и моя тень" - "I am and my shadow" :smile28:
:smile16:
Kamikaze
Auto-translated
You just need to calculate it... and consider all the options.
Well, if a player always has a successful performance, then they won't have anything to fear. But the idea that: the worse you perform, the more you get, and vice versa... is incorrect. With each tournament, the rating will decrease if the performance gets worse and worse.
And also, a player doesn't always play well in all versions or complete various tasks in a tournament. This isn't football.
Added 4 minutes later
However, you didn't comment on the example with the player Zingel. Therefore, I cannot be sure that the Prophet would constantly hold first place. Let him come and prove with his gameplay each time that I am wrong. Well, anything can happen in the game. By the way, I think Zingel gave me a hard time that time. These are the twists of fate. By the way, Kyle too. However, he didn't play in the 6th stage. And so what? Following your logic, he should just be given a hundred points. If he had been in the stage, would his result have been among the leaders? Or would he have been near Zingel again? It's unlikely that anything can be said definitively here.
Kyle
Auto-translated
In my opinion, the rating should be cumulative! If bonuses are to be awarded (which, as I understand, we have decided against), they should be minimal: D
And also, not every player performs well in all versions or completes various tasks in a tournament. After all, this is not football.
And besides, what is the point of introducing any bonuses if they will be "minimal"?
Sincerely.
Кто состоянием своим доволен, тому жить весело. (с)Алекса́ндр Васи́льевич Суво́ров
K0Lb@zzeR
Auto-translated
...the mechanism contradicts itself – the worse I perform, the more I receive, and vice versa...
Well, I figured out what's what.
There are no contradictions.
Pay attention to players 2 and 8... and everything will become clear.
My opinion is that the rating should be cumulative! And if bonuses are to be given (which, as I understand, we have abandoned), they should only be minimal: D
And also, a player doesn't always play well in all versions or complete various tasks in a tournament. This isn't football, after all.
Well, I'm not arguing that this is football here :)
But nevertheless, with a cumulative rating: it will be very difficult for new players to catch up with the leader. IMHO.
:smile13: [ТУРНИР] "Гонка за Лидером" :smile13:
:smile28: [M] "Я и моя тень" - "I am and my shadow" :smile28:
:smile16:"Быстрая смерть" - "Fast Death" :smile16:
:smile28: [M] "Я и моя тень" - "I am and my shadow" :smile28:
:smile16:
Kyle
Auto-translated
to K0Lb@zzeR: Interesting idea. However, you don't consider the possibility that a strong player might join, play once (and take 1st place), and then remain at the top forever. And it would be impossible to knock him off that spot because he won't participate in subsequent tournaments, and therefore his rating won't decrease.
How do you intend to fix this bug?
Sincerely.
How do you intend to fix this bug?
Sincerely.
Кто состоянием своим доволен, тому жить весело. (с)Алекса́ндр Васи́льевич Суво́ров
K0Lb@zzeR
Auto-translated
to K0Lb@zzeRHow do you intend to fix this bug?
The table shows that you can get up to 1000 points for each tournament (although this number is just an arbitrary figure, for illustrative purposes). In itself, this method could be relevant in connection with the appearance of this bug (which you described). But, as I said above, if you create a system that recalculates the results of the next tournament into points, and then these points are calculated according to the system presented in my table.
Then:
1. The system for recalculating results should give results in points within the range (let's say) from 250 to 1000.
2. It is not a fact that the leader will always have a result of 1000 points (this will depend on the map on which the tournament is held. IMHO).
3. And ultimately, there is a very small chance that one person will come, earn these 1000 points, and forever take 1st place in the tournament table. In the worst case (if this happens), you can regularly "age" the rating every quarter/six months/year by a certain percentage (even 10% will be enough).
P.S. The main thing is to make a good recalculation of the tournament results, which will take into account all the components of the player's skill. IMHO.
And, as I suggested above, you can take and modernize the formula by which the points are calculated in Heroes 3.
