Connection ErrorBad RequestSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Poll results will be visible after you vote or when the poll closes.
StickyFingaz
17 years ago
Auto-translated
Introduction. Ahem. I've repeatedly heard from players that the rating on ХВ is biased. In the poll in the TOP-10 thread, only 15% of players voted for selection into the TOP via the existing rating. Personally, to me, this rating is simply an excellent statistics table.
Proposal. I propose introducing an alternative rating; I already suggested changing the rating system six months ago, but my soul just won't rest :D Now I am asking at least to introduce an alternative. It will be calculated from games played in the "Online game reports and their confirmations" threads and from tournament games. This rating will be "lifetime." That is, there will be no seasonal reset, and seasonal winners will not be determined by it.
Description. Such a rating is used, as I've heard, in many games, and was definitely used for calculating one game I played some time ago. It used to be an e-sport, even one of the WCG disciplines, and now tens of thousands of players all over the globe play it. This is to say that this is perhaps the best, most objective rating, because such a same would not use nonsense; this system has been in use for at least 12 years. I can also judge objectivity as a player whose rate was calculated using this system.
1). Maybe just replace the rating? Or let there be 2 for now.
2). Interesting idea, although I couldn't handle the math.
3). Why not make it a double bonus in tournament games? That is, a tournament victory would count as 2 (I actually wrote about this before).
4). Also, if people don't play in the tournament or withdraw from it, you can simply deduct rating points, even if not many. And don't make a distinction between a valid reason or not.
5). I still think that the rating shouldn't be for life, but at most for 2-3 seasons. The football Euro ranking system uses exactly this system.
StickyFingaz
17 years ago
Auto-translated
1). Couldn't it just replace the rating? Or maybe let there be two for now.
Last time, it wasn't possible to change it, so now I'm only aiming for the second, alternative option. Besides, it's difficult to find seasonal winners using this system; let the existing system determine the seasonal winners.
3). Why not make it a double bonus in tournament play? So, a tournament victory would count as two (I've already written about this).
The same applies – this is left to the existing rating system. The alternative system only considers pure skill, without bonuses for tournaments and the number of games played.
4). Also, if people don't play in the tournament or withdraw from it, you could simply deduct rating points, even if it's not a large amount. And don't make a distinction between a valid reason or not.
No, players who don't care about tournaments might also not care about their rating.
3). And why not make a double bonus in tournament games? So, a tournament victory would be worth twice as much (I've already written about this).
This would also depend on the existing ranking system. In the alternative ranking, only pure skill is taken into account, without bonuses for tournaments and the number of games played.
Then, at the top, there will be people who are "experts at playing against beginners." And, for example, a strong player who wins a tournament will not be able to reach their level.
Regarding ignoring tournaments, I remain of the same opinion, because what you wrote is essentially not an objection; they can ignore everything anyway. But they won't be in the top of the ranking.
P.S. Suggestion: to avoid pointless chatter:
Sticky, since you've taken on all this, here's an idea: create several lists/tables with different options (including mine:)) and then decide which option is the most adequate through a vote. I think this is the goal of the alternative ranking, right?
And we can try to deal with the 4-minute time limit. Either play on easy mode or on the Test Environment.
3). Why not make a double bonus in tournament games? I mean, a tournament victory would count as 2 wins (I've already written about this).
Oelm, wouldn't you suffer from this yourself? They've already imposed a 4-minute time limit in tournaments:mad:!...
StickyFingaz
17 years ago
Auto-translated
For example, a strong player who wins a tournament will still not reach their level.
Players who only win against beginners, i.e., players with a much lower rating, will receive far fewer points under this system than players who play against opponents of equal skill.
Added 50 minutes later
With 4 minutes, you can try to compete. Or play on Light, or on Test Environment.
Guys, let's do it! Let's all switch to Test Environment and Test Environment Light. It will be easier to live! But we need to do it all at once, and that's the problem.
Sticky, since you've taken on all this, here's an idea: create several lists-tables with different options (including mine), and then decide which option is the most adequate through a vote. I think this is the goal of the alternative rating, right?
If 20 players vote FOR it, I'll do it and consider all the options.
Players who only win against beginners, i.e., players with a much lower rating, will receive far fewer points in this system than players who play against opponents of equal skill.
This is definitely correct!
If it's not too much trouble to calculate, it would be interesting to see the results.
And then we can use them as a basis for further adjustments.
***
Regarding the TE-lite, I'm all for it! But I play with these settings http://slil.ru/26549525 (experience is disabled, tax is also disabled, slow on the first island, etc.), and it works fine.
