Posts from Project "Money comes and goes, but Heroes are eternal!"

Well, with this arrangement, there will be an incentive for newcomers and a reward for regular participants.
I AM FOR SIMPLICITY AND MASS APPEAL !!! That is why I don't want to introduce any complex projects, especially since everything proposed here is pure plagiarism; we need to either come up with something new or drop these ideas, which moreover require serious refinement and their implementation would be postponed for at least another year.

Well, all that's left for you is to agree with the organizers :)

As for the plagiarism, who came up with off-line tournaments first?
And how many resources do they play on? It turns out everything is plagiarism.
It's another matter to make everything integrated and make the game more interesting. We will have our own unique tournament, with our own art—by the way, I haven't seen some of the proposed ones anywhere—and my own methods of extracting money from the Lands and inter-faction wars. And the fact that everything must be done gradually is obvious, but that doesn't mean we should close the tournaments while everything is being worked out.

Added after 33 minutes

I suggest the last parameter (we can call it something) instead of the strange Rank proposed by respected VDV_Forever (as I understand it, the lower it is, the better? But then what about those who don't participate in tournaments? Or someone who participated once, took 30th place and has Rank 30, while a long-time Champion who took first place in 40 tournaments is worse???) And "Average Place" is calculated as the sum of places/number of tournaments. The lower it is, the better.

I didn't quite follow that. Our Rank supposedly shouldn't decrease, or whatever happens to it doesn't matter. In theory, the rating should then depend on the ratio of the sum of places taken to the number of tournaments held. But even then, look what happens:

A player played once, took first place and never appears again.
1/1=1

Another player, playing with them in the first tournament, took 2nd place.
After that, they played another 10 games and took 1st place in all of them.
12/11=.. Calculate it yourself. It's clearly more than one :)
How much more does this player have to grind to overtake the one who won once and vanished and never reappears?

How many more first places does this second player need to win to overtake the vanished one? And if they accidentally take a NON-first place again, then it's a complete disaster. I think you said something wrong. The second player will never overtake the first :)
But in general, it's true that the proposed rating isn't entirely correct, but whatever. If we seriously develop a rating, you'll be overwhelmed by the formulas. This has all been invented before us. For example, the Elo system. I have a bunch of formulas. There is also a formula from the game VGAP.
That's a well-known space strategy via correspondence. A rating system was developed and tested there long ago, but it seems it doesn't fit Heroes, because there are 11 players or fewer in each game. The formula contains the number 6000, and I think it's somehow related to the number of players in a game.
In short, I'm an expert on ratings, if the chef isn't lying to me :)
And in this case, in Heroes 5, things are further complicated because in my previous rating system developments, points for completion and days were used, but here we only have days remaining :)

So maybe it's better to leave it as is for now or find an already proven rating calculation system and tie it to the Heroes tournament.
Ultimately, both rating and rank will steadily grow, and in the end, everyone will gradually overtake those who just stopped playing :) But we can add a column next to each player indicating how many tournaments they have played, at least for statistics.

Read the posts in the threads more carefully. It was written that in the tournament table, it is proposed to arrange players by the Rating column. Whoever has a higher one is cooler.
It was proposed to sort by Rank. And then look at the second parameter.
Whoever has a higher one is cooler. And the third column is the sum of Rating + Rank. Whoever has more is cooler.
And as for which of those three is cooler—let them go around the corner and figure it out themselves :)

Tigra, what happened with your argument with IronAxe? It looks like Joker had a great time...

