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

1. Talk is cheap; everyone understands that nothing is perfect, but no solutions have been proposed.

If you're interested, I posted my suggestion on the previous page... Thousands of players have been using the system I proposed for over 11 years – a period much longer than six months – and everyone is satisfied.

Could you please provide more specific details and explain how each element affects the others? I remember that in previous discussions, nothing concrete from external sources was actually implemented.

I read a couple of pages and will express my opinion on 2 points:
1) HeroesWorld needs a table of top players, not a rating table.
Well, let's make another table based on all past online tournaments and the rating results from all seasons, and keep the seasonal tables as they are.
2) Regarding points for tournaments — if we resolve the first issue, this one will become irrelevant; if not, I think we need to adopt some formula based on the number of games played in that tournament. Sorting out the numbers is a piece of cake ;)

Could you be more specific? Hmm... I think I've explained the rating system as clearly as I could.
1) Read my post carefully.
2) Read and understand K0Lb@zzeR's post, where he provided the formula.
3) Download the attached file, enter different numbers, and observe the pattern.
By performing these three simple actions, you can understand how the rating system works.
In reality, it's quite simple. Only player ratings have an impact. All other features only create an imbalance.
And it's very easy to calculate...

In the next season, additional points will be awarded for victories in tournaments. Therefore, please refrain from unnecessary chatter and offer your suggestions regarding the following points: - How many points should be awarded for winning a tournament with a specific number of participants (8, 16, 32, 64, etc.)? - How many places should receive points, and in what proportion? I believe that this initiative will more accurately reflect a participant's actual position in the ranking table. Otherwise, we will end up arguing with each other, exchanging clever words, and that will be the end of it. Let's get down to business. Something like a vote on the above points. I repeat: there is very little time left until the autumn season!

I suggest awarding points to those who complete the first round (because sometimes people register, play one game, and that's it), and so on, based on their placement. There was a formula mentioned earlier (the guys provided it).
Again, I'll reiterate – the tournament probably depends on the skill level of the players. In a tournament with 32 players, the probability of having weak players is low, but in a tournament with 8 players, it's high (although the player base can vary).
Let's be more specific.
8 participants:
1. 200
2. 150
3. 100
4. 50
16 participants:
1. 400
2. 300
3. 200
4-8: according to the formula (we just need to calculate it with the coefficients)
32 participants:
1. 500
2. 400
3. 300
4-16: according to the formula
64 participants:
1. 600
2. 500
3. 400
4-32: according to the formula

Plus, let's not forget that all games contribute to the overall score.

That's not enough! Give us more! :smile14:

[imho]
1-8 participants:
1st place - 400
2nd place - 300
3rd place - 200
9-16 participants:
1st place - 600
2nd place - 500
3rd place - 400
17-32 participants:
1st place - 800
2nd place - 700
3rd place - 600
4th place - 500
5th place - 400
33-64 (and more) participants:
1st place - 1000
2nd place - 900
3rd place - 800
4th place - 700
5th place - 600
6th place - 500
7th place - 400
8th place - 300
9th place - 200
10th place - 100
If there is any tournament where players need to play in a round-robin format, meaning a very large number of games for each participant, then the number of points for the winners will be agreed upon with the organizer of that tournament and the coordinator of this section. If the tournament is inter-forum (and such a tournament will naturally be considered official!), then the bonuses will also be agreed upon, and it is possible that everyone who participated in it, regardless of the place taken, will receive prizes :)

Let's continue voting!
[/imho]

I would like to say the following:

The rating system we have is optimal!
Why? Okay, let's assume we adopt a system based on the percentage of wins and losses. What can it show? A player who has played 10 games and hasn't lost a single one will be ranked higher than a player who has played 50 games and lost 10 – that's unfair.

Regarding points for tournaments: I'm not against awarding a certain number of points to the winner, but we shouldn't go overboard... Moreover, the difference between first, second, third place, etc., should be greater than 100 points. We should stick to the point system for tournaments that the respected Invisible and SSD proposed. Somewhere in the middle, I think, would be optimal!

Thank you for your attention!

