Posts from On-line rating (discussion)

:D I knew you'd say something like that=)))
Actually, doing something like this is not easy at all, especially alone. It takes a lot of time for all of this. That's why I asked at the beginning: are you ready for this and can you handle it?
You can discard and change some things from everything you read, that is, simplify it. IMHO

I'm ready because it's interesting, and it will also be easier for others (I'm almost an altruist)
The idea of simplifying it came to me when I reviewed the calculations for NPCs and also to add some criteria (for those who try to cheat).

It's silly to mention Hamachi – it's a LAN emulator... You can play any game through it. Should we create a rating? Go ahead, but Hamachi is irrelevant here; it's like saying, "I suggest creating a rating for players who play online through Windows XP SP2."

Very witty.)))) Hama is simply used as a connection and nothing more. If you want to play through a lock, just find a partner and make sure that others can play with you, and most importantly, achieve a good result.

That's silly – Hamachi is a LAN emulator... You can play anything through it. Should we create a Player Rating? Go ahead, but Hamachi is irrelevant here; it's like saying, "I suggest creating a Player Rating for players who play online through Windows XP SP2."

Personally, I mean a Player Rating for online players, and Hamachi has nothing to do with it. I'm even against this Hamachi-based connection. I once tried to find an opponent through Hamachi, and we did, but it was so difficult to play a game. We started playing, then crashes began, and it all ended with us losing connection after another crash. He couldn't see what I was writing in the Hamachi chat, and I couldn't see his callsign. He was thinking all sorts of things, and I didn't know what to think either. We waited for each other for an hour until I found his ICQ through a third party and we connected there. I laughed about the situation for a long time afterward. In the end, we connected via IP. The more people active in a network at the same time, the more overloaded the network becomes, and the more errors and crashes occur. IMO, it's just childish, and you can come up with many other ways to find people who want to play at a certain time.

Excellent topic for discussion, gentlemen! A rating system is needed! The purpose has been quite accurately outlined in the initial posts. SS-D, if you need anything, feel free to reach out! We'll help in any way we can, and if we can't help directly, we'll at least offer some advice.

SS-D - if you need anything, feel free to ask! We'll help in any way we can, and if we can't help directly, we'll at least offer some advice.

Could you outline the system here so that everyone knows what they should be basing their work on?

We need to create a section where all players who played through Online could upload their final save files. It would be interesting to play someone else's final battle.

We need to create a section where all players who played through Online could upload their final save files(((it would be interesting to play someone else's final battle(((

Great idea, we need to think about it, although there's nothing to think about, we just need to do it:smile12:
at the same time, it would also serve as confirmation, yes, yes, a GREAT IDEA.

Perhaps it shouldn't be a section for every user, but rather a kind of table – showcasing the best, with the right to post such files reserved only for moderators (for example, :), i.e., a small group of people).

I think this is a good idea to develop. I believe everyone has had situations where they managed to snatch victory from an opponent with a much larger army, and it would be great for other, less experienced players to watch the battle and learn something:smile26:
Ley, I think we should allow everyone to upload save files, but only after people in this thread give their approval, if they think it would be interesting:smile12:

I'm working on the calculations. I'd like something simpler and better in every way, but also something that won't be too complicated to explain if needed.

I've written about this before, in some thread, but I don't remember which one. I'll just repeat my thoughts now. In our community (about 8 years ago, when I was a member of a clan), we had a ranking system. It's no secret that in online games (strategies) where 1v1 battles are organized, the main criterion for a player's skill is the minimum time it takes to defeat an opponent. Therefore, in the ranking, this should be the dominant factor. Accordingly, we created a ranking system that worked according to the following principle: 1. Each player joining the system was given 1000 points. 2. For winning against a "stronger" opponent, the player was awarded X points, and the loser lost X points. 3. For winning against a "weaker" opponent, the player was awarded Y points, and the loser lost Y points. 4. X points were always greater than Y points. 5. There was also an adjustment based on the game time, i.e., X1 and Y1 increased by M points depending on the time frame. In other words, the faster the battle was completed, the greater the value of M. Note: X = X1 + M and Y = Y1 + M. From all of the above, it follows that: a. It is more beneficial to win against "stronger" players than "weaker" ones. And losing to a "weaker" player is the most painful. b. If you put in the effort, a "newcomer" (with 1000 points) can always (with a 100% probability) overtake the leader of the ranking, even if they have already scored at least 100,000 points. Sincerely, K0Lb@zzeR. P.S. There's no need to reinvent the wheel; everything is already ready and tested. And it works 100%.

There is a point to this calculation.
BUT I want to share my opinion:
1. Regarding the speed – what's the point of rushing? It's more enjoyable to play a longer map, and the maps themselves vary greatly, from complete garbage to paradise the maps are different (if the maps were the same, then playing for speed would make sense) (sorry for the rambling).
2. Regarding playing against a stronger opponent being more beneficial – I agree (I think I took this into account in my formula), but I disagree with the point selection. What's the point of a strong player playing against a weak player? Anything can happen. Besides, no one will want to give away hard-earned points (it's frustrating to win and then stupidly lose, ending up with zero), I'm against it.
The difference in points between a STRONG and a WEAK player will be more noticeable when the opponents are not in the same ranking tier; I think this is correct.
3. And I think it's better to start from ZERO; it will be more enjoyable to climb from there, and awarding points for 0 games is unfair to those who have played and never won; they will end up lower than someone who hasn't played at all (if there is point selection).

What do you think?

I think it’s better to start from scratch; it will be more enjoyable to climb the ranks. And awarding points for 0 games is unfair to those who have played and never won; they will end up lower than someone who hasn’t played at all (if there’s a point selection process).

Don’t stress yourself out too much. Take the formula from HP as a basis (it has a good scoring system) and calculate to your heart’s content. I think they won’t mind you using it, but it’s better to ask someone beforehand.
It’s better to start with 1000 to avoid negative numbers, as points are deducted for losing.

Base it on the HP formula and calculate it for your health. I think they won't mind if you use it, but it's better to ask someone beforehand.

Supreme is very sensitive about copyright... :D
So, it's better to come up with something different so that he doesn't come here and start talking about his copyrights...