From the moderator: They had a small disagreement; I don't think we should discuss it here...
I sympathize with the decrease in your morale, but... I see you turned off Caps Lock :) Thank you for helping to generate new ideas. You're stimulating us in a way :)

To IronAxe: Regarding the Rank, I think it's clear to everyone that VDV_Forever's rank isn't working... and it doesn't reflect activity on the site at all. I suggest awarding 30 points for the top three places, 20 for 4-10, 10 for 11-20, and 5 for everyone who submits verified saves. + 30 points for the description of the playthrough - 1st place, 25 points - 2nd, 20 points - 3rd, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4 points - 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th. (Points, i.e., Rank) + Award Rank for activity on the site, + for any work at the organizer's discretion, but no more than 15 points. Something like that.
Regarding the average rank. Yes, there are probably many formulas, but the simpler, the better. It is known from probability theory or statistics that many average formulas work well if many tests are performed. Based on this concept and the fact that everything brilliant should be simple.
I suggest the following option.
"Average Rank" = p/n, when n>10
. . . . . . . . . . . . = 0, otherwise
where p is the sum of ranks, n is the number of Tournaments.

Although 10 is not a sufficient number for statistics, IMHO, this formula will more or less realistically reflect the average rank.
Regarding special artifacts... Well, I don't know; I don't think it's a good idea... Although, I still can't find a constructive answer to your question about why the Wandering Knights need money... Only a moral one...

If we (and I include myself in this group because virtual fame is a hundred times more important to me than virtual money...) "Knights of Honor" play for money and play for fame and honor (ranking), then we are not very concerned with all sorts of nonsense (this is about my idea :)) with lands, Ranks, and Ashans. Money is needed for us at most to have the freedom to participate or not participate in Tournaments where it is needed! (whether it's wars or Tournaments with special artifacts or whatever else they come up with)
That's it, and those who are not interested in this have the opportunity to become landowners! And everyone is happy!

I don't quite understand how you can combine rating and rank. So, 5 cows + 200 coins = ??? How can this be????? All parameters should be independent. Rating is exclusively a tournament parameter. It can be used to determine how lucky someone is in tournaments. AshWans are awarded for tournaments. But what about those who don't participate in tournaments? They should receive AshWans for their work on the portal. But who is better, the one who won the tournament, or the one who made a good mod? Accordingly, those who work on the portal should receive their own special rating. What should bring these two groups together is the AshWans. For some, it makes no sense to spend them on special items, for others - on lands. Then AshWans become simply useless if they cannot be used to compare players and workers. Therefore, AshWans must be spent on something that will satisfy both groups. But what could that be? Simple decorations won't satisfy some, complex enhancements won't satisfy others. What do we have as a result?
*Players - Tournament rating + money
*Workers - Money and that's it.
This is unfair. Workers also need their own rating, otherwise those who play ALL THE TIME will always look better. I suggest giving workers the opportunity to acquire a Title, which will not overlap with the Rating, but will have its own significance. Players can also acquire Titles without losing their Rating.
It may sound silly, but to evaluate each user, I suggest using the following parameters:
1 Number of posts
2 Reputation
3 Tournament rating
4 Work rating (evaluated by moderators, admins, and top users each month)
4 AshWans
5 Title.

This is unfair. Workers also need their own rating; otherwise, those who play ALL THE TIME will always seem better. I suggest giving workers the opportunity to acquire a Title that won't overlap with the Rating but will have its own significance. Players should also be able to acquire Titles without losing their Rating.
It might sound silly, but to evaluate each user, I suggest using the following parameters:
1. Number of posts
2. Reputation
3. Tournament Rating
4. Work Rating (evaluated by moderators, admins, and top users each month)
5. AshWans
6. Title.

I've also been thinking about this. I wanted to suggest something like a specialization. That is, someone who frequently creates great content for the site could be called *, the tournament leader **, and someone else or intermediate levels could have different names....
There's an idea to combine N basic parameters proportionally in the 6th point. For example, let's use AlexeyPank's system.
For example, the names (6)
If 1 predominates, then Writer
If 2, then Authority
3 - Knight
4 - Hard Worker
5 - Baron (Oligarch :))
If 1+2 is much greater than the rest, then Poet
1+3 - Soul of the Company....
and so on.
P.S. Thank you, AlexeyPank, for at least acknowledging my project with a little bird :)

I don't mind. This is a truly worthwhile topic, especially in light of the recent events concerning reputation. Also, the parameters will not depend on each other, and one will be able to judge a person from all sides. The idea of specializations is just great. We should suggest this development to someone from the management. After all, this topic is created more for defining user parameters, and not for discussing what to spend money on, which we don't even have yet.

