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

No ratings yet — be the first to rate!

First
Previous
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Next
Last

Announcement

Statistics

Registered: 12/26/2006 8:34 PM UTC

Posts: 939

9/8/2007 8:27 PM UTC #1

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

In reply to IronAxe

Statistics

Registered: 12/26/2006 8:34 PM UTC

Posts: 939

9/11/2007 5:41 PM UTC #16

Auto-translated

It's still quite difficult to calculate this for each individual case:D
But this system is interesting, so PLEASE, MATH GURUS, HELP US!!!
Otherwise, we'll have to use a basic system. And I'll come up with a rating decay system for it (Maybe implement a "weeding out" system, meaning if a participant hasn't played in ranked tournaments, their rating will gradually decrease by a certain number of points. The drop-off point would be 100 rating points. But this isn't the best option:( ).
So, we still need help if you're interested.
Sincerely and hopefully.

In reply to OptiMAL

Statistics

Registered: 6/23/2006 8:16 AM UTC

Posts: 1,585

9/11/2007 5:54 PM UTC #17

Auto-translated

OptiMAL;112038

It's still quite complicated to calculate such a thing for each player:D

But this system is proven and reliable. I sent you rating lists and combat glory sheets from it in a private message. Did you see how many people were included in the rating? And that's considering that no more than 11 people could participate in the tournament. The calculation could be automated somehow. Try reaching out to programmers in the future, if it works out with the mathematicians.

In reply to IronAxe

Statistics

Registered: 12/18/2006 3:53 PM UTC

Posts: 230

9/11/2007 6:19 PM UTC #18

Auto-translated

Or maybe just count the number of wins a player has in all tournament games. A draw is worth half a point. Losses don't count. Therefore, a talented newcomer who has won a couple of games can be ranked the same as an outsider who has played many games but unsuccessfully, but they definitely won't be near a veteran who has, for example, more than ten wins. It's simple and doesn't take much time.
Or is it too simple? Although, with your formulas, you could go crazy (I don't think you'd like to do SO MUCH calculating)!

In reply to IronAxe

Statistics

Registered: 12/26/2006 8:34 PM UTC

Posts: 939

9/11/2007 6:35 PM UTC #19

Auto-translated

IronAxe;112044

But this system is proven and reliable :) I sent you rating lists and records of combat achievements from it in a private message. Did you see how many people were included in the rating? And that's considering that no more than 11 people could participate in the tournament. The calculation can be automated somehow. Try contacting programmers in the future as well, if it works out with the mathematicians ;)

Heh, I will be able to contact the programmers, but:
1) will they bother to solve this problem? And they already have a lot of work to do :)
Boss, if defeats don't count... I didn't quite understand the system. If it's not difficult, could you provide some examples?
Thank you for your help!

In reply to BASON

Statistics

Registered: 6/23/2006 8:16 AM UTC

Posts: 1,585

9/11/2007 6:44 PM UTC #20

Auto-translated

BASON;112052

Or maybe just count the number of wins a player has in all tournament games. A draw is worth half a point. Losses don't count. Therefore, a talented newcomer who has won a couple of games can be on par with an underdog who has played a lot but unsuccessfully, but he definitely won't be close to a veteran who has, for example, more than ten wins. It's simple and doesn't take much time.
Or is it too simple? Although, with your formulas, you could go crazy (I don't think you'd like to calculate THAT much)!

Okay, let's do it that way :) You've been playing online on the forum for three years. You win more often than you lose (three wins for every loss). How many games could you play in a year? Let's take the minimum: twice a month. Then we get: 2*12*3=72 games. Next, 72/4=18, so 54 wins and 18 losses. That means 54-18=36 wins.
And then a newcomer comes to the online games (maybe a good one :) But how many games and in what mode does he need to play to get close to your rating, considering that he will also have losses? It just seems unrealistic. Then the newcomer will say - forget you guys - you've rigged your ratings, and I practically have no chance of catching up, considering that you're still playing :) And what will happen then? He'll say, "Forget these tricky rating systems," and go to another resource, at least one where they don't even calculate ratings. Well, I'm exaggerating, maybe it won't be that bad, and everything will work out perfectly :)

Added after 6 minutes

OptiMAL;112059

Heh, I can contact the programmers, but:
1) will they bother with this problem? And they already have a lot to do :)
Bas, if losses don't count... I just didn't quite understand the system. If it's not difficult, could you give some examples?
Thank you for your help!