I think the problem lies in the game settings and the inability to agree on them. This is the main issue for me! :smile51: :smile51: :smile51:
There is also the problem of installation. Many people don't want to install it, they're too lazy to bother, to try things out.
And the third reason: "I like the classic version." I enjoy clicking the mouse a million times back and forth, transferring troops to heroes!!! And that's it. You can't argue with that. It's the classic version, after all. So let them use SOD, what can you say...
Loi
17 years ago
Auto-translated
For an alternative rating, replacing it, in my opinion, is not necessary. We can simply observe both, and over time, it will become intuitively clear which one is more adequate – and then we can decide about the replacement...
Here, I took into account all the games from the thread about the winter seasonal games (I might have missed 4-5 games, don't be too harsh, there have been a lot of games in the meantime). I didn't have enough time for the rest; I'll finish it later, with and without the bonus for Tournaments. What can I say here? The table clearly depends less on the number of games played than on the current rating. For each game won against players with a rating of <1550, Britvochka and Aldegir will receive only 6-7 points, but with the first loss against ~1630, they will lose as much as 22-23 points (winning against a player with approximately the same rating brings 16 points). And the longer this situation continues, the less beneficial it will be for top players to play against lower-ranked players. For example, with a rating of 1850, winning against a player of 1450 will bring only 1 point. And the further we go, the greater the difference between the top and bottom of the table will become. If you want to move up, play against players of similar skill. This is where we will see the true skill =) Look - Britvochka played, in my opinion, about 40 matches, Pit - about 10, and the difference is only 70 points, because Pit played against stronger players. Actually, I was worried when I was making this table, but now I can say with complete relief - this system works, and it is ideal for future prospects.
P.S. 9 votes are missing =)
bRitvo4kA
17 years ago
Auto-translated
If this formula wasn't your invention, but was well-considered by specialists and is actually used in WCG, then I would certainly agree that it is more objective. Regarding tournaments, I believe that a victory in a tournament game should be counted the same as in a regular game, as there is no significant difference. If you were to provide a detailed record for each player, showing who they won against, with which castle, and when, you would be highly valued :smile02: In general, it's interesting to know what formulas are used to calculate rankings in sports; I don't think this is a new question, so why reinvent the wheel? We should adopt and implement it:smile33: If this ranking is used to determine the winner of the season, then it should be reset each season. But if it is intended to determine a player's skill level, then it really shouldn't be reset, as skill needs to be assessed with a large sample size. Regarding skill, I believe that it can increase rapidly in newcomers, while in experienced players, it grows very slowly or fluctuates around a certain level; in short, it's analogous to the level of heroes
wt_744
17 years ago
Auto-translated
Wouldn't it turn out that players with a high rating would refuse to play against low-rated players? After all, if a strong player aims to achieve a high position in the ranking, it simply won't be beneficial for him to play against a weak opponent, because he will receive fewer points in case of victory than if he played and won against an equal or stronger opponent.
Wouldn't it turn out that players with a high rating would refuse to play against low-rated players? After all, if he (a strong player) wants to take a high place in the ranking, it will simply be disadvantageous for him to play against a weak opponent, because he will receive fewer points in case of victory than if he played and won against an equal or stronger opponent.
Yes, and if he loses, he won't confirm it and will say: "I strongly suspect that you are a cheater:smile29: !!!":D :D :D Fortunately, we have such players too...
Voted "yes" because I'm always for something new :). The main thing is that it displays bonuses for winning tournaments.
Regarding tournaments, I believe that winning a tournament game should be counted the same as winning a regular game, as there is no significant difference.
Yeah, there's absolutely no difference))). Either crush newbies or reach the final and then win. Because only weaklings make it to the final :D If points won't be awarded for tournaments, then my vote can immediately be downvoted.
The most important thing, IMHO, is this: Sticky, will you be constantly counting all of this?! Because it's not something you count once or twice. If you commit to it, it's for life :D
bRitvo4kA
17 years ago
Auto-translated
The top-ranked players will make it to the finals, and you'll get more points for defeating them. Why give bonus points? If there was a significant reward, like money, for winning the tournament, there would be some motivation, but as it is, it doesn't matter, in my opinion. He promised to update it in 2 days, which is a good initiative, because ss-d hasn't updated the ranking for almost a month.
As far as I know, bonus points are awarded (in ranked games, and accordingly, Stiky means the same) for prize-winning places, depending on the number of participants. Or am I misunderstanding something?
because ss-d hasn't updated the rating for half a month now =(
SS-D also has other life needs: wife, children, work. And it's pointless to update the rating every day. Just thank him for the time he's already spent on it, because it does get tedious after a while.
