Auto-translated
Firstly, I suggest implementing a principle of diminishing coefficients, so that a player who becomes inactive will gradually lose rating points.
Dirty_Player
Posts from Choosing the official ranking on HeroesWorld.
Auto-translated
Open
Which rating system should we make official?
36
voters
Single choice
Public votes
Sign in to participate in this poll.
Poll results will be visible after you vote or when the poll closes.
Dirty_Player
Qwerty
Auto-translated
I don't think decaying coefficients are necessary; let people remember the heroes of the World.
A rating, as such, can reflect:
1. The player's skill;
2. Their result over a specific period of game time.
If we're talking about a rating that reflects a player's skill, then decaying coefficients have a solid justification. And that justification is called "playing form."
The strength of a player in Heroes (sometimes the term "skill" is used) depends, among other things, on their "experience" and the "playing form" they are in. Naturally, a year of not playing in tournaments does not positively affect a player's skill. Even more so, two years.
That's why decaying coefficients are a very good idea.
Resetting the rating aims to calculate the rating as an indicator of a player's skill over a specific period. This also encourages gaming activity. So, the idea is undoubtedly necessary and useful.
A table with two final columns: a seasonal rating (which is reset before the start of the season) and a skill rating (naturally, taking into account decaying coefficients) – that would be a pleasant picture.
By the way, vbn once proposed a complex but very interesting rating system...
Орден Феникса – харизматический :) лидер
StickyFingaz
Auto-translated
I played on a chess portal with a chess rating system, but there was no such thing as awarding more points for beating beginners.
Player 1750 won against 1400.
According to the alternative rating, the winner gained 2 points, according to the chess rating - 4 points.
Player 1800 won against 1300.
According to the alternative rating, the winner gained 1 point, according to the chess rating - 2 points.
The difference is 2 times.
http://www.namibianchessfederation.com/Pages/calculator.php
Dirty_Player
Auto-translated
compared my system with the chess rating system. For example:
Player 1750 won against player 1400.
According to the alternative rating, the winner gained 2 points, according to the chess rating - 4 points.
Player 1800 won against player 1300.
According to the alternative rating, the winner gained 1 point, according to the chess rating - 2 points.
The difference is 2 times.
http://www.namibianchessfederation.com/Pages/calculator.php
In general, I think the chess version is better. Otherwise, no one will want to play against low-rated players.
Yes, and a minimum of 1 point should be awarded for a win, regardless of the rating!
StickyFingaz
Auto-translated
Actually, I think the chess-like variant is better. Otherwise, no one will want to play with low-ranked players.
What if it's the other way around?
Dirty_Player
Auto-translated
No, that's exactly what I mean.
There should also be someone to play with beginners, otherwise, they'll learn, drop to 1400, and become outcasts... that's not good either.
vbn
Auto-translated
I mean, what happens to the numbers if a weaker player wins? :)
There should also be someone to play with beginners, otherwise, they learn, drop to 1400, and become outcasts... that's not good either :(
Or do games usually take place between players of the same rank?
If you're a beginner, win against beginners, become an average player, and so on.
Клан Homo homini
Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth...
Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth...
Dirty_Player
Auto-translated
Kostya! Tell us about chess practice. Do grandmasters often play against beginners?
Or do games usually take place between players of the same rank?
If you're a beginner, you win against beginners, then you become an average player, and so on.
StickyFingaz
Auto-translated
I mean, what will happen in terms of numbers if a weaker player wins?
Let me try to predict what will happen next.
By summer, the gap between the lowest and highest ratings will be, I think, 1350-1900, i.e., 550 points. Top players will not play for rating against low-rated players. In the thread Let's agree to play online in 3-player matches!, posts like "I want to play against a player with a rating of 1650+" or "I want to play against a player with a rating of 1400-1550" will appear more and more often.
Let's say a newbie comes along, and their skill level is very low. After a few games, their rating will drop from the initial 1600 to 1400- and will stop falling, because when playing against players with 1300-1400, they will both win and lose. They are unlikely to play against local pros, because for a win against a newbie, a pro will get 1-2 points, which is not beneficial for them. If the newbie has abilities and motivation, they will gradually increase their rating by playing against players with the same rating.
That's the harsh truth. ))
I'll repeat once again that by playing against an average opponent, a newbie can improve their skills if they want. And pro vs pro matches will give forum users a lot of pleasure and good replays. By the way, this could increase interest in tournaments, because with a certain draw, a pro will simply be obliged to play against a newbie. ))
vbn
Auto-translated
The situation is different in chess. There are millions of players worldwide, and there are plenty of opponents in all "levels" of chess players. But in our game, there are few players, and some players may end up in a "void" where they will only be played against out of goodwill.
Don't you think that beginners themselves might not be very eager to play against leaders? What's the point in losing points? And a beginner will likely get more benefit from learning from an intermediate player (they might not understand, or misinterpret, the style of play of a top player).
Клан Homo homini
Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth...
Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth...
Kash
Auto-translated
I think the alternative is the most objective; there’s no need to reset. It would just be nice to have more diverse statistics and a beautiful table, like in the current season. But all of this is up to the discretion/desire/possibility/initiative of our esteemed host; thank him very much for all his work and efforts!
And resetting is definitely not necessary. Those who want to rise and prove something from scratch won’t look for easy ways.
some players might end up in a “pit” where they will only be played with out of the goodness of their hearts
This is the harsh truth.
Dirty_Player
Auto-translated
By the way, if the rating system undergoes any changes, it would be good to review the tournament points system as well.
Дубровин Павел
Auto-translated
I voted for the old rating system, but not because I enjoy gaining points from new players. I see the following danger in the alternative rating system:
A player at the top often refuses to play against a player who is much lower in the ranking for various reasons, simply because it is "not beneficial" for them.
As an example, consider the FIFA game rating: new players are always refused by those at the top, simply because it is a waste of time (although the game takes just over 20 minutes). What more can be said about our hours-long battles?
I believe that this is the main drawback, which may harm an innocent newcomer.
A player at the top often refuses to play against a player who is much lower in the ranking for various reasons, simply because it is "not beneficial" for them.
As an example, consider the FIFA game rating: new players are always refused by those at the top, simply because it is a waste of time (although the game takes just over 20 minutes). What more can be said about our hours-long battles?
I believe that this is the main drawback, which may harm an innocent newcomer.
С истиной где-то рядом...
Лето 2010.
Лето 2010.
bRitvo4kA
Auto-translated
As I understand it, chess uses the Elo rating system, which is considered the most objective and is used in many sports, and has a solid scientific basis. I vote for it! I don't think it should be reset. Perhaps we could keep a separate rating for the season and an overall rating.
FireToSky
Auto-translated
Seriously, people, do you really play just for the ranking? I agree if it's a tournament, but seasonal games should just be played for fun and enjoyment!
szopa666: ban JC win game Keepo