It's better if you ask specific questions about what you don't understand? :) Because you're saying you don't understand anything - maybe you didn't even try? :) Take an example with four players and try to calculate their rating using the formulas yourself.
1st place - player1
2nd place - player2
3rd place - player3
4th place - player4
There are a total of 4 players. All have the same initial rating, ZERO. If you try to calculate this tournament yourself, then everything will become clearer, or specific questions about this calculation system will arise

Statistics

Registered: 4/18/2007 12:56 PM UTC

Posts: 824

9/11/2007 6:58 PM UTC #21

Auto-translated

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but it seems to me that this is more of a performance statistic than a specific rating. It simply shows how many games have been played, how many wins, and how many losses. Or is it the same thing?
P.S. And to calculate it for many players, it's better to write formulas in Excel. That way, you won't have to bother the programmers. :)

Просто еще один

In reply to SandroXXL

Statistics

Registered: 6/23/2006 8:16 AM UTC

Posts: 1,585

9/11/2007 7:32 PM UTC #22

Auto-translated

SandroXXL;112069

Maybe I'm not understanding something correctly, but it seems to me that this is more of a performance statistic than a specific rating. It simply shows how many games have been played, how many wins, and how many losses. Or is it the same thing?

Performance statistics are the systems proposed by Ubi, Adelaide, and Optimal. And the rating system that I found from VGAPlanets tournaments is just that – a rating system. By the way, I didn't come up with it; it was created by very smart people.

In reply to IronAxe

Statistics

Registered: 12/26/2006 8:34 PM UTC

Posts: 939

9/11/2007 7:36 PM UTC #23

Auto-translated

IronAxe;112062

Why don't you ask specific questions about what exactly you didn't understand? :)

I already wrote about the scoring system... or is it that simple, or...? Yes, it is :)

Added 3 minutes later
Okay, let's go through it step by step:
1) Scoring system (we still haven't fully decided)
a) We need to delve deeper into the IronAxe rating calculation.
b) Otherwise, we'll analyze my version.
2) Rating aging.
3) Tables in the first post (keep them or should we change something?).
Please, let's only discuss these questions, and only these. No off-topic discussions.
Sincerely.

In reply to OptiMAL

Statistics

Registered: 12/18/2006 3:53 PM UTC

Posts: 230

9/11/2007 7:41 PM UTC #24

Auto-translated

OptiMAL;112059

Heh, I can contact the programmers, but:
1) Will they spend time figuring out this problem? And they already have a lot of work to do.
Boss, if defeats don't count... I didn't quite understand the system. If it's not difficult, could you give some examples?
Thank you for your help!

The system is simple: more points mean a higher ranking. A win is 1 point, a draw is 0.5 points (rare), and a loss is zero. This simple scheme summarizes tournaments played using any system.
==========================================================
My old friend, Optimal! I suggest not looking for a scheme for calculations, but remembering the results of the previous tournament (the tournament organized by you, in which some excellent players participated) and gradually creating a ranking, as the more games played, the more objective the ranking will be.
By the way, the idea for the ranking is very fresh and interesting!:smile54:

In reply to BASON

Statistics

Registered: 12/26/2006 8:34 PM UTC

Posts: 939

9/11/2007 7:47 PM UTC #25

Auto-translated

BASON;11208

a tournament organized by you, in which some excellent players participated.

I don't know what to do with this tournament. Should we take the rating into account, but... I'm not sure. We've decided to start calculating scores from the Summer Tournament. But if individual players want to transfer their results, we'll add them, but we need to decide on a scoring system once and for all.

In reply to OptiMAL

Statistics

Registered: 6/23/2006 8:16 AM UTC

Posts: 1,585

9/11/2007 7:57 PM UTC #26

Auto-translated

OptiMAL;112082

1) scoring system (we still haven't finalized it)
a) we need to delve deeper into the IronAxe rating calculation

This system accounts for practically everything.

OptiMAL;112082

b) otherwise, we analyze my version
2) rating decay
3) tables in the first post (keep them or should something be changed)
Please, let's only discuss these issues, and only these. No off-topic discussions.

In your version, the following points need to be addressed:
1. In a tournament, the leader should have an upper limit on the number of points they can earn, which will be the same for any online tournament. But in your version, there is practically no limit to the rating gain. The more people participate in a tournament, the more points a potential leader can earn. In another tournament, if there are fewer people, the leader receives fewer points for the SAME first place. In my opinion, this flaw will surface sooner or later.
2. A new player should have a real chance to catch up with the leader in the rating, at least within a year of diligent and successful games and victories in tournaments, considering that the rating leader has already been on the forum for three years. If a new player wins tournaments (takes first places), this can only be resolved by either rating decay or annual rating reset (which is not a good idea).

