On-line rating (discussion) — Tournament Committee

Statistics

Registered: 6/17/2006 2:55 AM UTC

Posts: 406

8/14/2008 9:57 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Good day.
Let's start analyzing the file: (R11 - This is the first cell, first column)
r1tot = 1;
R1 = (R11 + R12 + R13 + R14) / r1tot;
// if R2 won
f2 = Math.max(Math.min((R2-R1)/400,1),-1);
// if R1 won
f1 = Math.max(Math.min((R1-R2)/400,1),-1);
WP1 = Math.max(16 * (1 + f1), 1);
WP2 = Math.max(16 * (1 + f2), 1);
LP1 = Math.min(16 * (-1 + f1), -1);
LP2 = Math.min(16 * (-1 + f2), -1);

document.forms[1].cN11a.value = R11 + WP2 / r1tot;
document.forms[1].cN11b.value = R11 + LP2 / r1tot;

Here is such a complicated formula... this is what I extracted... if calculating for a pair... and if it's a team game, it's even more complex...

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:

Statistics

Registered: 11/25/2007 3:52 PM UTC

Posts: 1,499

8/14/2008 10:08 AM UTC

Auto-translated

"It needs to start from scratch" - it's a completely different rating system. If a player loses more than they win, their rating will go into the negative. Isn't that a bit unsightly...? For example, this won't happen with 1000 points. IMHO - the system I described is more balanced. You give too many points for games played and not enough for the difference in skill level. In general, I've been following the development of the current rating system from the very beginning. I decided to post my system after discussions about automating rating calculations. Please don't be too harsh.

In reply to SEM_56

Statistics

Registered: 10/16/2007 6:22 AM UTC

Posts: 3,358

8/14/2008 1:21 PM UTC

Auto-translated

SEM_56;190807

We could set a limit on the number of games played within a month. After all, not everyone, like Dubrovin, can consistently take 1st place just by playing more games.

I am strongly against it! What does "limit" mean? Does that mean we shouldn't play Heroes at all? Play your allotted number of games, and that's it, then just play against the computer? Or not play for rating? - That's just nonsense. P.S.: If you want to score more points than Dubrovin, just play against him and win consistently; he'll go down, and you'll keep climbing :D

Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/
За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того

In reply to SEM_56

Statistics

Registered: 6/12/2007 8:51 AM UTC

Posts: 1,832

8/14/2008 8:29 PM UTC

Auto-translated

SEM_56 wrote:
After all, not everyone, like Dubrovin, can take 1st place by playing more games. And judging by the results of the spring season, this number is impressive (100). I ask you to take my note into account and resolve this, in my opinion, delicate issue, so that in the future there will be no complaints or dissatisfaction.
Sincerely, Assistant of the Senate of Darkness, of the Knights of the Apocalypse clan - Lawmaker SEM_56....[/QUOTE]

I agree, sometimes there is not enough time...
You can reach the top in different ways, and everyone chooses their own path that they can handle at a given time.
Play 30-40 games and score about 1500 points, or 100 games and score the same amount. If my level of play allowed me to play fewer games (which I am, of course, striving for, but the opportunities may not allow (or may not allow) me to achieve this).

С истиной где-то рядом...

Лето 2010.

In reply to Дубровин Павел

Statistics

Registered: 9/13/2007 1:06 PM UTC

Posts: 754

8/14/2008 9:14 PM UTC

Auto-translated

In my opinion, the system I described is more balanced. You give too many points for played games and too few for the difference in skill level.

What do you mean by your expression "difference in skill level"? No, I understand what it is, of course, but let's reason logically:
the difference in skill level is a purely subjective concept. How can you clearly define this line between the skill level of different players? If we take into account the games from previous seasons, then the best player will be Dubrovin Pavel (no offense, just an example of the most active player who is at the top of the ranking). You say that Uran and Dudj are the best super players. It's hard to argue with that, but personally, I can confidently bet on some new players who will play just as well, if not better! I think my point is clear. From our ranking system, it is clear that the most active player will be at the top, the one who not only loses but also wins. And no matter what formulas anyone gives as an example from different games, the essence will not change significantly. Well, there will be 1000 points at the start instead of zero, well, there will be no negative values in the ranking. So what will change?! If both parts of the equation are multiplied or divided by the same number, the essence will not change.
Personally, I want to suggest that wins in Tournaments should significantly affect the ranking!!! For example, give 500 points for first place, 300 for second, and 200 for third (the numbers are arbitrary and can be discussed). Then there will be an incentive to play in Tournaments, and not just to mindlessly increase your ranking. I think few people would disagree that it is not easy for just any active player to win any Tournament! So why not give him a good bonus for this, so that he continues to play and win! Here, people play for three months around the clock, trying to climb to the top of the table, and a strong player will only need to win a couple of Tournaments - and he will be the leader of the ranking! In my opinion, this will be more objective than just proving to each other whose favorite player plays better!

