Connection ErrorBad RequestSession 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.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.
I confirm that the IronAxe system more accurately reflects the skill of the players. But it can only be applied to one tournament, and IronAxe himself said so. In the case of such application, we get the case mentioned above by you and me, where, in principle, incomparable things are compared.
The case I mentioned in the previous post with two tournaments showed that a player who is twice as far behind the leader receives a deserved number of rating points - exactly half of the winner's rating, and the player who is 1.2 times behind receives a deservedly larger number of rating points than his colleague from the first tournament. If you are concerned that a larger gap in the rating can be obtained in short tournaments (the winner's result is less than 10 days) than in long tournaments (the winner's result is more than 10 days), then just take a look at the results of past tournaments. In short tournaments, the density of results is much higher => and it is more difficult to get a gap in the rating there. An interesting result was obtained in the 4th stage of the ВК tournament, where the winner completed it in 3 days, and the second-place finisher in 11 days - however, this is simply explained by the fact that there are no good players in the top 4 on our portal (except for the player who completed it in 3 days).
I already told you that you're a great clown - those are always in style.
I apologize to Dmitry AS and the forum members, but I am still forced to comment on this post from Dmitry AC. Who among us is the bigger clown - it's not for you to decide - each will decide that for themselves. Agreed? I will speak to the substance of the matter in the post below.Dmitry_A_S;113542
So to speak, you create a favorable environment for others. Others find it funny. Life isn't as boring with you.
:) And I love it when others are having fun - I can be funny too ;) But that doesn't mean I don't understand what I'm doing.Dmitry_A_S;113542
Sage, please provide a couple more examples of a similar rating calculation system from sports (specifically for the "athlete") - otherwise he won't rest until he gets a good kick in the rear.
He has already provided enough examples for an "athlete" like you. However, is a kick in the rear not enough for you? So what is it that you want?Dmitry_A_S;113542
Your reactions to my examples in the style of "whatever" are very informative. Well then, time waits for no one, your turn on the arena... The circus applauds!
Let it applaud - I don't mind. However, as I already said - your arguments don't even descend TO "whatever" :)Dmitry_A_S;113542
Judging by the drop in morale - I'm not the only one who doesn't like this circus. Well, not all is lost yet. Perhaps the administration will remind us of the forum rules.
I understand that your only hope is the administration - that they'll drop all the posts :) However, I copy some of them :) And I'm not offended by the drop in morale, although I'm very surprised that Sage lowered it for me - that's a rarity :) Apparently, the man acted out of good intentions and I understand him and am not offended.Dmitry_A_S;113542
Getting closer to the point:
Well, let's see what Guy de Maupassant says about ratings :)Dmitry_A_S;113542
The rating system proposed by IronAxe is undoubtedly suitable for summarizing the results of one specific tournament.
One specific tournament? :) Any system would be suitable for that, and you wrote this in your posts above :) But it's also suitable for the Kanigem tournament - which Sage mentions. And Dmitry AS is actually saying this now too - thank the Gods! :) So let's settle on a system for calculating the General rating for players in ongoing forum tournaments that meet the quorum.Dmitry_A_S;113542
It is not suitable for calculating several tournaments, and its own creator stated this.
Dmitry, this is simply ridiculous!!! If I stated this - then please provide the community with the thread and post number where I stated it??? :) I stated precisely that a system which considers only PLACE is absolutely unsuitable for this :) And in general, ANY system that considers PLACE is unsuitable for this. I admit this and that's where we stand!Dmitry_A_S;113542
If one summarizes several tournaments, a flaw can be discovered: namely, by considering the difference in results between tournament participants over several tournaments, we take on the obligation that: - maps in these tournaments were the same size, which is, in principle, impossible even within one version of the game, not to mention "mixed" stages of the Van Kanigem memorial. - maps in these tournaments had the same density, which is also impossible. - the tournament task within one version of Heroes was the same. As we can see, it is fundamentally impossible to create an ideal situation to ensure players have equal opportunities to "pull up" their rating. That is, in each tournament, players have different potential opportunities to create a "difference," given the same equal investment of strength and effort from each of them. Consequently, when considering the difference in results, one player can pull so far ahead of the pursuers on that map (tournament) where such an opportunity was actually provided, that they will be unreachable despite all the competitors' desires to catch up. The competitiveness is lost.
Let Sage comment on all this. I don't want to get personal and receive a rep minus from this person whom I respect!Dmitry_A_S;113542
Take the multi-event (track and field) mentioned by Sage. In each of the competitions, a balanced system of rewarding athletes per unit of result is adopted. That is, every meter or second of result is multiplied by a coefficient calculated empirically. Such a system allows athletes to compete until the last event to determine the winner. That is, at each subsequent stage of the multi-event, athletes have equal chances to improve their point total compared to the previous one. And even if you introduced a standard unit of measurement in the Van Kanigem tournaments (days), different versions of Heroes create that very muddle that would arise when considering the difference in results. If there are several such same-measurement systems (days, skeletons, experience), it doesn't reduce subjectivism either, since the opportunities for result differences when completing speedruns in days, skeleton collection, or experience - are absolutely different. This is a significant flaw, much more significant than the "freebie" rating you mentioned, which my proposed system supposedly gives. No freebies: take a place - get rating points. Again, the difference in results can only be applied to a specific tournament. But if it's not needed to create an overall rating picture, then why create confusion? Take a multi-day cycling race. A huge distance (around 1000-1500 m.) is divided into stages. The difference in results at the end of the stage goes into the general standings. At the new stage, athletes start again as one big group. That is, speaking in Heroes' language - it's like completing one large campaign in Heroes. Something similar can be seen in a leader-chase race tournament. But there are still the same "buts." Essentially, a multi-day race is one long road divided into stages. You get on the bike and pedal, earning yourself a lead. Everything is straightforward. In Heroes, however, the game version itself, different maps, and different tournament tasks turn the general rating—if result differences are considered—into such a hodgepodge that no one will like it. Therefore, there is only one way out: when calculating both individual tournaments and the general rating based on several off-line tournaments, consider only the place taken. The main thing is to preserve the principle of competitiveness, which I have mentioned repeatedly. To somehow neutralize the difference in player class (this same class affects the "freebie rating," according to your claims), it is necessary to hold qualifying tournaments and create several leagues, as you correctly noted is not currently possible. So for now, we make do with what we have.
Dmitry - how did you put it? Writing a lot doesn't mean anything. In the posts below, Sage answered you briefly and to the point :) I won't even try to explain anything to you or anyone else, because you would interpret it as IronAxe, the creator of his system, praising himself :) You also claim that I find no support for my system from forum members. Well, of course? :) However, at the same time, I don't see anyone, not even one person, supporting you incredibly. Worth thinking about, isn't it? PS. By the way, right now I'm quite tipsy :) Tomorrow morning I'm heading out fishing with buddies and girlfriends. I'll be back Monday evening, but I'll probably only start thinking straight closer to the end of next week. I hope that in this time you, Dmitry AS, will post a description of your system on the forum, which would reflect player ratings better than my system and yet consider only the place taken by the player in the tournament in its formulas! ;)
Added after 24 minutes PS. Well, I promised to speak to the substance: Dmitry AS wrote: The rating system proposed by IronAxe is undoubtedly suitable for summarizing the results of one specific tournament. Sage wrote: P.S. Both your system and Iron's system have flaws, which have already been discussed enough. But Iron's system still more accurately reflects the skill of players participating in tournaments. AmberSoler wrote—though that was a long time ago and I haven't seen him in these rating discussions since then—well, a man said it, a man keeps his word ;) And I will quote his statement once more - he actually gave me direct permission to use this statement for my own purposes! Here it is: ------------- I think it's not worth overcomplicating. All possible calculation options that take place (or similar parameters) into account end up being quite cumbersome, difficult to understand intuitively, and inconvenient to work with. Essentially, Iron's option is the optimum in terms of simplicity, clarity, and relative accuracy. If we assume that an average tournament doesn't have huge gaps by the leader, then provided you abandon "place," this method can be kept as a working one... No "simple" modifications can be tacked onto this calculation variant, because we immediately move toward the same problems we want to avoid. --------------
Should I provide any more comments on this, if I've already once backed down and agreed in principle with Kamikaze's system (although I consider it flawed) only because many forum members like the rating to account not only for the result but also the place taken by the player in the tournament? However, in my humble opinion, I believe that accounting for PLACE in rating systems SPECIFICALLY for off-line Heroes tournaments is INCORRECT. At the same time, I consider this correct in professional sports, where qualifying competitions exist and therefore we see a more or less equal composition of participants at tournaments. I don't know how to explain this even more loyally and detailedly to Dmitry AS. But if this fellow allows himself not entirely correct jabs in my direction, he will get something in his rep :) not a minus :) but an adequate response to his post - a response in the style of NY from IronAXE. Dmitry AS, don't forget about AXE advertising - the effect is stunning :) Though I haven't drunk cologne since the army :) In my understanding, AXE is an Axe (Hatchet). And many Greenpeace activists have already pressed me :) It's useless! Therefore, Carthage must be destroyed! ;)
I have already commented on "this" and I will not make any further comments because everything has already been said, and I don't want to beat around the bush. I understand why Dmitry doesn't accept your system, and judging by his posts, it will be impossible to convince him otherwise. Just as you will not accept a system that only takes into account the placement.
I have already commented on "this" and I will not make any further comments because everything has already been said, and I don't want to beat around the bush. I understand why Dmitry doesn't accept your system, and judging by his posts, it won't be possible to convince him. Just as you won't accept a system that only takes location into account.
