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.
I have a question or suggestion: is it possible to somehow indicate the fact that a user is no longer active on their profile, so that it is visible to those who may not be aware of it (for example, a new user)? Perhaps it could be a special color for the username (although some colors are already in use)? Or a special icon under the avatar, which, when hovered over, would display an explanatory tooltip?
Воскресайте, камінні душі, Розчиняйте серця і чоло, Щоб не сказали Про вас грядущі: їх на землі не було… (Василь Симоненко. Люди – прекрасні)
Interesting news reflecting current trends in the mass entertainment industry:
The analytical company Limelight Networks has released a new study on the gaming industry. According to Limelight Networks, young gamers aged 18 to 25 spend an average of 3.5 hours per week watching video game streams. The viewership of Twitch and other streaming services exceeds the viewership of traditional sports by about an hour. The same group of people spends an average of 2.5 hours per week watching sports competitions on television. The statistics for the United States are slightly different from the overall trend, as gamers there still watch more television than the rest of the world. The viewership of sports competitions among young gamers here is 3 hours and 18 minutes per week, which is almost as much as the time spent watching game streams. These statistics may soon encourage major television companies to change their approach to broadcasting and pay more attention to video games. Esports is steadily moving towards universal recognition: this year, an esports tournament for the game Tennis World Tour will be held as part of the French Open tennis championship.
I remembered an idea that came to me before. It will probably remain just an idea, but we can at least discuss and dream about how great it would be if... There is a well-known problem: when unfamiliar players who are not part of any common community meet online and start playing, it often turns out that their skill levels are too different. This is unpleasant for both, and it often ends with the weaker opponent suddenly and silently "giving up" when they realize their unfavorable situation and simply leave the game without responding. Of course, we would like to prevent such situations. What if Heroes introduced something like player ranks, like in chess! Let there be, for example, 5: 1 – beginner; 2 – advanced beginner; 3 – experienced player (conditionally average level); 4 – advanced experienced player; 5 – master. To determine a player's rank, they would need to solve several problems of increasing difficulty on their own, 3-5 problems per rank. The type of problems should mainly be combat and tactical: a hero is given with an army, artifacts, and spells, and in front of them is an enemy hero or a group of monsters or a garrison, and they need to defeat the enemy, either completely or with losses no more than required, or even without any losses. To minimize the possibility of cheating and reduce the time spent, each problem will be in the form of a ready-made save file, where there is absolutely nothing лишнее, and all the player has to do is attack the enemy. After winning the battle, a save file can be made to confirm the completion of the test. You can also add tasks on logistics (getting from point A to point B in N days) and others. Completing each task may take 5-10 minutes. Immediately, I can name 2 expected problems: 1) not everyone will want to go through the tests, especially if they feel that their skill level is not very high. 2) many weak players will try to find solutions to difficult problems in order to complete them and get a higher rank that does not correspond to their actual skill level.
Воскресайте, камінні душі, Розчиняйте серця і чоло, Щоб не сказали Про вас грядущі: їх на землі не було… (Василь Симоненко. Люди – прекрасні)
There's the Heroesworld rating system, and it actually does a pretty good job of reflecting the strength of active players.
Yes, there are some quirks, and there's a margin of error of around 100 rating points. But overall, the difference in skill level is very noticeable in practice, on average, across games.
The difficulty with heroes lies in the fact that the ways in which someone can play poorly (leading to a lower rating) can be very diverse. Some might play as if they're above their rating, but they're careless and inconsistent, and they might lose or get caught off guard for no apparent reason. Some are just naturally erratic, they abandon games, or they surrender. Some only know how to play in arcade mode (grabbing whatever they find and charging head-on at the opponent), and in that mode, they can be very strong, but they're useless in strategic setups. And some still think that the rating is nonsense and don't report their victories, but in reality, they can beat almost anyone (like Fasik). And sometimes you can come across someone whose skill level doesn't seem to match their rating. But that's just the margin of error. Overall, these factors of instability can also work in your favor. And over time, the rating system works quite well.
And I understand that the rating will also become more reliable in the lobby (in about 2-3 years, when enough game statistics have accumulated).
Well, the HW rating is not the same thing at all, and besides, it doesn't matter outside of HW.
