Rating system for online games in Heroes of Might and Magic IV. — Online Tournaments

No ratings yet — be the first to rate!

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Next
Last

Announcement

OptiMAL

9/8/2007 8:27 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Rating system for HMM4 online games!
The rating will be updated after the completion of each Tournament. The table will be populated by players who have applied for HMM4 online tournaments.
The following rating system has been adopted:
Rnew=2/3Rold+1000((N-i)/(N-1)+((N-i)/(N-1))^3)(1+SumRold/6000) and divide by 10 so it is not too large a number and (+ kGw-k1Gl), where k, k1 are coefficients that will depend on the rating.
N- number of people in the tournament
i- place in the tournament
^- exponentiation.
Rold- old rating
Gw- games won
Gl- losses:)
Rating graduations on which coefficients k, k1 will depend:
Up to 500 units k = 3 k1 = 1
From 500 to 1500 k = 1.5 k1 = 2
from 1500 to 3000 k = 0.75 k1 = 3
from 3000 and above k = 0.5 k1 = 3.5

Rating point graduations with ranks:
0-150 novice
150-500 recruit
500-1000 warrior
1000-1500 Knight
1500-2250 crusader
2250-3000 champion
3000-3500 master
3500-above hero.

№	Player	Current rating	Wins	Losses
1	LeSHiJ-MaX	215,000(recruit)	5	0
2	Lu4ik	149.203(novice)	3	1
3	Арандор	101,296(novice)	2	1
4	Пандора	100,296(novice)	2	2
5	Zybr	38,037(novice)	1	2
6	Starhan	18,129(novice)	1	2
7	Драккошка	-3(novice)	0	3

Player statistics for LeSHiJ-MaX
Games as:	Wins	Losses
Life	0	0
Death	0	0
Chaos	5	0
Nature	0	0
Order	0	0
Power	0	0

Player statistics for Lu4ik
Games as:	Wins	Losses
Life	0	0
Death	0	0
Chaos	0	0
Nature	3	1
Order	0	0
Power	0	0

Player statistics for Арандор
Games as:	Wins	Losses
Life	1	1
Death	0	0
Chaos	0	0
Nature	1	0
Order	0	0
Power	0	0

Player statistics for Пандора
Games as:	Wins	Losses
Life	0	1
Death	0	0
Chaos	0	0
Nature	0	0
Order	1	1
Power	1	0

Player statistics for Zybr
Games as:	Wins	Losses
Life	0	0
Death	0	1
Chaos	0	0
Nature	0	0
Order	1	1
Power	0	0

Player statistics for Starhan
Games as:	Wins	Losses
Life	1	2
Death	0	0
Chaos	0	0
Nature	0	0
Order	0	0
Power	0	0

Player statistics for Драккошка
Games as:	Wins	Losses
Life	0	0
Death	0	0
Chaos	0	1
Nature	0	2
Order	0	0
Power	0	0

Rating calculated after the Summer tournament.
Rating is strictly internal to the portal

SandroXXL

9/8/2007 8:50 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Such a rating is valid for those who have already played many games (as a measure). In principle, I agree, but how will it aggregate games from all tournaments? After all, one person may have participated in one tournament, while another participated in three, so the results will be biased. Hence the question: will there be a rating aging system?

Просто еще один

In reply to SandroXXL

OptiMAL

9/9/2007 6:19 AM UTC

Auto-translated

SandroXXL;111382

This rating is accurate for those who have already played many games (as a measure). In principle, I agree, but how will it aggregate games from all tournaments? After all, it may be that one person participated in one tournament, and another in three, then the results will be unfair, hence the question: will there be a rating aging system?

1) This rating is only for online games.
2) This rating is based on games, only tournament games.

SandroXXL;111382

After all, it may be that one person participated in one tournament, and another in three, then the results will be unfair.

As they say, "seven wait for one." On the contrary, this will show the player's activity. What's unfair about that?

In reply to OptiMAL

Zybr

9/9/2007 11:36 AM UTC

Auto-translated

OptiMAL;111393

1) This rating is only for online play.
2) This rating is based on games, specifically tournament games.

I didn't understand the phrase; does it apply to all games or only to tournament games?

Барон "Vampires"

Отдай свои прошлые сны,
В сомненьях себя обрети,
В бешеном танце душа кружится!
Не думай, что будет потом,
Здесь и сейчас мы живем,
Стань хоть на миг сам собой, слышишь!

In reply to Zybr

OptiMAL

9/9/2007 12:31 PM UTC

Auto-translated

ZYbr;111416

I didn't understand the phrase; is it about games in general or only about tournament games?

It's about online tournament games, starting with the Summer Tournament.

SandroXXL

9/9/2007 1:21 PM UTC

Auto-translated

As they say, strength lies in numbers. On the contrary, this will show the player's activity. Where is the unfairness here?