So what do you suggest – should we give up??? Should we just let them do whatever they want? Fine, I'll do as you say. I remember that we started this topic with a rating – you, me, and AmberSoler. You didn't participate much in the discussions and debates. And I understand that. But do you understand how tired I am of writing the same thing over and over again when new opponents constantly appear, who start discussing things that have already been discussed a long time ago?
I remember you had doubts about not taking LOCATION into account in the formulas. But you honestly surprised me when you supported me in the discussion with Dmitry AS. So, what do you say? Should we shut up and forget about this topic?
Added 5 minutes later Sage;113604
Just as you won't accept a system that only takes location into account.
But I, gritting my teeth, accepted Kamikaze's system – this is a combined system that takes into account both damage and location. And then Dmitry AS appears – a respected player in the 3x game. And what does he suggest? To return to what we started with, and this is after a year of discussions, when we initially agreed that taking only LOCATION into account is not correct?
But I reluctantly accepted the Kamikaze system – it’s a combined system that takes into account both cutting and positioning.
Which in itself is already interesting, because conceptually it doesn’t differ from, for example, mine, only the mathematics in it isn’t very well-structured, which is essentially its drawback. Perhaps it would be easier to collectively and persistently ask the administration to decide on a system. Then all questions will be resolved.
That in itself is interesting, because conceptually it is not different from, for example, mine, only the math in it is not very well-structured, which is basically its drawback. Maybe it would be easier to collectively and persistently ask the administration to decide on a system. Then all questions will disappear.
:) And I wrote about this, that the Kamikaze system was born as a result of our argument. He just had the idea of varying the ratio of cut and placement. But 50x50 didn't appeal to me. Your system, on the other hand, was a continuation of the oscillator and AlexPank's system. But the subjectivity of the PLACE remains in any of these systems, as does the subjectivity of the leader's cut, but as AmberSoler put it, the subjectivity of the leader's cut in tournaments at reputable resources is so rare that you can basically ignore it. And the PLACE introduces bias across the entire line of tournament participants. The result, however, is related only to the leader's result. Draw your own conclusions - those who are still capable.
Added 7 minutes later Fireball;113617
Maybe it would be easier to collectively and persistently ask the administration to decide on a system. Then all questions will disappear.
Yeah :) And suddenly, VDV, citing Dmitry AS as a strong player in the third game, will say that the rating should be calculated according to the system that was at the very beginning, which he proposed a year ago for his tournaments. FireBall, be honest, would such a rating suit you? As a system for calculating points to determine the winner in a tournament, it is basically normal. But I am asking you about the General rating of players on the forum?
I remember you doubting the omission of LOCATION in the formulas. But honestly, you surprised me when you supported me in the discussion with Dmitry AS. So, what do you say? Should we just drop it and forget about this topic?
I think we should just calculate the rating according to your system because no one else will do it for us. Remember AlexeiPank's system – he calculated it himself (and not only that) until he left the portal :( After him, only Kamikaze started calculating the rating, but already according to his own system.
I wrote about this before; the Kamikaze system came about as a result of our debate. He simply had the idea of varying the ratio of damage and range. But I didn't like 50x50.
What ratio do you think Kamikaze uses now?
As a system for calculating points to determine the winner in a tournament, it's basically fine. But I'm asking you about the overall player ranking on the forum?
If the systems remain cumulative, then the flaws of each one are much less significant than the fact that they reflect not so much the player's skill, but rather their activity. Therefore, I would be happy with any existing system to which a differentiation of tournaments by prestige and strength is added, so as to somehow offset the accumulation. In general, we should ask ourselves what the rating should reflect: skill or activity. And we should approach the determination of the winner of the War of Kings more thoroughly (because there are exactly 10 stages), but do it in advance. Now, misunderstandings are inevitable.
I think we should just calculate the rating using your system because no one else will do it for us.
What ratio do you think Kamikaze is currently using?
He uses 50x50, and that's what I don't like :) But didn't he still change something else in your system? Or not? Anyway, I'm off to go fishing – I haven't slept at all – what am I going to do there? :)
Added 3 minutes later Fireball;113637
If the systems remain cumulative, then the flaws of each one are much less significant than the fact that they reflect not so much the player's skill, but his activity. Therefore, I will be satisfied with any existing system to which a differentiation of Tournaments by prestige and strength will be added, so that it would somehow offset the accumulation.
And here, the aging of the rating plays an important role. The one with the higher rating will have a higher aging rate. Therefore, if the aging is taken as 1/3 of the rating, you won't accumulate too much :) The question will be how many times and for how many Tournaments to apply the aging.
Kyle
Auto-translated
Dear Tournaments Participants, There has been a change in the rating for the first Heroes.
First place is still held by Alex_R :smile49:.
Sincerely.
Кто состоянием своим доволен, тому жить весело. (с)Алекса́ндр Васи́льевич Суво́ров
