Posts from [HMM III OFF TOURNAMENT] "Race for the Leader"

After all, how will the winner of the first scenario be determined, by points or by rating?

The rules state:

During the "Race for the Leader" tournament, participants will also receive points for each mini-tournament, according to the following scheme (this scheme will also be used to determine the winners of the mini-tournaments):

1. The participant who submits an application for the tournament will receive 0 starting points.
2. After the completion of each mini-tournament, the participant will receive points for the mini-tournament according to the formula:
Points = ((Days_l + (Param_i) / 396 + (0.25 * Mercury_i) / 1000 + (0.0625 * Castle_i) / 48) * 1000) / Days_i
Where:
Days_l – The number of days the leader spent completing the task of the current mini-tournament.
Days_i - The number of days the player spent completing the task of the current mini-tournament.
Param_i – The sum of the hero's parameters (attack, defense, magic, knowledge) INCLUDING WORN ARTIFACTS, obtained by the player while completing the task of the current mini-tournament.
Mercury_i – The amount of mercury obtained by the player while completing the task of the current mini-tournament.
Castle_i – The number of castles captured by the player while completing the task of the current mini-tournament.
3. The current points will be calculated as the average between the previous result and the current result.

I don't think any comments are needed here.

Sincerely, K0Lb@zzeR.

Kamikaze: I agree with you, but where were you before...? I already wrote about it (page 21, post 616), and no one objected. I understand how K0Lb@zzer's rating works. But I don't understand why the rating was divided by 2 in the first stage:confused:. After all, we didn't have any games before the first stage. So, the rating should have been divided by 1, that is, everything should have been left as it was. Then, add the second stage and divide by 2, and so on... And then there wouldn't be any disputes about how the winner is determined. Because the rating was divided by 2 after the first stage, it turned out that everyone didn't gain enough rating in the subsequent stages, and the tables of points and ratings differ so much. All stages should be the same, and then the final rating could be 1000 or even a little more.

But I don't understand why in the first stage, the rating was divided by 2:confused:. After all, we didn't have any games before the first stage. Therefore, the rating should have been divided by 1, that is, everything should have remained as it was. Then, add the second stage and divide by 2, and so on... And then there would be no disputes about how the winner is determined.
Because after the first stage, the rating was divided by 2, it turned out that everyone didn't gain enough rating in the subsequent stages, and the tables by points and rating differ so much. All stages should be the same, then the final rating can be 1000 or even a little more.

I'll say this: since, according to the formula, the practical maximum for a victory is about 1100-1150 points, in order to create a race (a step-by-step increase in the "bar" from X to 1100-1150 points), a system of average scores was introduced. And since the initial score was 0, it turned out that there was a sharp reduction in points in the first game of the tournament (and it will be this way, no matter when you join). Consequently, after the "cut," the rating became 575 points, i.e., throughout the tournament, your "bar" will rise from this average (approx. 575 points) to 1150 points, provided that you strive to raise your "bar" each time. The system is, of course, not suitable if it is used for a large number of games (approx. 1000) without resetting, because the increase is reduced to nothing. But since we only have 36 games, the system is quite suitable, which is why there was no reset of the current points after each stage. Resetting can be done with this system, but every 20-25 games.

Sincerely, K0Lb@zzeR.

Besides, that very division into two didn't offer any advantage to any individual player, meaning everyone was on equal footing.

Hello everyone. Please excuse me. My computer at home broke down :-( So I can't even finish writing the walkthrough and send the daily saves... I will try to resolve this issue within this week. I apologize again, I think everyone will understand.

P.S.: To Kolbazzer: If you have any questions, you know how to contact me!

P.P.S.: To Perpolken: Don't argue after the fight!! IMHO, if the organizer decided this way, then that's how it is, and according to your system, if you miss it, the stage is over, and you can't count on anything anymore.

I think that the ideal system would be the one I proposed: a system with a reset of the rating and discarding the two worst stages!

Sincerely, Gryazny_Igrok.

Hello everyone. Please excuse me. My computer at home broke down :-( So I can't even finish writing the walkthrough and send the daily saves... I'll try to resolve this issue within this week. I apologize again, I think everyone will understand.

Please try to fix it, because the results are stuck in a "pending" state, which is delaying the final results and the award ceremony for the LEADER of the first stage. And, accordingly, the start of the Second stage, or rather, the 2-1 mini-tournament.

Ley, you are wrong; that division by two actually gave an advantage to the players who did not receive 1000 points. Because the leaders lose 500 points, while the others lose 300-350 points. The difference is 150 points, and after dividing by 2, 3, or 4, only 20 points remain of those 150. Where is the fairness in that? Is winning the 3rd stage really more prestigious than winning the 1st? Perhaps there were more participants in the 3rd stage, and it is much harder to complete a map in 5 days than in 3 days.

Dirty_Player, I fully support your system for determining the ABSOLUTE leader. But right now, we are talking about awarding points, which determine the winner of the scenario.
You say that if you miss a stage, you have nothing to hope for. I disagree. If you score 3000 points in 4 stages (missing the 1st stage), you can still win the scenario, but it will be difficult (see the points table). In general, those who play and strive to win do not miss stages. Of course, there are difficulties, and there is not enough time to play (to show a good result). But if a person does not send a save file, it means that they either did not want to play or the result was very modest. And you can always find time to play, because you can manage to complete a map while having a cup of coffee. Moreover, we have 7 scenarios, so you can definitely complete at least one scenario. If you miss the first scenario, there are still 6 more. And if you are aiming to be the absolute leader, you can skip two scenarios completely.

K0Lb@zzeR, in order to create a competition (raising the bar from X to 1150), you introduced a system of average scores. There is no arguing with that. But I disagree with the starting score of 0 and the reduction of points.
The bar is raised in any case, because after each stage, the hero's skills increase, thereby raising the bar. It's just that it doesn't happen as dramatically as with 575 (the bar is raised by 10, not by 100). And the reset will still have to be done, because raising the bar by 100 is not infinite.
Imagine the situation: I and Dirty_Player score 1000 points in stages 2-1 (rating = 950). Then I skip all the stages of the 2nd scenario, while Dirty_Player plays in all the stages, but not very successfully, and his rating drops to 940. So, I will be first, and will that be fair?!

It is best to do the reset after each scenario, and when the time comes to determine the absolute leader (in 3 years), then Dirty_Player's system is the most suitable.

In order for the rating to be fair to all participants (those who play, newcomers, and those who miss a stage), it should look like this (rating = the sum of the number of points in the completed stages / the number of completed stages).

Example: I played stages 1 and 2, but did not play stages 3 and 4. In the first 2 stages, I earned 2000 points (rating = 2000/2), after the 3rd stage (rating = 2000/3), after the 4th stage (rating = 2000/4)
That is, my final rating after the 1st scenario = 500

After this, all ratings are reset, and the 2nd scenario begins. And so on until the 7th scenario.
After the 7th scenario, Dirty_Player's system comes into effect, and the absolute leader is determined.

I’ll spice up the “dry” tournament theme with my marathon (or rather, half-marathon) story. It happened around 1992 or 1993 (I don’t remember exactly). My classmates and I went on a week-long vacation. We stayed at a resort, and there were many of them on Lake Kandry-Kul (a gem of Bashkortostan). One beautiful evening, the male half of the vacationers decided to go for a run. We decided to run around the lake, which, by the way, is 22.5 km. But, as it usually happens, by 6 a.m., after “yesterday’s festivities,” only two out of ten were ready (I was one of them). The other potential participants, in response to our attempts to “wake them up,” wished us success in our future endeavors. They can be understood, because on their list of desires at that moment, a 22.5 km run was ranked somewhere around a millionth place. We only slept for 2 hours and weren’t really sober. We didn’t have breakfast. Of course, I couldn’t find my sports shoes and put on the “first thing I found.” I think it’s unnecessary to say that neither of us had any running training for such long distances, although we were friends with sports. In the end, it all turned into 1 hour and 37 minutes and another “youthful” foolishness, without which life wouldn’t be life. To say that everything hurt afterward would be an understatement. Now, in the event of such a run, I think it wouldn’t be out of place to leave my blueprints to my family and friends so that they can put me back together correctly later… That’s my marathon story. Well, I didn’t really have a point, it’s just that my mood is, as always, great...

I would like to participate in your tournament.

Imagine this: Dirty_Player and I both score 1000 points in 2-1 (rating = 950). Then, I skip all stages of the second scenario, while Dirty_Player plays all stages, but not very successfully, and his rating drops to 940. So, I will be first, and that will be fair?!

I gave a similar example to Kolbazzer, and he said he would come up with something! For example, if I stop playing, but suddenly take 1st place in Stage 36, I could become the leader right away!

The best thing would be to reset the scores after each scenario, and when the time comes to determine the absolute leader (in 3 years), the Dirty_Player system would be the most suitable.

I also believe that resetting the scores is simply vital for several reasons:
1. A new campaign means a new rating.
2. I am sure that stages 1-4 are much more difficult than 2-1, and it is unfair that they will have less impact on the overall rating!
3. For example, if someone gets a rating of 1030, they will have no reason to play further at all, because even if they take 2nd or 3rd place and score 1000, it will lower their rating, which is not good!

2Kolbazzer: Two players, who currently have the highest rating, are advising you to reset it! I think there is a reason for that :-)

As I understand it, Dmitry AS is tactfully hinting that you can only get involved in the race for the leader after having a hangover? :D

P.S.: I have almost finished the Walkthrough! I will send it to you in the evening!

Besides, that very division into two didn't offer any advantage to any individual player; that is, everyone was on equal terms.

What the respected Ley writes is "purely not fairness": D
I will give a simple example:
Hero A by stages (didn't play, 1000, 1000, 1000) = 875
Hero B by stages (1000, 1000, 1000, 850) = 862.5
Is there anyone else who will say that everyone is on equal terms???

Dirty Player
I gave a similar example to Kolbazzer, and he said he would come up with something! For example, if I stop playing, and suddenly take 1st place in Stage 36, I can become the leader right away!

You are right; or send only a couple of "sure things," that is, the finals, when it is clear that the maximum has been scored: D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sorry... I promised myself not to pay attention to this topic anymore... but I couldn't resist, here it is.

As I understand it, Dmitry AS is tactfully hinting that you can only join the race for the leader after having a hangover? :D

It would be inappropriate of me to release such “transparent” hints, especially considering the organizer and participants. It’s just a story, without any hidden meanings. On the contrary, I like the tournament.
However, I do have one wish – to fully clarify the method for determining the winner before the start of the next round.
Regardless of the reason for the dispute, it’s a negative for the tournament organizer, and this should be avoided. Once this issue is resolved, everything will look quite “appealing.”
Well, and I would like to participate in a round or two. I’ll probably start with the next round. I’ll definitely bring a Lich with me. :D So, keep your blades sharp.;)

Welcome! We'd love to see the Lich again... he's been missing for a while, that undead creature.

That’s great! I’d like to compete with Dmitry AS again. (Maybe even more than once.)

Chess players... are having a blast :D:D:D