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

I don't think that would be easier. It would just result in everyone having each other's contact information in ICQ and coordinating that way.

Example:
You would have the contact information of, say, 30 Heroes players saved in ICQ. You wake up on a weekend and want to play. How will you proceed: contact each one individually and ask if they want to play? And if everyone is constantly contacting each other and suggesting games, it will soon become annoying for everyone.
But with this system, you wake up on a weekend, go to the relevant topic, and immediately see who wants to play and at what time. You contact them and play.
This is just my opinion; if you have a better idea, please share it, as you are the organizer of this event.

Example:
But if everyone constantly bothers everyone else and offers to play, it will soon get annoying.
But this way, you wake up on a weekend, go to the relevant topic, and immediately see who wants to play and at what time, you contact them, and you play.

You are right, I give up, but what to do with a situation when, for example, the player you are interested in doesn't write anything (it's a bummer), but you really want to play with him, so at least you contacted him and asked, but you are also right about the annoyance: :cool: :cool: :cool: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Added 3 hours 18 minutes ago
Formula for calculating points (demo version) in case of victory.
1. Formula for calculating if the opponent's rating (rank) is higher
_________________________________________________________________________________1/6
S=(10+2*log(Pигр-Pсоп)-(N1-1)/3+N2/3)/ (N1) *5


2. Formula for calculating if the opponent's rating (rank) is lower
_________________________________________________________________________________1/6
S=(10-2*log(Pсоп-Pигр)-(N1-1)/3+N2/3)/ (N1) *5


In case of defeat, I think I will award 10 points :smile34:
(for activity, and as an incentive)

Decoding the letters:

S - points for victory
Pигр - player's rating (yours) in the table
Pсоп - opponent's rating in the table
N1 - number of victories over this opponent
N2 - number of defeats against this opponent

I'll explain the terms and everything:

10 + we start with 10 points, then everything will be multiplied by 10, so for the first game, 100 points will be awarded for a victory, multiplied by 10 to get rid of decimals in other terms.
-2*log(Pигр-Pсоп) - this is a bonus (negative) if you play with a player with a lower rating, then fewer points will be awarded for the victory than if the opponent is lower, the more the opponent is lower, the greater this expression will be.
+2*log(Pсоп-Pигр) - this is a bonus if you play with a player with a higher rating than you, so the higher the opponent, the more points will be added.
-(N1-1)/3 - the more victories you have over the opponent, the less points will be added with the next victory, "-1" so that the first victory is not taken into account.
+N2/3 - the more defeats, the more points for victory.
/ (N1) - sixth root - to increase the trend of decreasing points for the next victory (to the sixth power so that it is not too strong)
This term needs to be thought about, whether it is needed.

It is clear that with N1=20, the points can smoothly go into negative values :smile48: )))
Therefore, I think I will set a limit on victories over one opponent to 20

Or we need to think about it some more.
Of course, if the range is normal, then 20 will not come so quickly, but if it does (for most), then this number can be reset or introduce an additional coefficient (we'll see).

TELL ME what you don't like

It’s good when words are followed by actions – I won’t express any ideas, just write to me in a private message what you need from me (I’m currently playing Heroes less actively, mostly Heroes 3), but I’m ready to help – if I can assist in any way, feel free to write...

SS-D
To be honest, I didn't even delve into the formula right now. Maybe later. But IMHO, we need to come up with rules for online battles first, and appoint a competent judge in case of controversial moments (I'm reading the Heroes portal now and I understand that this is VERY IMPORTANT), and the judge should be at least a moderator. Maybe it seems unnecessary and superfluous now, but believe me, with a large number of players, many of whom will not be beginners, a competent and impartial judge is very important!!! I would like vitalic, who has considerable experience in such matters, to express his opinion on this. Should we start this event or is it better to wait?

My opinion is that in case of defeat, no points should be awarded, but rather deducted. Otherwise, it will turn out that an active loser will be ranked higher than a selective winner.

SS-D, it would be better to avoid creating huge bonuses by multiplying everything by 3 or 4 instead of 10. It won't be a big deal if, for example, 32 points are awarded for a victory.

