On-line rating (discussion) — Tournament Committee

Registered: 12/15/2006

Posts: 1,035

#31 11/8/2007 9:51 AM UTC

Auto-translated

So what if there are negative numbers? There's nothing wrong with that.
At least there will be one difference now.

Клан Homo homini

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth...

In reply to Kyle

Registered: 9/13/2007

Posts: 749

#32 11/8/2007 9:53 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Kyle;125149

The Supreme one 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...

I don't know who the Supreme one is, but can't you come to an agreement with him?:D Offer him, for example, a bottle of Armenian brandy ;) In any case, acknowledge the rules of his author and provide a link to the source. If you start inventing something and adding your own ideas, flaws and the like will immediately appear. It's easier to take something that has already been tested in practice.

But at least there will be one difference.

Well, is that the only difference?)))

In reply to SS-D

Registered: 6/17/2006

Posts: 484

#33 11/8/2007 9:54 AM UTC

Auto-translated

SS-D;125140

There is a point to this counting.
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).

Since it's turn-based, even though it's online, the term "time" refers not to real time, but to the number of days in the game spent playing in reality.

2. Regarding playing with a stronger opponent being more beneficial – I agree (I think I took this into account in my formula), but I disagree with the point system. What's the point of a strong player playing against a weak one; anything can happen. And it's unlikely that anyone will want to give away hard-earned points (it's frustrating to win and then stupidly lose and end 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.

Everyone has played, and no one has complained. If you lose, it means your opponent taught you a lesson, and you pay for that lesson with your rating points.

Sincerely, K0Lb@zzeR.

:smile13: [ТУРНИР] "Гонка за Лидером" :smile13:
:smile28: [M] "Я и моя тень" - "I am and my shadow" :smile28:
:smile16: ~~"Быстрая смерть" - "Fast Death"~~ :smile16:

In reply to K0Lb@zzeR

Registered: 5/23/2006

Posts: 2,153

#34 11/8/2007 10:17 AM UTC

Auto-translated

K0Lb@zzeR;125152

... not real time, but the number of days in the game, spent playing in real life.

What do you mean? :eek:
Well, you're exaggerating... :D

Кто состоянием своим доволен, тому жить весело. (с)Алекса́ндр Васи́льевич Суво́ров

In reply to K0Lb@zzeR

Registered: 2/7/2007

Posts: 1,766

#35 11/8/2007 10:27 AM UTC

Auto-translated

1. Points should definitely be deducted for losses; otherwise, it will become a cumulative system where the person with more free time, and therefore more games played, will simply have a higher chance of becoming the leader. IMO.
2. A fixed number of points should be added or subtracted for a win/loss.
3. And then, based on the results of a certain period, a bonus/penalty should be awarded to everyone according to the results of the duels... let me explain:
That is, I propose that first, all participants be ranked (according to the points they have earned), and then, based on the rankings, a bonus be awarded.
P.S. IMO, with a bonus system, this is more rational, because, for example, during the first matches, everyone has the same rating, and it is unclear what to do with the bonus!
I am more interested in these points:
1. Will the number of games be limited, and if so, how?
2. The obligation to play with all participants and the scheme for the sequence of choosing an opponent.

Added 1 minute ago
I forgot to add that the "speed" of winning against an opponent should either not be taken into account at all or be taken into account as a secondary factor (for example, when distributing places in case of a tie in points), but it should not affect the number of points/bonus in any way.
Otherwise, there will be a deliberate interest in delaying the defeat (even if it is inevitable).

Added 3 minutes ago

Kyle;125166

What do you mean? :eek:
Well, you've gone too far... :D

It's his birthday - he's probably already started celebrating ;)
and that's why he's pressing the wrong buttons on the keyboard.
We'll forgive everything today

Registered: 7/29/2006

Posts: 1,327

#36 11/8/2007 10:48 AM UTC

Auto-translated

K0Lb@zzeR;125152

Since it's online, but still turn-based, the term "time" probably refers to the number of in-game days spent playing, rather than the actual time spent playing in real life.

Kyle;125166

What do you mean? :eek:
Well, that's a stretch... :D

Well, I guess it means how much time you actually spent in the game (in days), not the time you spent sitting in front of the computer (in hours). Maybe that's what he meant? Although, it's really confusing... :D

"Единственное, что можно сказать с уверенностью об удаче - она изменит..."

In reply to Ley

Registered: 9/13/2007

Posts: 749

#37 11/8/2007 11:05 AM UTC

Auto-translated

1. Points should definitely be deducted for losses; otherwise, it will become a cumulative system where the person with more free time, and therefore more games played, has a higher chance of becoming the leader. IMHO.