Not many people are discussing this. And then, after we discuss and approve it in a smaller group, it will start...
An interesting idea came up during the invite process.
Let's not pre-judge the tournament.
I suggest judging the number of participants based on the players in the tournament and making a decision about the rating based on that. That would probably be good, even very good.
Who will decide on the number of points? The organizer, and maybe a couple more authoritative people.
How does that idea sound?

Moreover, the difference between the first, second, third place, etc., should be greater than 100 points.

I agree with this. I chose the numbers almost without thinking. But that's why we're discussing all of this now. I would like everyone to be motivated, because, as I said, not every player will be in the top three in the Tournaments, so I suggested rewarding the top three, five, or ten, depending on the number of participants in the Tournament! Let's seriously consider this point, because it will be included in the rules for the NEXT season, which will start very soon! Ideally, it would be good to come up with a formula. Dirty's formula is not bad; maybe we can improve it with coefficients.

I suggest judging the number of points based on the composition of players in the Tournament and making a decision about the score based on that.

Again, this will be a subjective opinion, and there will be a lot of confusion, disputes, misunderstandings, etc. Some people consider one player to be strong, and others consider another. How will you then decide how to award prizes? For example, I might say that the composition of this Tournament is not the strongest, and not many points should be awarded. Another person will object and say: what are you talking about? Look at the players who are playing!)) It is better to write all of this down on paper in advance. As one great mind said: "The more paperwork, the cleaner the rear." The conversation about prestigious, inter-forum, intercontinental Tournaments is a separate matter, and we will need to talk with the organizers, as well as competent and authoritative players, about the prize amount separately before the start of the Tournament. But we are currently discussing ordinary ranked games, which we want to establish with the help of the players themselves. Although the players themselves are not particularly eager to help! But when we introduce a Solomon-like formula, there will be talk behind our backs, and rotten tomatoes will be thrown. They will say that our opinion was not taken into account, that all of this is nonsense, and that it should have been done this way or that way. Okay, we will manage on our own. At the moment, in essence, only a couple of people have expressed their opinion, and one of them is an offline player.
I asked many authoritative players in ICQ to express their opinion and provide useful advice. But some did not even bother to reply, let alone offer useful advice. Well, so be it!

If possible, I suggest the following change in the point calculation for victories: As you know, currently, the first victory over an opponent awards approximately 50 points. The second victory over the same opponent awards fewer points, and the third victory awards even fewer. As a result, an opponent over whom a player has achieved, say, 5 victories, occupies a high position in the table, but subsequent victories over them award significantly fewer points than victories over, say, a newcomer who is much lower in the ranking. I suggest that for subsequent victories over an opponent who is, say, 10 ranks higher, even if points are deducted from the winner for repeated victories, this deduction should not be as significant as it is now. This will make it more interesting for players to compete for high positions in the ranking while also balancing the benefits of fighting stronger opponents. :smile28:

to Dubrovin Pavel
I'll probably repeat myself, but I've asked you repeatedly: please offer concrete ideas, not just with numbers, but also how to actually implement them! How do you realistically envision it in practice? Come up with a formula and publish it. All suggestions are good, of course, but they need to be not only smart but also practical! The problem you raised is not the main one in our ranking system. What is more important – that you lost a couple of points for playing with the same player (this is really only a couple of points based on the formula) or the points that the tournament winner didn't receive, who rightfully should be in the leading positions?

Dubrovin Pavel is right! The rating should not depend on how many games have been played, 5 or 10, but on the difference in rating, like in chess, for example. There, the whole world has a single rating, and everyone is happy with it. In my opinion (the numbers are conditional), it should be like this: Equal rating - equal change in case of victory for either player. And if one player has a rating of 1000, and the other has 100, then in case of victory, the first would gain 10-15 points (the second would lose the same amount), but if the second wins, he would gain 100-150, and the first would lose that much! And whether they played 1 game or 10 would not matter!

Question. What is the correct procedure for adding tournament games to the ranking table? Will this be done automatically, or will players need to duplicate them in the seasonal branch after prior agreement? If there is a ranking bonus for participating in a tournament, wouldn't counting the tournament games themselves as such be redundant?

Dirty, that's a great link :D