*
It might sound silly, but to assess each user, I suggest using the following parameters:
1. Number of posts
2. Reputation
3. Tournament rating
4. Work rating (evaluated by moderators, admins, and top users each month)
5. AshVans
6. Title.

Not bad, but I would remove the first two points because:
1) You can write 1000 posts that seem to be on topic, but don't contain any useful information, meaning they won't bring any benefit to the forum.

I meant that the first two parameters already exist, and there's no point in removing them. But if we add the rest, the information will become more complete. The number of posts and reputation are the parameters that are currently used for sorting (which is understood as a rating). This is already good, but if there are four more parameters, the degree of objectivity will increase significantly. And if land ownership is also included, it will become an additional parameter.

I will try once again to briefly outline my vision for the portal's world, i.e., how I would personally like to see it. I've tried to combine all the expressed ideas into a single whole and present it as concisely as possible. Read these 10 points carefully to the end; perhaps someone will share my point of view.

1. Every month, a tournament is held with special artifacts. :)
2. In the tournament, players compete for Rating (the higher it is, the better). Rating translates into Rank. Bonuses received from the tournament go towards Rank. Rank translates into Titles. Some money is also awarded depending on the placement.
3. Special artifacts can be purchased with money, and you can also increase your Title.
4. Where to get the money? Activity on the portal + participation in tournaments.
5. How to get additional income (especially for those who are unlucky in tournaments or who don't want to play in them)? Earn money on the portal and buy land plots (Lands). Because each plot brings a fixed income every month. The higher the Title, the higher the income from the plot, as a higher Title gives the right to have more Cities on one plot, and the level of the cities is higher, depending on the Title of the owner.

6. This point is highlighted separately because there may be inaccuracies or ambiguities that need to be discussed. Internecine wars and duels are possible to take away part of the Lands from opponents.
If a player with an equal Title challenges an equal player, refusing the duel or war is impossible.
If a player with a lower Title challenges a player with a higher Title, refusal is impossible.
If a player with a higher Title challenges a player with a lower Title, the war or duel will only take place with the consent of the challenged player.
It is proposed that these wars be held ONLY in Off-line mode, when opponents will start with the same starting save and WITHOUT the use of special artifacts. Except in the case when both players agree to On-line. Here they can exclusively agree among themselves on various conditions of this war. Whether to count cities or buy armies. Anything - it's up to them! If at least one of them does not agree, then an ordinary Off-line game is played from a single starting save. So that the challenged player cannot refuse, arguing that he only agrees to On-line.

7. The earned money can again be used in tournaments to increase Rating (Rank). And why is it necessary to increase Rating (Rank)?
8. Because at the end of the year, a Super Tournament is held with prizes, for the title of Champion of the Year! This tournament is already held WITHOUT the use of special artifacts! Only those who have earned Rating, let's say, not lower than a captain, can participate in it. :)
9. After the end of this tournament, the winner of the Year is announced, and he is presented with the portal's prize in a solemn setting (a bag of gold, or maybe something real - a T-shirt or underwear with the inscription Hero-5, or a licensed disc with patched Heroes, or something else).
After that, ALL RATINGS are RESET! Everything else that was earned during the year remains. If those who do not play in tournaments and only accumulate Rank (Title) are offended, then come up with how the Tournament of the Year will be held according to your parameter. Let's say it will be another tournament, where only those with a Title not lower than a Marquis can participate.
10. And a new year begins. Go back to point 1 and read again...


