Posts from Choosing the official ranking on HeroesWorld.

I voted for the third option because I'm happy with everything as it is.

For those interested:

Elo rating (in Russian)

Elo rating calculator

I voted for the alternative non-reset system. However, it would still be good to somehow determine the best players of the season within its framework.

The alternative formula yields better results than the standard one. I don't know about the chess formula. I think resetting the rating is necessary, at least so it's calculated annually. Also, coefficients for tournament games are needed, in my opinion. Plus, points for tournament victories. Otherwise, it feels like an unfinished project.

The voting participation seems low. Where are the other people??? :rolleyes:

Are there really so many people on our forum who have nothing to say about this?

Are there really so many people on our forum who have nothing to say about this?

Yes, there are indeed many apathetic people. The voting results will be announced at the end of this week.

First of all, I want to say a HUGE THANK YOU to SS-D, who maintained the official HeroesWorld rating for a long time. I looked at the statistics of his own games: winter 2008 – 17 games, spring and summer 2008 – 3 each, he didn't play anymore. BUT he continued to maintain the rating and a lot of other statistics... Respect and gratitude...

Yes, there really are a lot of indifferent people.

I am absolutely indifferent to the number next to my nickname in some table. So I don't care how that number is obtained. Judging by the vote, there are quite a few like me. But I'll still express some thoughts. So to speak, IMHO from an indifferent person.
I voted for the first option. I didn't delve into the math, but "by eye" it does seem like a more fair scoring system. Probably, some players will find it more interesting this way.
Indifference regarding scoring is NOT EQUAL to indifference regarding the existence of a statistics table.
SS-D's table is very valuable for its statistics. I would like the table to continue to include players' ICQ numbers, win/loss ratios, and as much other info as possible. On HeroesPortal, Dream did it really well – for each player, all games for the season – castle, opponent, date. There's also castle statistics. I understand this is a lot of work. Maybe it can be automated? So that after writing a report, the winner enters the information somewhere, sends a confirmation request to the loser, and the game is automatically added to the rating and statistics tables?

By the way, if the rating system suddenly changes, it would be good to review the tournament points system as well.

+1. It would also be good if tournament organizers specified in the rules whether games count/do not count towards the rating and announced the number of prize points. It is highly desirable that games are added to the rating without duplication in the "Reports" thread. On one hand, it's tedious to discuss with an opponent every time whether a game counts towards the rating, on the other hand, it breeds clones in several threads, and on the third hand, reading those clones.

Anyone who disappears and hasn't played a single game, for example for a year, should simply be removed from the rating list (possibly temporarily).

+1. I looked at last winter. Our newcomers – probably more than half of the nicknames I've never heard of. Many people play a couple of games and disappear. In a year, the table risks stretching to several pages and consisting mostly of "dead souls." This could be regulated with a decay factor. Maybe we could create some kind of archive to retrieve those who return from there.

A table with two final columns: a seasonal rating (which resets at the start of the season) and a game strength rating (naturally, taking decay factors into account) – that would be a nice picture.

+1. A permanent and a seasonal rating in one table is an excellent option.

Otherwise, no one will want to play with low-rated players at all.

True for those who play for the rating. I think this won't apply to everyone.
Obviously, there is no perfect system and as Javdet rightly said recently: the best rating is in our heads.
I don't know how others choose their opponent. For me, it depends on my mood and the availability of offers to play. Moreover, when choosing an opponent, I don't focus on the player's strength, but first and foremost on the comfort of communicating with them.

Playing with low-rated players does not help improve skill.

I'm not sure. Speaking in the language of combat sports, I perceive seasonal games as sparring, training with castles and heroes I don't know how to play, trying out some new ideas, learning new templates... Of course, with the computer it might be faster and easier, like hitting a punching bag, but with a human it's more interesting, and you can discuss the game afterwards. The rating doesn't play a role here. And it seems like both players' skill improves.

I looked at my winter season on HeroesWorld. Played 21 games – 19 wins, 1 loss, 1 draw. Of these, 8 games were for rating, 7 games in inter-portals, 6 tournament games. From the alternative rating table, it's impossible to understand which games I was awarded points for. And it's obvious that the inter-portal games (which are a third of the total), which were the most important to me, were not included in the rating.
Of course, I would like all games reported on the site to be taken into account in the rating.
Maybe we could think about a system for awarding points for wins in inter-portals? It's not about my personal interest. In the winter IP, victories were achieved by Mizrael, Uran over Stinger, Pasha, AlexR, Decontaminator... Don't these guys deserve some points for those incredibly tense games? And no deductions for losses. Some additional incentive and gratitude for a good game for HeroesWorld, you know...

I voted for the StickyFingaz rating. Ultimately, the goal of the season is to identify the strongest player. The season starts, everyone has zero points, and the upcoming games determine everything – it would be fair if everyone had an equal number of games, but since that’s impossible, we need to find an alternative. The StickyFingaz rating is quite suitable as a system with decaying coefficients, in my opinion. Without updates, I think the decaying coefficients will be sufficient, and it will even be more comfortable without updates; otherwise, there will be confusion and misunderstanding for several months about the purpose of this rating.

So, here are the voting results:

60.87% (14) Alternative, do not reset.
04.35% (01) Alternative, reset after N amount of time.
13.04% (03) Leave the official SS-D rating as is.
17.39% (04) Chess-like.
04.35% (01) Other (suggest your own option).

Thus, starting from the current Online Games Season, a new ranking system will be introduced as the official one, based on which winners will be determined. The initial ranking will be based on the state as of 29.02.09 after the Winter 2009 Season ends, i.e., this season will also be taken into account.

Statistics will still be calculated for the old SS-D rating. It will be interesting to compare the results regarding point accrual for each game and their ratio.

Currently, the development of the program for calculating the ranking according to the new system is being completed, after which intermediate results of the current Season will be published, and finally, detailed statistics on each player's matches will be available.

Hello!
I forgot to rename the column headers...

Points 1 - the number of points earned for that game under the old SS-D rating system.
Points 2 - the number of points earned for that game under the new rating system.

I didn't notice that someone had already answered, but that's correct.
I will rename the column headers accordingly later.

A relevant link. Note the depth of the analysis.

http://www.chess-players.org/rus/news/viewarticle.html?id=759

I still believe that the rating is one thing, and the season table is another, and mixing them as is done now is absolutely incorrect.

Wlk777, please explain in more detail what you mean.

Wlk777, please explain in more detail what you mean.

I mean that the GENERAL rating is incorrectly taken into account in the SEASON table. This is roughly like, for example, before the World Championship, if it were held without playoffs, to award points in advance, say, 10 to Brazil, 8 to Italy and France, etc., because they have a higher rating in the FIFA table (there is such a thing).
I.E. Rating is one thing, and the season table is another, IMHO.

I mean that the GENERAL rating should not be taken into account in the SEASON table. It's like, for example, before the World Championship, if it were held without playoffs, awarding points in advance, say, 10 to Brazil, 8 to Italy and France, etc., because they have a higher rating in the FIFA table (there is such a thing).
In other words, Rating is one thing, and the Season table is another, IMHO.

There was a general vote. The results can be seen directly in this thread, in the poll. So, are you still suggesting that the rating should be reset each season? Should we hold another vote?