Definitely in favor of a rating system!

Nick: Dubrovin Pavel
ICQ: 364640730
Network: DubPoll
Password: 123456

Version: 3.2, 4.0.

Good day to all, the ranking system is a great idea, but it also has several drawbacks, as rightly pointed out. Those with more free time and more opponents, and who win against a large number of participants in this ranking, will have a higher ranking. Let's take, for example, Heroes of Might and Magic. Suppose there are 10 good players out of the 70 I've played against, and I have an idea of their gameplay. These players, if they have enough free time, will most likely occupy the top 10 of the ranking, as they will play against weaker players and earn almost free points, practically without the risk of being defeated. I say this from my own experience, as I win against players weaker than me with almost 100% probability. However, if I suggest that players from this top 10 play against me, they usually refuse, as the probability of them losing is very high. It's easier to win against weaker opponents than to lose to a worthy one, and half of the top 10 are like that. They rarely play against each other, and again, it all comes down to free time – whoever plays more "easy" games will be higher in the ranking. As they say, experience speaks for itself, which is why I only occupy 3rd place, as I play less, almost three times less, than Vitalik and Deep Mike, whom I have defeated twice. After all my suggestions to play, they refuse, saying they don't want to spoil the ranking. However, unfortunately, I can't arrange a game with Vitalik to see who is better :smile08:. I suggest introducing something like large penalty points for playing against players, at least not from the top 15. The lower the ranking of the player you play against, the fewer points you receive. For example, playing against a player from the top 15 will earn you 10 points, while playing against a player in 30th place will earn you 2 points. This will force strong players to play against equals, rather than relying on easy wins against weaker players :smile22:. This will more or less balance the "forces," and strong players will strive to play against equals and gain more experience than playing against beginners. Again, many will disagree with me, saying that beginners are better off learning by playing against strong opponents. I disagree with this opinion, as I learned to play by watching replays of professionals, reading other people's reports, and analyzing my own mistakes, and only then did I start playing against strong opponents, noticeably improving my level, as we were on equal footing. However, if a beginner plays against a professional, they will lose badly and will not get any pleasure from the game, only valuable experience by analyzing what could have been done differently. Players should strive to play against equals, and only then, as they improve their game, start playing against stronger opponents. In my opinion, it is better to play against a player weaker than you and get a little adrenaline and excitement than to lose badly to a stronger opponent and get no pleasure from the game. First, you need to at least raise your level of play to that of a strong player, studying the intricacies of the game, and only then start gaining experience from stronger players, knowing the subtleties of the game. Thank you for your attention

I suggest introducing something like large penalty points for players, at least for those not in the top 15. The lower the rating of the player you play against, the fewer points you receive.
_
Thank you for your attention, Amster

Look at the formula; it takes this into account, but I'm not sure to what extent to reduce it. That's why I posted it to discuss.
Regarding refusals: I suggested introducing penalties (no one reacted to this note, maybe they considered it unnecessary), but on the other hand, how can you prove that he refused?
During the rating, there will be bonuses for personal achievements (victories over strong players); it will be visible there.:smile26:

Example Table

Table
Rank	Participant Nick	ICQ	G3 Version	Wins	Losses	% wins	Points
1	NICK			0 <input type="checkbox" name="allbox" title="Still 0 for everyone">	0 <input type="checkbox" name="allbox" title="Still 0 for everyone">
2
3
4
5
6

In addition to this table, there will be an XL table with additional data in the NOTES (table in the archive, will be there)
Regarding this table - if anyone can tell me how, I'll make it better, or if I find out myself.

In case of defeat, I think we should award 10 points.

For a loss, points should be **deducted** - that's for sure.
In your table, instead of the "% wins" column, you should create a "draws" column. And most importantly, seek support from some authoritative Heroes player, preferably with moderator rights, so that in case of controversial moments, they can act as a judge. And rules, rules, rules. Believe me, these won't just be games, but games for ranking, that is, competitions. Not for money, of course, but still.

