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

OptiMAL

18 years ago

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 OptiMAL

BASON

18 years ago

Auto-translated

Or maybe we can do without a rating altogether? After all, everyone plays for fun! And it creates some kind of inequality: some will be cool, others will be losers. Let's just play!

In reply to BASON

IronAxe

18 years ago

Auto-translated

BASON;112382

Or maybe we can do without a rating altogether? Everyone plays for fun anyway! And it creates some kind of inequality: some will be cool, others will be losers. Let's just play!

:) Not quite. Then why have tournaments? Players participate in them not only for fun but also to try to take higher places. And, accordingly, as in any other game, there will be winners and losers. So I don't see anything wrong with the rating ;)

In reply to BASON

Ley

18 years ago

Auto-translated

BASON;112382

Maybe we can do without a rating altogether? Everyone plays for fun anyway! And it creates some kind of inequality: some will be cool, others will be losers. Let's just play!

Well, you've said something... :)

No, we can't do without a rating... After all, you'll agree that a rating adds interest, introduces a certain intrigue into the game, and even variety (now you win, and then I do, but sooner or later it will be known who is stronger), isn't that so? Inequality is a bad word, like someone plays badly? And it sounds offensive, it's better to proceed from the opposite: the word is LEADER - that's what people will strive for, what they will achieve, even if they are beginners... :)
And they will play anyway, but in the case of a rating, there is an additional criterion "for what", because it's better when you know how close I am to the best of the tournament participants...

Added 4 minutes ago

IronAxe;112363

It seems normal. Non-participation should be valued worse than a loss. And a draw can be excluded :) How is it - a draw?

Well, maybe I'm not aware... But in Online, isn't there an even number of games in one stage?

IronAxe;112363

What about agreed draws? So that neither of them gets a reputation penalty for non-participation and for not playing the match within the deadline, they agree on a draw and don't play at all :)

But there's nothing you can do about it - it can happen regularly anyway... Only words remain...

IronAxe;112363

PS. And if you are talking about draws in the results of the entire tournament and someone's non-participation in the tournament, then their points will be added up from each individual match. Well, and if someone has the same number of points and the same place, then so be it - nothing terrible will happen.

well, it seems that's how it is ;)

In reply to Ley

OptiMAL

18 years ago

Auto-translated

Here is the formula for calculating the rating if a player does not show up for a tournament but has registered: Rnew=Rold-N/2 where N is the number of games the player missed.

In reply to OptiMAL

Ley

18 years ago

Auto-translated

OptiMAL;113345

Here's the formula for calculating the rating if a player doesn't show up for a tournament but registered:
Rnew=Rold-N\2
where N is the number of games the player missed.

Do you think this is optimal? :)
Let's say my rating is 100, and I missed only 1 game:
100-1\2=99.5 - is this rational in your opinion?

Do you think people will immediately try to attend the game because of a 0.5 rating difference? I think it needs to be more reasonable.

In reply to Ley

OptiMAL

18 years ago

Auto-translated

Ley;113347

Do you think this is optimal? :)
Let's say my rating is 100, and I missed only one game:
100-1/2=99.5 - is this rational from that perspective?

Do you think people will immediately try to attend a game because of a 0.5 rating difference? I think it needs to be more balanced.

Hmm... and you can make it more strict either by not dividing at all or by multiplying as well. He simply took up an unnecessary place in the table, and he will be penalized for this by deducting points. But in what quantity...
Rnew=Rold-N/2 or Rnew=Rold-N or Rnew=Rold-N*k, where k is a coefficient.
What do you think?

In reply to OptiMAL

Ley

18 years ago

Auto-translated

OptiMAL;113376

Hmm... it could be made even harsher, either by not dividing at all or by multiplying. It just took up an extra space in the table, and for that, it will be penalized by deducting points. The question is, how many...
Rnew=Rold-N/2 or Rnew=Rold-N or Rnew=Rold-N*k, where k is a coefficient.
What do you think?

Well, in my humble opinion, the coefficient "k" should be present... How about combining the first and third formulas, for example: Rnew=Rold-N/2*k? Although, of course, it could be simpler...
The participant should be more aware of what missing a match will cost him, or at least not make empty promises about definitely fighting...

In reply to Ley

OptiMAL

18 years ago

Auto-translated

Ley;113396

In my humble opinion, the coefficient "k" should be present... How about combining the first and third formulas, for example: Rnew=Rold-N/2*k? Although, of course, it could be simpler...
The participant should be more aware of what the cost of missing a battle will be, or not make empty promises that they will definitely fight...

So, what will the coefficient K be?

In reply to OptiMAL

Ley

18 years ago

Auto-translated

OptiMAL;113456

Then what will the coefficient K be?

Well, maybe it's still not worth creating the formula this way; it seems a bit too complicated... Then, simply:

Rnew=Rold-N*2

What do you think, will the coefficient k be 2? In general, does Online skip many games? I'm not entirely sure; it seems to me that we should primarily base it on this...:)

In reply to Ley

OptiMAL

18 years ago

Auto-translated

Ley;113463

Well, maybe it's still not worth creating the formula this way; it seems a bit excessive... Then, simply:

Rnew=Rold-N*2

What do you think, would a coefficient of k=2 work? In general, does Online allow for many skipped games? I'm not entirely sure; it seems to me that we should primarily base it on this...:)

It all depends on the number of players and the tournament system...
In general, there are about 3-4-5 skipped games.
Therefore, I don't think K should be large)
Based on this, I'm inclined to K<1, let's say
Rnew=Rold-N*0.75...
But if a player has only skipped 1 or 2 games, then K should be smaller than K for skipping 3 or more games.
That is:
IF Players >3, Rnew=Rold-N*(k<1)
IF Players <3, Rnew=Rold-N*k1<(k<1)
:)

In reply to OptiMAL

IronAxe

18 years ago

Auto-translated

I don't think it's worth complicating things by skipping games, and here's why. When you run a tournament, you don't calculate an overall RATING, but rather award points for each individual match to each player. Then, places are awarded based on the points earned. And only after that is a rating assigned to all tournament participants. Therefore, skipping a tournament should be taken into account by POINTS for the matches, like this:
Win - 3 points
Loss - 1 point
No-show - 0 points, but the player who showed up shouldn't suffer – they should be awarded 3 points by default, as if they won the match.
No draws – otherwise, there could be problems with fixed draws.