No, that's not it. For example, one player participated in one tournament and scored 3 wins and 1 loss. Another player participated in several tournaments and scored 12 wins and 12 losses. According to the rating, the first player will be ranked higher, even though he may have faced weaker players than in other tournaments. Will there be a rating decay to balance such players? Will "non-participation" be taken into account, because not all players can participate in every tournament?

Просто еще один

In reply to SandroXXL

OptiMAL

9/9/2007 1:29 PM UTC

Auto-translated

SandroXXL;111427

No, that's not how it works. For example, one player participated in one tournament and got 3 wins and 1 loss. Another player participated in several tournaments and got 12 wins and 12 losses. According to the rating, the first player will be ranked higher, even though he might face weaker players than in other tournaments. Will there be a rating decay to balance out such players? Will the "non-participation" of a player be taken into account, since not all players can participate in every tournament?

No.
I took this system from Ubi.com. I think it will be useful here.
Again, if you win 12 times and lose 12 times, your rating won't change because Gw=Gl. Here, the calculation is based on the system I described in the first post. It counts the total number of games you've played. There will be no rating decay; it will display the overall rating. And non-participation is not taken into account. If you don't participate, that's your problem.
P.S. I hope I understood you correctly. If not, please don't be mad. :)

SandroXXL

9/9/2007 1:41 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Well, that's fine too. I see you're planning to keep track of statistics for individual players. Good luck with that!

Просто еще один

In reply to SandroXXL

OptiMAL

9/9/2007 1:47 PM UTC

Auto-translated

SandroXXL;111430

I see you're planning to keep statistics on individual players.

Now you're going to keep it for all players)
Good luck to you!

IronAxe

9/9/2007 7:58 PM UTC

Auto-translated

OptiMAL;111380

Rating Calculation System:
En - new rating, Eo - current rating, 10 - coefficient, Gw - wins, Gl - losses. En = Eo + 10(Gw - Gl).

In my opinion, this formula is not suitable. At first glance, it seems that everything will work well because, for one tournament, the formula calculates the rating correctly. But what if we predict different situations across several tournaments? For example, in the first tournament, there were 5 participants. There was a strong player A, but not player B. Player A won 4 games (if there were 100 people, he might have won all 100 games :). In the second tournament, there were 10 people. But player A did not participate, but there was a strong player B (as strong as A). Player B won 9 games in the second tournament. As a result, player B will have a higher rating than player A, which shows that the rating will be directly proportional to the number of wins in the played tournaments. But was player A to blame that the organizers only found 5 people for the first tournament? However, in this case, it turns out that having one tournament each and taking first place in that tournament, players A and B have different ratings. It seems logical that there were more people in the second tournament, but I repeat, is player A to blame that there were not that many people there? In the form you are currently proposing, it is not much different from the rating that Adelaide proposes. Well, I'm not against it :) Try it if you don't mind.
PS. Optimal, I'll send you what I promised via email. Take a look at it when you have time.
In that game, the system was applied to matches (consider it a tournament), and no more than 11 people could participate. Therefore, I don't understand what will happen if 20 people suddenly participate in a tournament, and how that system will behave in that case. And also, there is a number in the formulas that is unclear where it comes from. It is probably somehow related to the number 11.

Arandor

9/10/2007 5:16 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Good job, Opt.
I support the idea, and the fact that only tournament games are included is good.
As for the formula, I don't know... which one is better, etc.).

P.S. can I have the green color? ))) please))))))

Be strong. Believe

In reply to Arandor

OptiMAL

9/10/2007 1:17 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Arandor;111515

P.S. Can I have the green color? ))) please)))))) hehe

It's about the colors of the locations. That's why I can't make it green.

Added after 11 minutes
To IronAxe:
1) Regarding the rating system you sent via email, I didn't understand anything there))) (There are many errors in the words, or I just didn't understand it.)
2) You are right that this rating depends on the number of won games. I took it from Ubisoft; it's exactly the same: the more wins, the better. If Gw=Gl, then it can be said that all the won games have been "played out," and this will negate the advantage. That is, if you need to stay at the top, you need to try to win, and there will be an incentive for this.
As for participation: If player A cannot play in the tournament, that is his problem. The tournament will not be stopped because of him. And it is impossible to gather everyone.
Let's look at the results after a couple of tournaments. And then we'll see.
P.S. If you help me understand the rating calculation you sent, then we can insert that formula. BUT again: as you yourself said, it "doesn't work" when more than 11 players participate. And what will happen if this system is adopted and, say, 15 people come to the tournament, and the rating already exists? Then what? You can't use a different system anymore... That's the catch:)
Sincerely, OptiMAL

In reply to OptiMAL

IronAxe

9/10/2007 6:48 PM UTC

Auto-translated

OptiMAL;111600

1) Regarding the calculation system you sent via email, I didn't understand anything there))) (There are many errors in the words, or I just didn't understand it.)

Just post the part of the document that directly describes the calculation formulas here and discuss it with the mathematicians. Everything is described in detail, in my opinion.