PS. Don't be afraid to use special artifacts. If something is unclear about their use, we will discuss it until everyone understands, and then we will write detailed documentation. And don't complain that they will create some kind of imbalance. In fact, this will be a continuation of the game in Heroes, only in reality. Well, they will push a little, you won't lose a cow, will you? The main thing is to earn enough Rating during the year to participate in the super tournament without special artifacts.

In my opinion, such a world has Integrity and Interconnectedness of all points. There is practically EVERYTHING for every taste.

PS.
And also. Think about whether it is necessary to transfer the money accumulated on the tournament map to the player's account. In other words, he could exchange it in the game for MERCURY and try to get a bonus on RANK. Or, on the contrary, he will exchange all the MERCURY and minerals for money and buy himself a RANK after the tournament.
This point works in favor of weak players to speed up the game - I'm not against it. :)
Only the prize amounts need to be selected appropriately so that the leaders in money are not completely disadvantaged. The leaders will pass the map faster - they will receive larger amounts from the tournament, but they will accumulate little on the map. Weak players will receive less prize money, but they will accumulate more on the map. That is, the difference in money after the tournament will not be so devastating between the players. Therefore, everyone will be able to buy what they want. And if someone wants more money, let them work harder on the site.

Only two points raise some objections. First, a tournament with special artifacts once a month is too frequent; it should be at least once every three months. Second, those who do not participate in tournaments also need a ranking, simply an alternative one, based on their contributions to the portal. And one more small addition – the rankings should not be reset; that would be unfair. It would be better to conduct a redenomination of the currency. But overall, it's very good.

Only two points raise some objections. First, a tournament with special artifacts once a month is too frequent; it should be at least once every three months.

Okay. We can discuss the timeframe. In fact, we also need to leave time for the war with the Landlords :)

Second, those who do not participate in tournaments also need a rank, just an alternative one, for their work on the portal.

Why separate the ranks of those who participate in tournaments and those who don't? After all, ranks can be bought for money. I don't think a tournament participant will have more money than a Landlord; quite the opposite.
After all, a person who doesn't play in tournaments can change their mind and join a tournament at any time and start earning a rating, regardless of their current rank. And if a Knight-Tournament participant leaves the tournament, why shouldn't they keep the rank they already had? Let them go to the Landlords; it's their right.

And one more small addition - Ratings should not be reset; that would be unfair. It is better to carry out a redenomination of money. But in general, it's very good.

I disagree here. Don't joke with money; people don't like that :)
And the rating should be reset at the beginning of the year. Otherwise, the Super Tournament at the end of the year makes no sense. After all, the rating is the entry requirement for it, and it needs to be accumulated throughout the year to qualify for the Super Tournament. I wrote that the points need to be read in a cycle. That is, after the 10th, read again from the 1st. When the cycle works, the system is stable.

Why separate the ranks of those who participate in Tournaments from those who don’t?
After all, ranks can be bought for money. I don’t think a Tournament participant will have more money than a Landowner; quite the opposite.
Because a person who doesn’t play in Tournaments can change their mind and join a Tournament at any time and start earning a rating, regardless of what rank they have. And if a Knight-Tournament participant leaves the Tournament, why shouldn’t they keep the rank they already had? Let them go to the Landowners; it’s their right.

Besides, they are simply incomparable. They reflect different aspects. For example, a person has a Tournament Rating of 7 and a Work Rating of 3. And it immediately becomes clear that they are more of a player than a worker. Naturally, both of these Ratings will be present for everyone; they will just have different values.

Added 1 minute ago

I disagree with this. Don’t joke with the old ladies – people don’t like that :)
And the rating should be reset at the beginning of the year. Otherwise, the Super Tournament at the end of the year doesn’t make sense. After all, the rating is the qualifying score for it, and it needs to be accumulated throughout the year to get to the Super Tournament. I wrote that the points need to be read in a cycle. That is, after the 10th, read again from the 1st. When the cycle works, the system is stable.