Therefore, there's no need to include things in the rating calculation formula that don't belong there. For online rating calculations after a tournament, it's sufficient to consider at least the PLACEMENT, and you can additionally consider the strength of the tournament based on the existing old ratings of the players who participated. Don't forget that all of this already exists in the VGAPlanets game system that I gave you. But if you want to reinvent the wheel :) – then go ahead.

In reply to IronAxe

OptiMAL

18 years ago

Auto-translated

IronAxe;113514

I don't think it's worth complicating things with skipping games, and here's why. When you hold a tournament, you don't count the GENERAL rating for everyone, but rather the points for each individual match for each player. Then, places are awarded based on the points received. And only after that is the rating assigned to all participants in the tournament. Therefore, skipping a tournament should be taken into account by POINTS for the matches, like this:
Win - 3 points
Loss - 1 point
No-show - 0 points, but at the same time, the player who showed up should not suffer - he gets 3 points by default as the winner of the match.
No draws - otherwise, there may be problems with fixed draws.

Therefore, there's no need to put things into the rating calculation formula that shouldn't be there. In online play, to calculate ratings after a tournament, it is sufficient to take into account at least ONLY the place taken, and you can additionally take into account the strength of the tournament based on the existing old ratings of the players who registered for the tournament. Don't forget that all of this already exists in the system that I gave you for the VGAPlanets game. But if you want to reinvent the wheel :) - then go ahead.

So, skipping a tournament also AFFECTS the RATING, not just the points:)
And in general, the formula takes into account: played games, wins, losses, place, and the number of players (this is what was earned in the tournament
And I'm tired of deciphering that rating. It's too complicated. We need a simpler rating):)
Therefore, skipping games also needs to be taken into account because he registered and didn't show up - the penalty is in the form of deducting rating points:)

In reply to OptiMAL

IronAxe

18 years ago

Auto-translated

OptiMAL;113527

Therefore, you also need to take into account missed games because he submitted an application and didn't show up – the penalty is a deduction of rating points.

I explained it. If he doesn't show up, he will get 0 points for each game in the tournament. In the end, he will have a total of 0 points, which means he will be in last place. Why now complicate the rating formula by including absences when his rating will be calculated based on his ACTUAL PLACEMENT? If you're having trouble deciphering the formula, that doesn't mean it's wrong. It's already been tested, and you have rating lists with hundreds of people calculated using it. But the fact that you're stuffing the formula with who knows what, but you supposedly perfectly understand why you're doing it, doesn't mean it's correct. At least because there are no real calculations, and then I tried to explain that all absences will be taken into account if the formula only includes the parameter PLACEMENT.

In reply to IronAxe

OptiMAL

18 years ago

Auto-translated

IronAxe;113532

I explained it. If he doesn't show up, he'll get 0 points for each match in the tournament. In the end, he'll have a total of 0 points, which means he'll be in last place. Why now cram non-appearances into the rating formula when his rating will be calculated based on the PLACE he occupies? If you're having trouble deciphering the formula, that doesn't mean it's wrong. It's already been tested, and you have rating lists based on it for hundreds of people. But the fact that you're stuffing all sorts of things into the formula, but you supposedly understand perfectly well why it's needed, doesn't mean it's correct. At least because there are no real calculations, and then I tried to explain that all appearances and non-appearances will be taken into account if the formula only includes the PLACE parameter.

Maybe that formula is super-duper, but I don't have time to mess with it.
So, we're currently discussing the formula for non-appearances. I'll say this:
Why should his rating be calculated based on the place he occupied if he didn't even show up to the tournament, he just registered???. So, you can just register and bail, and his rating will be calculated, as if it just fell from the sky.
I'll say this: there are 2 formulas: one for calculating the rating, taking into account appearances, and another for calculating the rating for a player who didn't show up at all.

Ley

18 years ago

Auto-translated

Regarding draws – the point is that there shouldn't be any, of course, but then the question arises: can there not be an even number of games? Why can't a pair of players agree that one wins now, and the other wins later – how do you deal with that? – I think it's impossible. Regarding calculating points taking into account absences: to Optimal: you came up with a good idea there – the coefficient k should directly depend on the number of missed games, i.e., if there are no more than 1, then k should also not be greater than one, but if more than 1 games are missed, then this coefficient should be stricter, for example, 2 – this is primarily to make players realize the value of their empty words... to IronAxe: You see, in the case where a player simply doesn't show up for the tournament, doesn't play a single match, according to the existing formulas, the rating will remain the same, but in the case of a REGISTRATION, but NO SHOW, the rating will decrease, i.e., they will simply stop saying: "register me, I'll beat you all. We'll play then..." – this is simply disrespect for those who are waiting for their opponent at the appointed time, disrespect for the organizer, etc. But if you make the point calculation stricter and let everyone know, I think people won't throw words to the wind so easily... they'll think about it next time.