In my opinion, these two points have already been resolved in the VGAP system. We are waiting for mathematicians to either confirm or refute this.

Added after 3 minutes

BASON;112087

The system is simple: more points - higher rating. Victory is 1 point, draw - 0.5 points (rare), defeat - zero. This simple scheme summarizes tournaments held under any system.
=========================================================

This simple system is not a rating system. This simple system is a definition of points for ONE tournament to determine the winner and distribute places. It can only be called a rating with a big stretch

In reply to IronAxe

Statistics

Registered: 12/18/2006 3:53 PM UTC

Posts: 230

9/11/2007 8:10 PM UTC #27

Auto-translated

IronAxe;112095

This system accounts for almost everything.

In your version, you need to consider these points:
1. In Tournaments, the leader should have an upper limit on the number of points they can earn, which should be the same for any online Tournament. In your system, there is practically no limit to the rating that can be earned. The more people participate in a Tournament, the more points a potential leader can accumulate. In another Tournament with fewer participants, the leader receives fewer points for the SAME first place. In my opinion, this flaw will surface sooner or later.
2. A new player should have a real chance to catch up to the leader in the rating, even if it takes a year of persistent and successful games and victories in Tournaments, considering that the leader has already been active on the forum for three years. If a new player wins Tournaments (takes first place), this can only be resolved by aging or by annually resetting the rating (which is not ideal).

In my opinion, these two points have already been resolved in the VGAP system. We are waiting for mathematicians to either confirm or refute this.

Added 3 minutes later

This simple system is not a rating system. This simple system is a way to determine the points for ONE Tournament to identify the winner and distribute the places. It can only be called a rating with a stretch.

Therefore, I propose a slightly more complex scheme that I hope will satisfy everyone:
1. In ANY Tournament, there are games for 1st and 2nd place, as well as for 3rd and 4th place.
2. Evaluate ONLY 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th places.
3. Give 10 points for first place, 6 for second, 4 for third, and 2 for fourth.
Result: The winner of the Tournaments gains an advantage, allowing them to quickly pull away from their pursuers or, conversely, quickly catch up to their competitor. At the same time, a person who participated and took 4th place, who played the same number of games as the "medalists" (1st, 2nd, 3rd places), also deserves at least two points.
I think this scheme is simple and, at the same time, objective.

In reply to BASON

Statistics

Registered: 6/23/2006 8:16 AM UTC

Posts: 1,585

9/11/2007 8:57 PM UTC #28

Auto-translated

BASON;112100

Then I suggest a slightly more complex scheme that I hope will suit everyone:
...
I think this scheme is simple and at the same time objective.

Yeah, right :) How not to offend the developer of this slightly more complex system :) So, I have two options:
1. hang myself :)
2. when I come to play online with you, I will ask not to include me in the ranking table, even if I manage to get there :)

And objectively - this is not a ranking at all, because it does not take into account the ratings of the other participants in the tournament. I repeat to you very persistently - you played for three years, let's say, and scored 200 points according to this system. Then I come. Let's say, I say LET'S SAY, I play super cool, 100 times better than you. And how many points will I need to score according to your system to catch up with you in the ranking, even if I always take FIRST PLACE in each of the tournaments??!! Think about what you are writing, otherwise we will end up discussing all sorts of nonsense here!

In reply to IronAxe

Statistics

Registered: 12/18/2006 3:53 PM UTC

Posts: 230

9/12/2007 1:12 PM UTC #29

Auto-translated

IronAxe;112109

Yeah, I guess so :) Wouldn't want to offend the developer of this slightly more complex system :) So, I have two options:
1. Hang myself :)
2. When I come to play online with you, I'll ask not to include me in the leaderboard, even if I manage to get there :)

And objectively - this isn't a rating at all, because it doesn't take into account the ratings of the other participants in the tournament. I'm repeating this very persistently - you played for three years, let's say, and scored 200 points in this system. Then I come along. Let's say, I play super well, 100 times better than you. And how many points will I need to score in your system to catch up to you in the rating, even if I always take FIRST PLACE in every tournament??!! Think about what you're writing, otherwise we'll end up discussing all sorts of nonsense!

Then figure out the rating yourself! :smile33: Hello family!

In reply to BASON

Statistics

Registered: 6/23/2006 8:16 AM UTC

Posts: 1,585

9/12/2007 5:21 PM UTC #30

Auto-translated

BASON;112184

Then figure out the ranking yourself! :smile33: Hello, everyone!

I don't need to. I've provided you with a complete, time-tested ranking calculation system; you just need to adapt it to the game. And if it's easier for you to come up with something simpler to calculate, then go ahead – I won't stop you.