+1

2. A fixed number of points should be added for a win and deducted for a loss.
3. And then, based on the results of a certain period, a bonus/penalty should be awarded to everyone according to the results of the duels... let me explain:

+2:)

Will there be a limit on the number of games, and if so, how?

There should be no limit on the number of games. This isn't a tournament; it's just regular online games, albeit with certain rules. And most of the rules should be able to be changed by mutual agreement between the opponents. For example, you could set a turn limit of 4 minutes, but if both sides want, you could set it to 10 minutes. :)
By the way, if the ranked games do cross the line and become more than just a discussion, it would be good to vote on the most important points, such as difficulty, map size, and turn limit. I'm in favor of 4 minutes, 160%, L+U, no water, no AI, strong monsters.

The obligation to play with all participants and the scheme for the sequence of choosing an opponent.

This is, IMHO, one of the problems. It will be very difficult to implement. There is a possibility of manipulating the rating by playing only against "weak" opponents. It will be necessary to require playing against different opponents. But I don't know how to do this. Because it's possible that someone will have many games with the same players not because of rating manipulation, but simply because those opponents play according to rules that suit both of them. For example, I will prioritize players who play at 160% difficulty and with a turn limit of at least 4 minutes. I'm unlikely to play with those who only play at 1-2 minutes and don't want to increase the turn time.

Forgot to add that the "speed" of winning against an opponent should either not be taken into account at all or be taken into account as a secondary factor (e.g., distribution of places in case of a tie in points), but it should not affect the number of points/bonus in any way.

+3
This will encourage dragging out the game when the situation is already hopeless, which is not good for online play.
K0Lb@zzeR, happy birthday! :)

Registered: 9/26/2007

Posts: 202

#38 11/8/2007 3:54 PM UTC

Auto-translated

A clear picture is emerging, and that's good.
1. Regarding the rules about maps and limits that players will use – there's no need to impose restrictions like "large" or "small," or difficulty levels. Let the players agree (any map, any difficulty). Why limit and narrow the circle of people? The strongest will win anyway, and that's the point.
2. Regarding the selection of points:
- If there's no selection, the player with more time will be first, and if they win consistently, that's fine. If they don't win consistently, then no. You could say they're playing against the same player – the number of such games will limit the points – with each game, the winner receives less and less (I plan to start with 10 points for a win + a bonus - a bonus based on the player's strength, and with an increasing number of games against the same player, the winner receives 1 point for a win (minimum)).
- If there is a selection, the player who plays and wins more will still have more points.
3. And the main question is whether games against each other are mandatory. Mandatory games shouldn't be enforced – this isn't a tournament. Here, we need to rely on the players' sense of responsibility and willingness to play with everyone. Otherwise, what's the point of the game, and why did they sign up for the ranking?
Lack of time isn't a problem – a percentage ratio of wins and losses will also be tracked.
If a strong player has little time, let those with many points go ahead, and you'll get more. And I think bonuses will be awarded in such situations.

SS-D:smile17:

In reply to Alex_R

Registered: 6/17/2006

Posts: 484

#39 11/9/2007 3:08 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Alex_R;1251701.

Points should definitely be deducted for a loss – otherwise, there will be a cumulative system where the person with more free time, and therefore more games played, has a greater chance of becoming the leader. IMO.

That's what I was saying.

2. A fixed number of points should be added or subtracted for a win/loss.

I also suggested this, but with the caveat that it depends on who you defeated (strong/weak) and who you lost to (strong, weak).

P.S. IMO, with a bonus system, it's more rational, because, for example, in the first matches, everyone has the same rating, and it's unclear what to do with the bonus!

I forgot to add that if players have the same rating, the rating increase is calculated as the average between X and Y, i.e., A = (X + Y) / 2 + M.

I'm more interested in these points:
1. Will the number of games be limited, and if so, how?
2. Is there an obligation to play with all participants, and what is the scheme for selecting opponents in sequence?

In our system, there was no limit because if you play well, you can become the leader with a minimum number of games; you can even just start "eliminating" the leaders. That is, you play against the person in 1st place, then you play against the person in 1st place again (because the person in 1st place may already have dropped to 2nd place after your game, etc.).

Forgot to add that the "speed" of defeating an opponent should either not be taken into account at all or be taken into account as a secondary factor (e.g., distribution of places in case of a tie in points), but it should not affect the number of points/bonus in any way.
Otherwise, there will be a deliberate interest in delaying the defeat (even if it is inevitable).