Я ламер и играть не умею, нах!:smile33:

In reply to Дубровин Павел

Statistics

Registered: 7/13/2008 1:02 PM UTC

Posts: 1,944

8/14/2008 9:57 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Dubrovin Pavel;190938

SEM_56 wrote:
After all, not everyone, like Dubrovin, can take 1st place by playing more games. And judging by the results of the spring season, this number is impressive (100). I ask you to take my note into account and resolve this, in my opinion, delicate issue, so that in the future there will be no complaints or dissatisfaction.
Sincerely, Assistant of the Senate of Darkness, Knight Apocalypse-Lawgiver clan SEM_56....

I agree, sometimes there is not enough time...
You can reach the top in different ways, and everyone chooses their own path, which they can handle at the moment.
Play 30-40 games and score about 1500 points, or 100 games and score the same amount. If my level of play allowed me to play fewer games (which I am, of course, striving for, but the opportunities do not allow (or may not allow) me to achieve this).I was misunderstood a bit. I'm talking about a limit for each player, so that they can play about 15 games per month. So that there is at least some balance. And I agree with Dubrovin, victory is achieved in different ways. Of course, it is still early for me to talk about victories, but I came here specifically for this. I found real tacticians and masters, and I am going to continue learning. I'm not even interested in playing with my friends anymore, I crush them. Their level is weak, and here I would be a beginner. Good luck to everyone, and may you have more sweet loot in the game and in life.:smile03:

Ушел с героев, пока пряники)

Statistics

Registered: 11/25/2007 9:38 AM UTC

Posts: 339

8/15/2008 1:49 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Why not simply divide the rating by the number of games played? In my opinion, this would be a more objective indicator.

http://dreamcatcher.metroland.ru/

In reply to Dreamcatcher

Statistics

Registered: 4/29/2007 10:30 AM UTC

Posts: 11,704

8/15/2008 1:27 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Dreamcatcher;190957

Why not simply divide the rating by the number of games played? In my opinion, this would be a more objective indicator.

It's not objective... Theoretically, you could play just one game and take 1st place!

Added after 6 hours and 15 minutes
After reading the last few posts, I had an idea!

I suggest introducing a limit on the rating difference! That is, if the players have a rating difference of more than 500 points (the number is arbitrary), then the game should not be counted towards the rating!!!! This will encourage players to only play against strong opponents if they want to move up! And not like Dubrovin Pavel - to play against those who have only 1-2 games or a rating below zero, and then complain that the reports were not confirmed :D

I also fully support Sergey's idea of introducing bonus rating points for participating in tournaments, but not only for the top three, but, say, for the top five, or depending on the number of participants, for example:
1-4 participants ----- 1st place
5-8 participants ---- 1st-3rd places
9-16 participants --- 1st-5th places
17-32 participants --- 1st-8th places
33+ participants ---- 1st-10th places

Let's argue now :)

In reply to invisible

Statistics

Registered: 2/29/2008 11:23 AM UTC

Posts: 724

8/15/2008 1:28 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Awarding points in the ranking table for tournaments – I agree. For which tournaments: official and unofficial? – I think points should be awarded for all, I don’t see a difference between them for a true Heroes player. For which tournaments: random and fixed maps? – I only play random maps, and most of the games in the table (currently) are on random maps, but there are many tournaments on fixed maps, but they are in no way comparable to random maps (for me)!!! And will it be reflected in the table in some way: + points for a tournament for 1st place, etc. – it’s not particularly important yet. And points in tournaments can be awarded based on the number of stages, and not a fixed amount, increasing with each stage. P.S.: I’m in favor of random maps!!!

In reply to invisible

Statistics

Registered: 10/16/2007 6:22 AM UTC

Posts: 3,358

8/15/2008 2:12 PM UTC

Auto-translated

invisible;190943

Personally, I would like to suggest that wins in Tournaments should significantly affect the rating!!!

Very interesting idea. - You can't just easily boost your rating in a tournament; you can't choose your opponent; it all depends on the draw! And winning it is not easy at all!

invisible;190943

Then there will be an incentive to play in tournaments, and not just mindlessly boost your rating. !

I agree. I support it.

Added 6 minutes later

Dirty_Player;190996

I suggest introducing a rating difference limit! That is, if the players have a rating difference of more than 500 points (the number is conditional), then the game should not be counted towards the rating!!!! This will give an incentive to play only with strong opponents if there is a desire to move up!