:smile13: [ТУРНИР] "Гонка за Лидером" :smile13:
:smile28: [M] "Я и моя тень" - "I am and my shadow" :smile28:
:smile16:"Быстрая смерть" - "Fast Death" :smile16:
:smile28: [M] "Я и моя тень" - "I am and my shadow" :smile28:
:smile16:
Kamikaze
Auto-translated
But nevertheless, with a cumulative rating: it will be very difficult for new players to catch up with the leader. IMHO.
And aging, like in tennis, should also be introduced! This is a fact. But in our case (Van Kanigem), there cannot be aging within a single tournament. Let's say that after 52 weeks (or 12 months), the result of the first official week is discarded. Simple and correct.
Kyle
Auto-translated
I, for example, don't really like the idea of aging.
In my opinion, it would be much better to organize a cyclic rating. That is, once a year (for example, on January 1st), there would be a complete reset of the rating. And at the end of the year, you could determine the best player based on the year's results.
In my opinion, this would be the most correct approach, as everyone would start from the same position at the beginning of the year.
Or, make the aging rate 100/12 and age players periodically, once a month, for example, on the 1st. This would give us something similar to the current rating.
IMHO.
Sincerely.
Кто состоянием своим доволен, тому жить весело. (с)Алекса́ндр Васи́льевич Суво́ров
Kamikaze
Auto-translated
For example, I don't really like the idea of aging.
In my opinion, it would be much better to organize a cyclical rating. That is, once a year (for example, on January 1), there will be a complete reset of the rating. And at the end of the year, you can determine the best player based on the results of the year.
In my opinion, this would be the most correct approach, because at the beginning of the year, everyone will start from the same positions.
Or, make the aging rate 100/12 and age periodically once a month, for example, on the 1st. This way, we will have something similar to the current rating.
IMHO.
Sincerely.
Added 1 minute ago
And if you age once a month, then this is too short a period - a maximum of two Tournaments.
Alex_R
Auto-translated
We won't find a perfect system to account for everything, but we can define how to calculate the rating for specific tournaments, and instead of aging, it's better to come up with or use something similar to the suggestion from forum user "natasha":
for example, each player starts with an initial capital of, say, 1000 rating points, and it changes depending on their performance in tournaments. The stronger the players you beat, the more points you gain, and they lose... this way, we can also solve the issue of annual resetting.
Even someone who joined in June can beat the leader a couple of times and score more than they did in a whole year!!!:smile49:
for example, each player starts with an initial capital of, say, 1000 rating points, and it changes depending on their performance in tournaments. The stronger the players you beat, the more points you gain, and they lose... this way, we can also solve the issue of annual resetting.
Even someone who joined in June can beat the leader a couple of times and score more than they did in a whole year!!!:smile49:
IronAxe
Auto-translated
I was talking about how the game itself calculates the score, and it takes many things into account. And even if players complete the game in the same number of days, they will have different results.
Added after 12 minutes
We won't find an ideal system for calculating everything, but we can define how to calculate the Elo rating, and then apply it to other tournaments. Instead of aging, it's better to come up with or use something similar to the suggestion from the forum veteran "natasha":
for example, each player starts with an initial capital of 1000 rating points, and it changes depending on their performance in tournaments. The more skilled players you beat, the more points you gain, and they lose. This way, we can also solve the issue of annual resetting. Even someone who joined in June can beat the leader a couple of times and score more than they did in a whole year!!!:smile49:
BotINKi
Auto-translated
Dear IronAxe, Alex_R, AmberSoler, and many others who have been discussing this topic extensively...
Please provide links to the posts where the following system is discussed in detail and its drawbacks are explained: let's take Formula 1 as an example. One race (one tournament) - a certain number of points... These points are summed up... This results in a leaderboard... It's not a groundbreaking idea, but it's still something...
P.S. I don't have much free time at the moment, so I can't search the topic myself... Thank you in advance to those who respond...
Please provide links to the posts where the following system is discussed in detail and its drawbacks are explained: let's take Formula 1 as an example. One race (one tournament) - a certain number of points... These points are summed up... This results in a leaderboard... It's not a groundbreaking idea, but it's still something...
P.S. I don't have much free time at the moment, so I can't search the topic myself... Thank you in advance to those who respond...
Statistics
Welcome our newest member:
Emil