Posts from On-line rating (discussion)

If possible, I suggest the following change in the calculation of victory points:
As you know, we currently award about 50 points for the first victory over an opponent. For the second victory over the same opponent, we award fewer points, and even fewer for the third. And what happens is that an opponent over whom a player has achieved, say, 5 victories, occupies a high position in the table... from the point of view of competing for high places in the player ranking, while trying to combine "pleasure with benefit." :smile28:

The dependence of points on victories over one player is mandatory and not subject to discussion; otherwise, abuse is possible. The dependence of points on rating is quite normal, so there are no problems here.
But to make this dependence selective is too complicated.

Added 1 minute ago

Equal rating - equal change in case of victory for either player.

That's what we have.

Added 6 minutes ago

Question. How should tournament games be properly recorded in the ranking table? Will this be done automatically, or do players need to duplicate them in the seasonal thread by prior agreement? If there is a ranking bonus for a place in the tournament, will considering the tournament games themselves as such be redundant?

If the organizer asked to record them, then it was done (Evgeny always did this with confirmation), but it is probably better if this is duplicated, perhaps with a link; otherwise, there will be confusion, someone will write, someone will not, and it is possible to credit a victory twice. It is best to duplicate.
So, we decide here how many points to give to avoid overcounting. :)

Why reinvent the wheel?
Specifically, I'm talking about the formulas, the numbers and letters taken from somewhere in those formulas. As an applied mathematician, I'll say it's pointless. You can hide your subjective opinion or a system that doesn't adequately account for the main differences in game parameters behind an integral, for example.
What do I suggest?
In this matter, it doesn't matter if we're playing Heroes, Might and Magic, dominoes, or chess. There are players, matches are played, Tournaments are held, as well as personal encounters.
In my opinion, we should take an existing rating system (as someone rightly pointed out above, for example, the chess rating system – although it doesn't seem to take individual player characteristics into account, only Tournaments) as a basis, and adapt it empirically, or better yet, based on accumulated statistical data from played games, and then adjust the coefficients as needed.
P.S. This also achieves greater universality – inter-species, so to speak. A standard is a standard, even in Africa!
P.P.S. Personally, I will approve any system that impartial people – Invisible, SSD, and others – deem necessary to implement. I was asked to express my opinion on the matter, which I have done. :)

P.S. Personally, I would approve of any system that concerned people like Invisible, SSD, and others deem necessary to implement. There was a request to express my opinion on the matter, which I did.

There was a request to express my opinion on the matter with SPECIFIC FIGURES. Perhaps Invisible and SSD don't have the time or the brainpower right now to derive a formula. That's why we're asking outside minds to help. And I didn't see any substance in the previous post at all!

Want a real proposal? Please!
http://www.openchess.ru/pravilaSite2.php
This is how the chess rating is calculated! As a chess player, I can say that I am absolutely satisfied with it!! (although I can't choose or protest :D)
You can play around with the coefficients and the difference limit; in general, see for yourself!

Creating a formula is no problem! But what is needed to actually create it?
1. To hear a convincing justification as to why the current rating system should be changed. The final justification should be provided point by point: WHAT to remove, WHAT to add, for WHAT the rating should be lowered, and for WHAT it should be increased.
2. Also describe point by point exactly what should be taken into account in the new final version of the rating calculation formula.

Then we will create the formula. Otherwise, there are so many thoughts and so many suggestions. Which of these to consider, and which not?

This referred to the rating calculation without taking into account points awarded for victories in Tournaments. Once the award system for Tournaments is finally determined, we will supplement the formula regarding this point as well.

I studied the above material (suggestions) and came up with this formula:
There is a theoretical justification, although it's a bit confusing, but if you want, take a look.

Forgot to mention that I performed preliminary calculations using the formula, and it seems okay. Maybe someone can double-check?

In general, the calculations showed that:

In case of 08 participants:
The participant who took 01st place will receive 539 rating points.
The participant who took 02nd place will receive 490 rating points.
The participant who took 03rd place will receive 415 rating points.
The participant who took 08th place will receive 141 rating points.

In case of 16 participants:
The participant who took 01st place will receive 641 rating points.
The participant who took 02nd place will receive 583 rating points.
The participant who took 03rd place will receive 493 rating points.
The participant who took 16th place will receive 49 rating points.

In case of 64 participants:
The participant who took 01st place will receive 907 rating points.
The participant who took 02nd place will receive 824 rating points.
The participant who took 03rd place will receive 697 rating points.
The participant who took 64th place will receive 004 rating points.

Yeah... Dirty_Player says that the formula is too cumbersome.
Well, what can you do? I considered all the suggestions and included the tournament rating in the formula.
If we don't need it, then we can simply modify Dirty_Player's formula.
Then it turns out like this:

And how do you choose a map template, that is, where? I downloaded the file and extracted it into the data folder.

How do I choose a map template, and where? I downloaded the file and extracted it into the "data" folder.

If you downloaded the rmg.txt file, which is attached in the online rules topic, and placed it in the "data" folder, then by default, only the 2sm4d(3) template will be generated.