OptiMAL;111600

2) You correctly noted that this rating depends on the number of won games. I took it from Ubisoft; it's exactly the same there: the more wins, the better. If Gw=Gl, then it can be said that all the won games have been "offset," and this will negate the advantage. That is, if you need to maintain a high position, you need to try to win, and there will be an incentive for this.

The system is like this because there are no tournaments; it simply takes into account the number of wins and losses for each participant.

OptiMAL;111600

And regarding participation: If player A cannot play in a tournament, that's his problem. The tournament won't be stopped because of him. It's impossible to gather everyone. Let's look at the results after a couple of tournaments.

You've convinced me :) Maybe it will work this way too. But you still need to think about how to properly handle aging, as you were rightly pointed out. For example, a player plays mostly without losses on the forum for a couple of years. After a year, I decide to play too. What are my chances of catching up in the ranking, even if I also go without losses like him (which I highly doubt :) In my opinion, the ranking should be interesting in that even outsiders should have a chance to realistically get closer to the top players by having a few successful tournaments (winning prize places). But with this system, it turns out that to realistically get closer to the leaders in the ranking, you need to play approximately the same number of games as they have played in a couple of years.

In reply to IronAxe

OptiMAL

9/11/2007 3:21 PM UTC

Auto-translated

IronAxe;111755

Just post the part of the document that directly describes the calculation formulas and discuss it here with the mathematicians. Everything is explained in detail, in my opinion.

Okay, I'll post it. But what about exceeding the player limit? (regarding the calculation system)

IronAxe;111755

The system is like this because there are no tournaments, it just takes into account the number of wins and losses for each participant.
But aging should still be considered and figured out properly, as you rightly pointed out.

I personally don't know how to do this. We can think about it, but it's better to decide as a team so that everyone is satisfied with the organization. Share your ideas, and we'll figure it out!

Added after 20 hours 26 minutes
So, here's the calculation system. I personally didn't understand much of it. """First, the game rating for each player is calculated:
Rgame = 1000 * (X + 2 * X^3)
where X = (N - Place) / (N-1)
(Here, "Place" means the position in the game that the i-th player took and takes values 1, 2...N, N is the number of players who finished the game).
If some players share several (K) places, then their game rating is averaged:
Rgame = 1/K * Σ Rgame[j]
j runs through all such players
The rating of the entire game is calculated as the average of the ratings of all players, which they had at the end of the game:
Rgame = (1/N) Σ Rafter_end_of_game
i=1
And finally, the current rating is recalculated:
Rnew = 2/3 * Rold + Rgame * (1 + Rgame/6000)"""

In reply to OptiMAL

IronAxe

9/11/2007 5:30 PM UTC

Auto-translated

OptiMAL;111757

Okay, I'll post it. But what about exceeding the player limit? (regarding the rating system)

We'll only find out if our forum mathematicians respond to this topic. Because I can't say anything definitive here either :(

OptiMAL;111757

So, this is the rating calculation system. I personally didn't understand much there)
"""First, the player rating is calculated for each player:
Rplayer = 1000 * (X + 2 * X^3)
where X = (N - Place) / (N-1)
(Here, "Place" refers to the position in the match occupied by the i-th player and takes values 1, 2...N, N is the number of players who finished the match).

In my opinion, this part of the system calculates the player rating for a specific, single Tournament. The rating depends on the NUMBER of players and the POSITION occupied in the Tournament. After the online Tournament, all this data is known. But how to distribute places in the Tournament itself is up to the organizers. For example, 2 points for a win, 1 for a draw, and 0 for a loss. After counting the points and distributing the places in the Tournament, you can calculate the rating of each player using this formula.

OptiMAL;111757

If some players share several (K) places, then their player rating is averaged:
Rplayer = 1/K * Σ Rplayer[j]
j runs through all such players

This part adjusts the rating of players who occupy the same places in the Tournament.

OptiMAL;111757

The rating of the entire match is calculated as the average of the ratings of all players, which they had at the end of the game:
Rmatch = (1/N) Σ Rafter_end_of_match
i=1

This part of the system takes into account the STRENGTH of the Tournament (match rating, which takes into account the existing ratings of the players who participated in the Tournament) when calculating the rating for each player in the Tournament.

OptiMAL;111757

And, finally, the current rating is recalculated:
Rnew = 2/3 * Rold + Rplayer * (1 + Rmatch/6000)"""

Here we see that in the final formula for calculating the rating for each player after the Tournament, there is an aging of the rating of their current rating before the Tournament:
2/3 * Rold
And then it is added to the rating earned by the participant in this Tournament. I am confused by the number 6000? Where it came from - who knows. Perhaps this system calculated the rating for Tournaments in which no more than 11 players could participate (this was limited by the rules of the game for which the rating was calculated using this system). Maybe this number is related to this fact??? Who understands formulas? Say something? :)