Posts from Questions, answers, and resolution of disputes regarding the online rating in HoMM5.

In this thread, you should ask questions about the rules, the rating calculation formula, and also discuss reports of played games if you disagree with them.

I have a very constructive suggestion. Please add each player's ICQ number to the table. Otherwise, it's very difficult to find them.

just your ICQ number?, I can also add a link to your profile.

and another question, are these rules acceptable to everyone?

we need to add a section about bugs (a list from ValgallWolf)
and include dynamic battles :)

No dynamic combat. Except in special cases. Dynamic combat completely eliminates the possibility of strategically engaging mid-level neutral creatures. And when encountering the main hero, I personally can spend up to 30 seconds trying out all the spells, and there are at least 30 of them. Plus, they all need to be tested on everyone. I am strongly against dynamic combat, and it will not be used in the tournaments I organize. P.S. This is not my list of bugs, but a list from the League. It would be good to also add a link to a similar page on the League's website when adding it.

I also disagree with dynamic battles, and it seems to me that this is rarely practiced in tournaments and other serious games, as the outcome of the battle can be subjective, and in general, there is even no time to exchange a few words, and if you need to communicate something important? Regarding the duration of the game, I don't think that the absence of dynamic battles significantly affects it.

In general, in my opinion, a dynamic battle system is needed for the jubilee game, because I have encountered unpleasant people there more than once who simply start playing and go, for example, to the shop. In such cases, you will eventually get tired and leave... But I think there won't be such incidents on the portal, and if there are, you can simply inform the judges.

I would like to point out that the rating hasn't been updated in a long time. Newcomers from other websites come to the forum, look at the table, and see data that is two months old. This is unacceptable; it needs to be updated at least once at the end of the week. Starhan is responsible for this, but he's busy and can't manage it. Please replace him; the formulas are already written out, so it shouldn't take long. Anyone can calculate it; the main thing is to follow the order of battles. I urge you to find someone to do this as soon as possible; we can't let this drag on, or we'll end up with a huge backlog of reports that will take a month to sort through. Best regards, Lord of Vampires

I wanted to do this. But they doubt my integrity (although it's obvious that I'm going to be in 1st place). So, I suggested that I calculate the results, and Starhan could quickly check them afterward. It would be faster anyway. But they still didn't agree... it's a pity.

Starhan promised to review everything this weekend. It’s easy to say, “find a replacement,” but do you realize how much work that is? It’s not as simple as adding 2+2, and the issue of trust is very acute. “And Starhan would quickly check everything,” haha, what kind of monkey work is that? If he has to recalculate everything anyway, then what’s the point of your services, especially if the question of trust is involved? Maybe it’s just better not to calculate anything at all than to have to double-check your work later.

I got sidetracked in mid-May :( I'll have to recount after work.
I'm happy to report that more than half of the count took only 30 minutes.

In this regard, please write reports clearly like this:

Correct
Starhan def Adelaide
Starhan lose Adelaide

Incorrect
Starhan def Adelaide
Adelaide lose Starhan

(This is because I enter name1 and name2 into the program and then click the buttons for player 1 wins, player 1 loses).

And confirmations should be written like this:

Correct

Starhan def Adelaide
Starhan lose Adelaide

Confirmed

Incorrect
Starhan def Adelaide
Starhan lose Adelaide
It happened

(So that I don't count the game a second time).

This will make the counter's life much easier :)

Added 5 minutes later

Although it's obvious that I'm falling from 1st place. That's why I suggested that I do the counting.

You're still 1st on May 20th :) although Primus is behind by less than 70 points :) It's exciting :D

Good day, I have a doubt about the accuracy of the overall rating calculation for all games. I think it would be more appropriate to consider the rating of games played within tournaments, including unofficial ones. If my opinion is of interest, I am ready to explain and discuss this topic. Best regards, Leolopus.

Good day, I have a doubt about the accuracy of the rating calculation for all games. I think it would be more appropriate to consider the rating of games played within tournaments, including unofficial ones. If my opinion is of interest, I am ready to justify it and discuss it on this topic. With respect, Leolopus.

I think you are right about the rating. It seems to me that more points should be awarded for tournaments than for regular games, for example, twice as many. This is just my opinion, and it may not coincide with the majority of players.

Hmm. On one hand, I agree. On the other hand, I don't. Any player can play regular games. But in a tournament, you have to go far. And those who go far have an advantage over average players. That is, the top ten will essentially not change because they will keep progressing further. You might say that this is an incentive to learn how to play? I agree. But on the other hand, it isn't. Because regular games are the same as tournament games. I think everyone will agree that players prepare for ranked games just as much as they do for tournaments.

The idea is essentially sound, but not taking non-tournament games into account at all is, IMHO, not rational, because not all players are able to participate in tournaments for various reasons, and denying regular games a rating will hinder HeroesWorld's development as a gaming resource, threatening a loss of popularity among players who do not play in tournaments. On the other hand, it is clear that interest in tournaments needs to be stimulated, and Primus already suggested simply introducing a multiplier for tournament reports, and it seems to me that this is a solution; on one hand, non-tournament games remain, but there will still be more incentive to participate in tournaments. We also need to hear Starhan's opinion, since he handles the rating via an automated program, on how technically feasible the implementation of a multiplier is, and, well, if this idea can actually be realized, the size of this multiplier needs to be determined.

Technically, it's possible, but I agree with this statement:

Because regular games are just like tournament games. I think everyone will agree that players prepare for ranked games just as much as they do for tournaments.

The difference with tournaments is the prizes and rewards. (We could create a thread about prize-winning places),
but tournament games are no worse than regular games (if they follow the rules or if it's considered that the players are playing with mutual agreement), so they are included in the ranking along with regular games.

Regarding doubts about the fairness, if you look at the ranking formula, you can see that with a difference of 500 points (which is currently observed between the top players and the middle), players with a higher ranking lose -35 points for a loss and gain +10 points for a win.
Players with a lower ranking gain +5 points for a loss and +50 points for a win.

Therefore, you fall down almost twice as fast as you climb up,
and you can also play against players with a similar ranking and get +30 points for a win and -15 for a loss, but a player behind, playing against a higher-ranked player, will overtake them because they will get +50 points for a win and +5 for a loss. :)

This explains the paradox of the player strongit (31 losses, but over 750 points) and most likely ArhLich (this will still be checked)