No one survived longer than the time allotted for the opponent; that's how you demonstrate your skill by defeating the opponent in the shortest possible time. You will earn a bonus for this; the faster you figure out how to kill the opponent, the bigger the bonus you will get; it's all in your hands, as they say.

Of course, the system could be made even more complex, for example, by introducing a Ladder game, i.e., to get into the ladder, you need to win 10 battles. And also, the Ladder game can be divided into classes, from 1 to 10, when you move into the Ladder game, you get into 10th class, to get into 9th class, you need to win 10 battles against a 10th class player, and so on (only the number of wins increases in the form of a progression). But we didn't do that; this implementation requires a lot of people, around 10,000, and they all need to play this game.

Sincerely, K0Lb@zzeR.

:smile13: [ТУРНИР] "Гонка за Лидером" :smile13:
:smile28: [M] "Я и моя тень" - "I am and my shadow" :smile28:
:smile16: ~~"Быстрая смерть" - "Fast Death"~~ :smile16:

Anonymous

#40 11/9/2007 6:08 AM UTC

Auto-translated

SS-D, I fully support you. A rating system would make the game much more interesting.

Registered: 9/26/2007

Posts: 202

#41 11/9/2007 8:14 AM UTC

Auto-translated

DEAR BOYS AND GIRLS, PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION (ICQ/AIM) TO EXPEDITE THE RATING PROCESS. IF YOU WANT TO SEE YOURSELF ON THE RATING LIST.

SS-D:smile17:

In reply to SS-D

Registered: 9/13/2007

Posts: 749

#42 11/9/2007 8:39 AM UTC

Auto-translated

SS-D;125461

DEAR GIRLS AND BOYS, PLEASE, TO SAVE TIME WHEN CREATING THE RANKING, LEAVE YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THE RANKING (ICQ) IF YOU WANT TO SEE YOURSELF THERE.

Why is this needed? It's simple: create a separate topic where game reports and final save files will be posted (not required, but someone suggested uploading interesting save files, so you can attach them to the reports if you wish). That is, you will add all players to the table whose reports are in this topic. You need to simplify everything as much as possible; otherwise, the whole idea might fail miserably. There might be a lot of people who want to participate, and new faces will appear every day (at least, I hope so))). You will get confused by constantly adding new data for each player. Instead, for example, you can take the results from the reports once a week and update the ranking based on the nicknames from the reports, and that's it.
By the way, I think it would be worth including games from online tournaments in the ranking.

Alex_R, if you don't calm down (you know what I mean), I will start arguing with you for real. It's like a kindergarten, I swear.

In reply to invisible

Registered: 9/26/2007

Posts: 202

#43 11/9/2007 9:17 AM UTC

Auto-translated

invisible;125465

Why is this needed? We just need to create a separate topic where players can post their game reports and final save files (not required, but someone suggested uploading interesting saves, so you can attach them to the reports if you want). That is, you will add all players to the table whose reports are in this topic.

And we need your ICQ number at least so we can play with you.
For convenience, we'll also include your phone number so we can challenge you to a game:smile14:.

SS-D:smile17:

In reply to SS-D

Registered: 9/13/2007

Posts: 749

#44 11/9/2007 9:33 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Well, at least you need to know each other's nicknames to play.

We need to create a thread where players can find each other. That's where they should indicate the date, time, version of the game, preferred match conditions, and ICQ number.
For example:
invisible
I'd like to play today at 3:00 PM Moscow time in Platinum. Random map, L+U, 4-minute turns, 2sm4d(3) template. I won't wait long)).
ICQ - __________
I think this will be easier and clearer.

For convenience, you can immediately include your phone number so you can challenge each other.

That's unnecessary.

In reply to invisible

Registered: 9/26/2007

Posts: 202

#45 11/9/2007 11:57 AM UTC

Auto-translated

invisible;125476

We need to create a thread where opponents can find each other. That's where they should specify the date, time, version of the game, preferred match conditions, and ICQ.
For example:
invisible
I want to play today at 3:00 PM Moscow time in Platinum. Random map, L+U, 4-minute turns, template 2sm4d(3). I won't wait long)).
ICQ - __________
I think this will be easier and clearer.

I don't think it's easier this way. It will just be a column with ICQ numbers, and you'll arrange matches.
Regarding the GAME VERSION, that's GOOD :smile43:

SS-D:smile17:

Reading content in

Interface language

Posts from On-line rating (discussion) Auto-translated

Create a rating