If the Rating is reset, it will be unclear how the person behaved in the previous year. You can simply create a counter for the Super Tournament, but let the Ratings accumulate.

The problem is that they are simply incomparable. They reflect different aspects. For example, a person has a Tournament Rating of 7 and a Work Rating of 3. It immediately becomes clear that he is more of a player than a worker. Naturally, both of these Ratings will be present for everyone, but they will simply have different values.

That's the point – they are different. Rating reflects purely the performance in the tournament.
And Rank reflects work on the portal (activity). There is NO RATING for work.

A player receives a portion of the Rank because he showed activity on the portal by playing in a tournament. But why give a Rating to a hard worker?
If a hard worker plays even one tournament, then he will also receive a Rating.

If the Rating is reset, then in the following year it will be unclear how the person behaved in the previous year. You can simply create a counter for the Super Tournament, but let the Ratings accumulate.

Well, in principle, if there is a counter for the Super Tournament, then that could work.
But, as you say, the extremely high Ratings of the Leaders will intimidate newcomers.
And if the game Ratings are reset after the Super Tournament, then how a person performed in the game in the previous year can be seen in the Hall of Fame and the Final Table for the previous year; it will reflect what everyone's Rating was and who won the main prize in the Super Tournament.

As a result:
*Players - Tournament Rating + money
*Workers - Money and that's it.
This is unfair.

As a result:

*Players - Tournament Rating (Rank) + Money + Rank (Title) for the tournament and for the money
(It doesn't matter where the money came from. Money, in any case, reflects activity on the portal,
so it can be used to buy a Rank (Title)).

*Workers - Money + Rank (Title) for the money. And no one prevents them from playing in
tournaments to earn a Rating. However, no one prevents Players from working.

The thing is that a player will have to spend money on the tournament for special items. Therefore, he will always be faced with a choice of where to spend most of his money – on special items or on a Rank (Title).
And a hard worker can spend all his money only on a Rank (Title). For him, the Rank is a kind of work rating.

EVERYTHING IS FAIR.

That's exactly the point – they are different. The rating reflects performance solely in tournaments.
And the Rank reflects activity on the portal. There is NO rating for work.

A player receives a portion of their rank because they have been active on the portal by playing in a tournament. But why give a rating to someone who puts in a lot of work?
If that hard worker plays even one tournament, then they will also receive a rating.

It seems we are just talking about the same thing, but using different words. I proposed the following: Evaluate each user based on these parameters.
1. Number of posts
2. Reputation
3. Tournament rating
4. Work rating (evaluated by moderators, admins, and top users each month)
5. AshVans
6. Title.
My work rating is essentially your rank.

It seems we are just talking about the same thing, but using different words. I suggested the following: Evaluate each user based on these parameters:
1. Number of posts
2. Reputation
3. Tournament rating
4. Work rating (evaluated by moderators, admins, and top users each month)
5. AshVans
6. Title.
My work rating is essentially your rank.

Not quite. The 4th point is redundant. Moderators and Admins will pay money for work instead of assigning some extra rating. The player, having received money from them, will decide for himself what to do with it. And if he wants, he can buy a Rank with it, which will lead to an increase in his Title. So, your work rating is essentially a Title, the equivalent of which is a Rank (it can also be bought for money, money is the result of activity and work on the portal)
And if he wants to spend his work reward on special items, he also has the right to do so.

We talked about this from the beginning: the moderator awards money for work, not work ratings. That is, I believe that point 4 and point 6 are the same - why split them up?

Well, never mind. Let there be an extra point. Now we will start coming up with again how to assign a rating for work (it will turn out that we need to pay money :)) and we will get completely confused instead of figuring out how to quickly launch a NEW tournament!

I just mean that money is earned both through tournaments and through work. And the work rating is only for work, just as the tournament rating is only for tournaments. All of this is needed only to have an objective view of the user (because money doesn't tell you what it was earned for).