Also a very interesting idea... )

Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/
За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того

Statistics

Registered: 1/16/2008 4:35 PM UTC

Posts: 1,197

8/15/2008 4:04 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Personally, I would like to suggest that tournament wins should significantly influence the rating! For example, awarding 500 points for first place, 300 for second, and 200 for third (these numbers are just for discussion). This would create an incentive to play in tournaments, rather than simply inflating one's rating. I think few would disagree that winning any tournament is not something that every active player can do! So why not give a good bonus for this, so that they continue to play and win! Here, people play for three months around the clock, trying to climb to the top of the table, while a strong player would only need to win a couple of tournaments to become the rating leader! In my opinion, this would be more objective than simply trying to prove to each other whose favorite player plays better.

2 Invisible.
I'll try to suggest that there is no ideal rating system; many online games have been played, starting with ToH and Chaos League, and everywhere the rating was calculated differently, and any system of calculation had flaws, so our current system on World is no worse. The calculation system has already been developed, all players understand it, and some new system will only raise new questions, and dissatisfied people will still remain. But the idea of awarding additional points to the tournament winner is excellent! We need to encourage players to participate in championships.
But how to determine the significance of the tournament, because it would be illogical to give a lot of rating points for a small tournament of 4-6 people? We need to introduce a scale of additional points, depending on the significance of the tournament, for example:
32 or more people - 500 points;
16 to 32 players - 250 points;
8-16 people - 125 points.

That is, the increase in rating depends on the number of participants. A tournament that brings together 32 people is already a significant event, a small tournament of 8 people is a smaller, but necessary event for our community. Let there be more tournaments, but there needs to be control to ensure that they end logically, and are not interrupted halfway through or even at the beginning.

In reply to Nagan-4

Statistics

Registered: 9/13/2007 1:06 PM UTC

Posts: 754

8/15/2008 4:54 PM UTC

Auto-translated

32 or more players - 500 points;
16 to 32 players - 250 points;
8-16 players - 125 points.

So, in your opinion, winning a tournament with 16 participants is that easy?! What are you suggesting to give for these 125 points? The equivalent of two wins?! Even winning a tournament with 8 people is not easy. I understand that you gave an example randomly, but I would still like to hear the opinions of players regarding the size of the bonuses for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place!

Я ламер и играть не умею, нах!:smile33:

In reply to invisible

Statistics

Registered: 6/12/2007 8:51 AM UTC

Posts: 1,832

8/15/2008 6:21 PM UTC

Auto-translated

For winning an online tournament, regardless of the number of participants, I would suggest awarding 500 points, 400 points for second place, and 300 points for third place.

Here's that math:smile16:

С истиной где-то рядом...

Лето 2010.

Statistics

Registered: 1/16/2008 4:35 PM UTC

Posts: 1,197

8/15/2008 7:57 PM UTC

Auto-translated

For winning an online tournament, regardless of the number of participants, I would suggest awarding 500 points, 400 points for second place, and 300 points for third place.

Let's say, I, Vasya Pupkin, and Pupka Vaskin get together and hold a tournament (or maybe we don't even hold it – we just write that we played), and we get 500, 400, and 300 points, and we like it. A week later, we hold another tournament.
As soon as loopholes appear in the rating manipulation, they will be used. Let's say, it's the end of the season, and you urgently need 500 points in the shortest amount of time. Right now, there is no loophole – the rating can only be increased by playing and winning.
Therefore, a large tournament should award a lot of rating points, and a small tournament should award fewer. Otherwise, the idea of this discussion will be nullified.

That is, in your opinion, winning a tournament with 16 participants is that easy?! What kind of 125 points are you suggesting to award for that? Is that equivalent to two wins?! Even winning a tournament with 8 people is not easy. I understand that you gave an example randomly, but I would still like to hear the opinions of players regarding the size of the bonuses for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd places!

There is a difference between tournaments with 8 and 32 people. At least in terms of the time spent in real life. In the first case, the winner will play 3-4 matches, and in the second case, 9-11. How can there be any equalization here?

Statistics

Registered: 11/25/2007 3:52 PM UTC

Posts: 1,499

8/15/2008 8:33 PM UTC

Auto-translated

My suggestion is to award 1.5 times more points for winning a tournament match than for winning a regular ranked game. For winning a tournament:
32 players - 1000
16 players - 500
8 players - 300
Considering the bonus for winning tournaments, the overall gain would be quite good.

Reading content in

Interface language

Posts from On-line rating (discussion)

Create a rating

Statistics

Library

Users Online 6 users 1343 guests

Today's Visitors 11