What does this template offer? :)

What does this template provide? :)

If you follow the recommendations, it generates fairly balanced maps for the game, with a minimum of silly things (like a blocked exit from the castle guarded by strong monsters, or an initial starting location within 1-2 screens without gold or resources...). Read this link...
http://heroes.ag.ru/h3/rmg/

P.S. Pay attention to the recommended size of the generated map and the number of players... in general, the settings for each template.

I studied the above material (suggestions), and this is the formula I came up with:

The formula is great, +3W for your efforts (it took me a while to remember math, it's been a long time))))).
A couple of points.
For 8th place in a tournament of 8 players – I don’t mind, but the condition for all calculations should be that all games have been played, specifically played and not just defended against losses; otherwise, nothing will be awarded – this applies to the lower half of the players who did not advance to the next round (did not get out of the group, etc.).
And also – it’s simply interesting how the organizer will figure out what place the guys took, say, in a tournament of 16 (group stage) from 8th to 16th. After all, if there are 4 groups, then 8 people drop out, and they didn’t play each other; organizing a tournament for them as if they had dropped out :smile07:.
Of course, there are options – calculating placement based on rating points per game, but then the organizer must track this. But that would create so much hassle; the main thing is that the organizer understands what he is getting into. Because the workload will increase by almost tenfold.

Added after 22 hours 41 minutes
It goes without saying that nothing is perfect :smile35:

I am relinquishing my responsibilities (perhaps a bit dramatically) as one of the leading organizers of online games for Heroes of Might and Magic III, as well as my moderation duties, which were primarily needed for this purpose. It is very unpleasant for me to hear some criticisms directed at me, even though I tried very hard to maintain order and a bit of respect in this area, at least for the fact that I spend my personal time and energy on all of this.

Wishing you all the best and good luck!

2 Invisible.

I am stepping down from my role (a rather grand statement) as one of the leading organizers of online games for the third installment, as well as from my moderation duties, which were only necessary for this purpose. It is very unpleasant for me to hear some criticisms directed at me, even though I tried very hard to ensure that there was order and at least some respect in this area, and for the fact that I spend my personal time and energy on all of this.
I wish you all the best and good luck!

The leading organizer and moderator should be a player like you; that is clear. So why leave? I think you know how the real players on our forum feel about you, and you have earned this authority.
But... let's think about what you would like to see in the final stage of the project. Apparently, you want the strongest, the best player in our community to be in first place in the ranking, followed by the second strongest, then the third, and so on...
However, this is simply unattainable. I can recall the rankings of ToHa, Chaos League, Bay, League of Heroes, Portal, Wingsclub – none of them had a perfect ranking; often, players who were clearly weaker outranked the strongest by a dozen or so positions. And our ranking is no exception. And any ranking will have flaws for the following reasons:

1. The dominance of real-life factors. After all, this is just a game; each of us has a family, a job, a personal life, and it doesn't always take place in the heroic realm. If the strongest player wants to be first in the ranking, they will be, but only for a certain period of time, say a season or two. As the intensity of the game decreases, they will be overtaken by the second strongest, or the third, fourth, approximately according to the formula (game skill + effort + free time). Whoever has the highest sum at a given time will be at the top. And we have a seasonal ranking, not a permanent one. Something similar happens everywhere where there is a ranking.
Note: A permanent ranking is even worse; those who have climbed to the top will remain there as lifeless blocks, and talented new players will not be able to break through at all.

2. The imperfection of the tournament component. The idea of making the ranking dependent on tournaments is good – whoever wins the championship gets the rewards.
But how many tournaments can be played in a season? For example, Zhenya's tournament is currently underway; it has already been going on for a month and a half and will last another month and a half because it is a large tournament. In a good scenario, let's say 1-2 tournaments will be held in a season.
If a person is significantly stronger than the others, like Stinger on Bay, then yes, they will be first anyway.
But if the players are approximately equal in skill, then everything will depend on luck in the draw and the map generator. Here is an example from the current tournament – in my opinion, one of the best players on our forum, Pit, was eliminated in the first round; he was unlucky to be in a strong group with bad spawn points, which means he will get nothing in the ranking. But with a different outcome, he would have been in the top five and received a lot of ranking points. So, there will still be no perfect fairness; there will be a dependence on luck and tournament outcomes.

I hope (and not just me) that you will stay in your position as the leading organizer of tournaments and moderator for a simple reason – our voice, the voice of the players, is not always heard, so we really need people who can stand up for our interests. Otherwise, I was called a liar, and I would have had to leave long ago; VBN was called a cheater – he should also leave...
Stay.

Yegor, the situation here is a bit different – yesterday I got angry and deleted my reports (it was a bad day, and I had to redo one report, then another, five times...). Sergey took it as disrespect for his work (and maybe it looked that way), but I didn't delete them for that reason – I just didn't want to argue, and I'll repeat it for the hundredth time – I had a fever, my head was aching, and I was annoyed by minor things. In short, I sincerely apologize for everything I said, wrote, and did yesterday. I am willing to restore all the posts and apologize again, as many times as necessary.
Sergey, please reconsider your decision – it doesn't need to be changed, just abandoned. Please. I think not only I will ask you about this. Okay, now you can throw tomatoes at me.

I chatted with Inviz on ICQ, and I'll publicly ask again not to be so harsh. With respect to your principled stance, despite, or perhaps thanks to it, please come back:smile41: