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

Here's a proposed formula for calculating the rating:

R = (R_1 + R_2 + ... + R_i) / i * K_i,

where i is the number of games the player participated in;
K_i = {0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0} or {0.55, 0.70, 0.85, 1.00} - a bonus/reduction coefficient (the more games, the fewer points are reduced)

Example.

some1 (1 game) = 1000 + 0000 + 0000 + 0000 = 1000
some2 (2 games) = 0500 + 1000 + 0000 + 0000 = 1500
some3 (3 games) = 0800 + 0900 + 0400 + 0000 = 2100
some4 (4 games) = 0700 + 0800 + 1000 + 1000 = 3500

Let's calculate the average:
s1=1000/1=1000
s2=1500/2=0750
s3=2100/3=0700
s4=3500/4=0875

And now - BONUS (or reduction, if you prefer)
R1=1000*0.7=700 (550)
R2=0750*0.8=600 (525)
R3=0700*0.9=630 (595)
R4=0875*1.0=875 (875)

The advantage of this system is that it takes into account each stage of the game; the main thing is to choose the coefficients correctly.

I came up with a system, and Nzol wrote a post explaining it:))))
I had a similar idea, but with a 2/3 coefficient.
For example:
4 stages - scores are counted for the top 3;
5 stages - scores are counted for the top 4;
6 stages - scores are counted for the top 4;
7 stages - scores are counted for the top 5.

In this case, the average and the sum are the same, with a coefficient corresponding to the number of stages counted.

Examples:
Player 1 played 1000, skipped 910, played 1000.
Player 2 skipped, played 1000, played 1000, skipped.
Player 3 played 910, 850, 910, 910.

Average:
Player 1 - 970;
Player 2 - 666.67;
Player 3 - 910.

And this is fair. Because a multi-event competition is a multi-event competition.
And believe me - as Kyle rightly said, the system should encourage players to participate. If it doesn't, there will be no progress.

Examples.
Player 1 played 1000, skipped 910, played 1000.
Player 2 skipped, played 1000, played 1000, skipped.
Player 3 played 910, 850, 910, 910.

But if it's 1000, 1000, 1000, why play a fourth time?

What if it's 1000, 1000, 1000? Why play for the fourth time?

For fun. For the ranking, if the tournament counts towards it. To prove that if you show up at a tournament, the others can only compete for second place.

Here, I'll suggest a formula for calculation:

R = (R_1 + R_2 + ... + R_i) / i * K_i,

where i is the number of games the player participated in;
K_i = {0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0} or {0.55, 0.70, 0.85, 1.00} - a bonus/reduction coefficient (the more games, the fewer points are reduced)

Example.

some1 (1 game) = 1000 + 0000 + 0000 + 0000 = 1000
some2 (2 games) = 0500 + 1000 + 0000 + 0000 = 1500
some3 (3 games) = 0800 + 0900 + 0400 + 0000 = 2100
some4 (4 games) = 0700 + 0800 + 1000 + 1000 = 3500

Let's calculate the average:
s1=1000/1=1000
s2=1500/2=0750
s3=2100/3=0700
s4=3500/4=0875

And now - BONUS (or reduction, if you prefer)
R1=1000*0.7=700 (550)
R2=0750*0.8=600 (525)
R3=0700*0.9=630 (595)
R4=0875*1.0=875 (875)

The advantage of the system is that each stage of the game is taken into account; the main thing is to choose the coefficients correctly.

You've really put your mind to it, you've thought through every detail:)))
I read it three times. I figured it out. It's a good system. Just need to think through the coefficient - and it's good to go.
You came up with something impressive!

I understand that I probably shouldn't interfere in a discussion when it concerns my score in the first scenario. But please, when you plug numbers into a formula, imagine that it's not just some Perpolken or Dirty_Player, but you yourself, and this will affect you in the next scenario. DmitriyAS, I remember your argument with IronAxe about the ranking. I respect you and your opinion. But I disagree a little here, because in this tournament, points for each stage are calculated based on the leader's result, so the final score should also be calculated based on points (either the sum or the average). Removing results won't lead to anything good. Vanechka gave a good example. Kyle said it right: "we shouldn't kill the motivation to play." Removing results kills motivation! It gives reason to think whether it's worth submitting a result (what if it's bad?). And it also creates extra work for the organizer. K0Lb@zzeR says that the sum is evil. In fact, K0Lb@zzeR, your tournament is unique because in it, points are calculated based on the leader's result. And to earn a good sum, it might be enough to complete 3 out of 4 stages. The main thing is to perform as well as possible in your stages, thereby pushing your rivals further back. If there is any evil, it is reduced by your tournament due to the special way of calculating points. K0Lb@zzeR, when you start counting wins, you deviate from the main principle – calculating points. In a stage, the main thing is not to win, but to complete it in the shortest amount of time. The mercury and skills gained are a minor thing (just a bonus). I have already suggested my formula for calculating the score; I think it is the simplest and fairest for everyone. rating = sum of points earned in completed stages / number of completed stages Example 1: I played 1000 and 1000, and didn't play the 3rd and 4th. The rating after the first stage is 1000, the 2nd stage (rating2 = 2000/2), after the 3rd stage (rating3 = 2000/3), after the 4th stage (rating4 = 2000/4). That is, my rating after the 1st stage with 1000 decreased to 500. Example 2: didn't play, 1000, didn't play, didn't play. Rating (1st stage) = 0 Rating (2nd stage) = 500 Rating (3rd stage) = 333 Rating (4th stage - final) = 250 Try plugging in the numbers yourself and, if it works, find its flaws. This rating encourages you to play all stages. Usually, those who compete for a medal play all stages. There is one drawback: if a player misses more than 25% of the scenarios, it will be difficult for him to win, but that would be fair. If you miss one stage, there is still a chance to win; you just need to lower the scores of your opponents more on the stages you play.

And I, in turn, suggest a simple total score for all stages. Whoever scores the most gets the prize!
This is the simplest and most reliable system. Here it is!

Best regards.

Isn't the Kyle system and the Perpolken system the same? Wouldn't multiplying the result from the Perpolken system by the number of stages in the tournament yield the same result as the Kyle system? But if that's the case, then it's simpler to just sum the results, as Kyle suggests...
And I personally liked the vbn system... Or perhaps awarding credit based on the top 60-75% of results, that would also be a good approach...

I, in turn, suggest a simple total score for all stages. Whoever scores the most gets the slippers!
The simplest and most reliable system. Here it is!

Best regards.

I agree, as long as the slippers aren't white:D. But I'm not worried here either – where else can I die:D?

The most objective system with the elimination of several of the worst stages!! 3 out of 4. For the first one, and then the sum or average, which IMHO is the same, because the division for everyone will be by 3!
And WBN and Perpolken overcomplicated it, IMHO.

- Based on everything I've read, I believe the vbn system is the most suitable, but with the caveat that participants must compete in at least three out of four scenarios. - Also, I think that one of the four stages can be eliminated, choosing the worst one. P.S.: I believe that the winner of the first stage was objectively and correctly determined.

I don't understand – is all this talk about the future, or are you all still arguing about who won the first stage? If it's the latter, then it's a complete mess, I'll tell you frankly.

If I had followed the initially proposed system and finished, say, in second place in the first stage, and then someone decided that it wouldn't be second place but seventh place because the power changes, I wouldn't touch the subsequent stages anymore, honestly...

Added 1 minute ago
Kolbazzer, please announce the results of the first stage, don't create confusion.... Are they final, or are they still being discussed?

Added 11 minutes ago
I think we need to separate the flies from the cutlets: first, we need to close the issue of the first stage, and second, we need to decide how to live and calculate further. All new calculation systems should not affect everything that has already been played, that's what I think.

I think we need to separate the flies from the cutlets: first, we need to close the issue regarding the first stage, and second, we need to decide how to proceed and calculate further.

That's what I'm doing now, separating the flies from the cutlets...

If I had gone through the first stage according to the initially proposed system and, say, taken second place, and then someone decided that it would not be second place but seventh place because the authorities are changing, then I would not have touched the subsequent stages anymore, honestly...

The new system does not affect the places in any way; on the contrary, it is based on them, but it expresses a more complete picture of what is happening. It simply proposes recalculating the points obtained according to the formula for the tournament into rating points, which can then be used (added together or averaged using some system, it doesn't matter).

All new calculation systems should not affect everything that has already been played, I think.

I also think so, but I don't think anyone else thinks the same way, which depresses me.

Nothing should be changed in the first stage. Otherwise, you'll ruin the value of first place. There will be two of them, the winners: one will think that now everything has been recalculated correctly, and here it is, first place, but there will still be some vague aftertaste.
The second will think that all these recalculations are nonsense, and that first place was unfairly taken away from him.
As a result, neither will have a feeling of complete, unconditional victory.
You see, someone will say "I won," and someone will reply, "it all depends on how you count"...

Be that as it may, there was a formula, and everyone initially saw what it produced.
Now, what has already resulted from the first stage according to that formula must be accepted as a fact. Otherwise, it's all worthless.

For the 2-1 match, the winner will be determined either by the classic rating or by the vbn system; I won't invent a new system, the old one is sufficient. :)

In the coming days, most likely tomorrow, a ceremony will be held to award the certificate to the LEADER of the first stage. A medal will be placed under the avatar by the Creator. (The certificate and medal are still being prepared; I think they will complete it on time).