Yes, I agree about deducting points, but I disagree about a draw. How can there be a draw in Heroes? It's either a victory or a defeat! And the rules should be the same as in online tournaments, with a small adjustment at the discretion of SS-D.

I agree about deducting points, but I disagree about draws. How can there be a draw in Heroes? It's either a victory or a defeat! And the rules should be the same as in online tournaments, with a small adjustment at the discretion of SS-D.

Draws exist in online games, although they are not very common. Therefore, this should be taken into account in the ranking.

Yes, I agree about deducting points; the rules should be the same as in online Tournaments, perhaps with a small adjustment.

There are existing rules, and I agree with Dmitriy767.
REGARDING DEDUCTING POINTS - you just won't understand. 1. THINK ABOUT IT.
PLAY 10 games and you'll be in such a deficit that you won't even want to play for rating anymore.
WHY ADD POINTS? To increase interest, and to attract more people, making the game more interesting. I'm fighting for the average players who can both win and lose (with point deduction, they will never catch up with the top players, even if they play more). But in the case of the BEST players competing against each other, the points awarded for winning will be enough for them, and deducting points won't matter (unless it's too much, then it will be a complete disaster).

I AM AGAINST DEDUCTING POINTS. TRY TO CONVINCE ME (see the forum, I've written about this many times:smile21: ):cool: :cool: :cool:

AND you can always introduce adjustments as needed:smile44:

Added after 8 minutes

There are draws in online games, although they are not very common. Therefore, this should be provided for in the ranking.

Regarding draws - adding an extra column is not a problem (anymore).
Regarding a judge - the moderators probably already have a lot of problems, but I don't think it will be so malicious. WE'LL SEE:smile01:

I am currently competing for the average players who can both win and lose (it's impossible to catch up with the top players, even if they play more).

Question: Why should average players be in the first position due to their activity? :confused:
In my opinion, the best (not active) players should be in the first position.

Sincerely.

SO, IN TWO DAYS (11/15/07) I WILL POST AN EXAMPLE OF THE FINAL RULES, TABLES, AND FORMULAS, it's time to end the discussion. WRITE, CALL, AND YOU WILL GET AN ANSWER; there is always time.
:smile08: :smile08: :smile08: :smile08: :smile08:

Added 8 minutes later

Question: why should average players be in the first position due to their activity? :confused:
In my opinion, the best (not active) players should be in the first position.

Sincerely.

The best players will always be first; I have a %WINS table for this. BEST PLAYERS, don't worry, everything will be fine. BUT everyone should have a chance to be first
(it's good for promotion), weak players won't be first, neither will the dishonest ones. I SEE EVERYTHING HERE:smile22:
:smile08: :smile08: :smile08:
LET'S NOT BE AFRAID, LET'S NOT HAVE COMPLEXES, EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE; this is just the beginning.
EVERYTHING CAN ALWAYS BE CORRECTED.

I am AGAINST taking points away. TRY TO CONVINCE ME.

It has already been written many times why it is this way? I gave you a link – read the forum, and you will understand WHY IT IS THIS WAY. Adding points for losses is NONSENSE (sorry for being blunt, but everyone has already told you this).

Example 1:
A player who plays weakly approaches one of the leaders and says, "Let's record a couple of games in your favor. This way, you will solidify your position as a leader, and I will climb higher in the ranking."
According to your system, such manipulation of the ranking is possible, and you couldn't come up with anything worse.

Regarding the judge – the moderators probably already have a lot of problems, and I don't think it will be so malicious.

Example 2:
Let's say we have our first game, and you win. After analyzing the saves, I tell you that you used cheats (again, this is just an example) and I don't confirm the game. What should we do in this case? We will shout at each other, use all sorts of foul language, each insisting on our own, until the moderators close the topic or something else happens. Before undertaking such serious events, you need to think about it many times and look a little ahead. No tournament ever happens without some controversial moments, and you want several dozen players to calmly play and enjoy life? I would be very happy if there were never any quarrels, etc., but this is life, in which you need to be prepared for anything. You don't want this venture to fail due to shortcomings in the organization, do you?