To put it simply, I would like it to work like this: two strangers meet (perhaps not registered anywhere and not playing systematically) and want to play, but they need to understand: how different are their skill levels? If there was a system of tests, even without ranks, it would take about half an hour to determine whether it makes sense for them to even start the game, or if they should look for other opponents. That is, half an hour for completing the tests, and if both have already completed them, then they can start right away.
Воскресайте, камінні душі, Розчиняйте серця і чоло, Щоб не сказали Про вас грядущі: їх на землі не було… (Василь Симоненко. Люди – прекрасні)
Well, the HW rating is not the same thing at all, and besides, it doesn't matter outside of HW.
I am subtly, but persistently, hinting that this deeply flawed practice (ignoring an already working tool - the HW rating, including by inventing new solutions, including solutions that are unclear who and how will implement) makes no sense. :rolleyes:
And I am subtly, but persistently hinting that there are other people with different opinions. And outside of HW, people also play "Heroes." :) And I suggested creating a universal tool. Or is that still unclear?
Воскресайте, камінні душі, Розчиняйте серця і чоло, Щоб не сказали Про вас грядущі: їх на землі не було… (Василь Симоненко. Люди – прекрасні)
It would be great if Heroes introduced something like player ranks, similar to chess!
Even in chess, the concept of "rank" is becoming less relevant; even for beginners, rank norms are tied to their rating. This is because a Candidate Master (CM) with a rating of 2000 and 2200 represents different skill levels, and even a Grandmaster with 2500 and 2700 falls into very different categories. A similar situation can be observed in Heroes (the numbers are approximate, +/- 50 points): 1900+ - top level 1800-1900 - good level 1650-1800 - average level 1500-1650 - below average 1500 - beginner, starting rating. 1400-1500 - weak player 1000 - 1400 - noob (you could create a gradation among noobs, but that's unnecessary).
I'm subtly, but persistently, hinting that there are other people with different opinions. And outside of HW, people also play "Heroes." :) And I suggested creating a universal tool. Or is that still unclear?
Everything seems clear. But... This doesn't change the fact that your opinion (unfortunately) is incorrect, far from reality, and in this case, you are probably just wasting your time. :smile43: A universal tool has been created. It's the HW rating. Join in. I might be wrong, and we can discuss it, but you'll need to provide at least some arguments first.
What Dirty wrote is approximately how the rating should be perceived. Everyone can define the groups a little differently for themselves. For example, I call the 1550-1700 range "average," and 1700-1850 "strong, versatile players of the second tier." Above 1850 are the top players and the elite. Below 1550 are various types of beginners, noobs, or experienced, even strong, but inconsistent players. But you can argue about these words endlessly, and there's no point in it. What's more important is the general feeling that the rating works, that the rating (overall) is confirmed in practice.
Well, the HW rating is not quite the same thing, and besides, it doesn't matter outside of HW. To put it simply, I would like it to work like this: two strangers meet (perhaps they are not registered anywhere and do not play systematically) and want to play, but they need to understand: how different are their skill levels? If there was a testing system, even without ranks, it would take about half an hour to determine whether it makes sense for them to even start the game, or if they should look for other opponents. That is, half an hour for the tests, and if both have already passed them, then they can start playing right away.
In cases where you have taken the test 10 times - do you know all the correct answers - and automatically become an unbeatable player? What's the point of playing? - everything is clear from the test))))
Without real practice, there are no skills. Let's say I used to play Heroes very well a long time ago. Has it really been more than 10 years, and do I still play Heroes just as well? Or do I need to regain my "form"? I am 100% sure that after such a break, my skill level will be below average. Although, when it comes to passing various tests, I can give any current player a run for their money.
.... шло время, а ситуация не менялась. Мясо продолжало визжать и пищать и главное НИЧЕГО не делать!!!
What if your ELO (which largely depends on your mood and attitude towards the ranking) fluctuates between 1750 and 1999 during one season? Are you an average player?
What if your ELO (which largely depends on your mood and attitude towards the ranking) fluctuates between 1750 and 1999 during one season? Are you an average noob?
This is just armchair analysis, so don't pay attention; let him speculate. ;)
Marmot
