Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession 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.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
P.S. If this post is deleted, I will keep bumping it until I get banned.
Shouting and threats won't help, that's for sure ;)
Seriously, provide the facts, and measures will be taken:smile33: The rating is quite normal; it's just updated approximately once a month, and due to the transition from the regular system (SS-D) to the "alternative" one, there are some minor discrepancies. For example, you have a negative win/loss balance, which means you have fewer than 1500 points, and the fact that many people are above you is because most of them are inactive accounts, and I think they will be removed during the summer season transition.
Shouting and threats won't help, that's for sure ;)
Seriously though, provide the facts, and measures will be taken:smile33: The rating is quite normal; it's just updated approximately once a month, and due to the transition from the regular system (SS-D) to an "alternative" one, there are some minor discrepancies. For example, you have a negative win/loss ratio, which means you have fewer than 1500 points, and the fact that many people are ranked higher than you is because most of them are inactive players, and I think they will be removed with the transition to the summer season.
The rating is stupid; it doesn't take into account the strength of the opponents you win or lose against. I'm in 100th place, but in reality, there are probably only about 30 people in the ranking who could beat, for example, Dubrovin or Britva even once, as I did. I've had many games against beginner opponents, and the victories were too easy, so I didn't think it was necessary to record them. Also, I try to play against not the weakest opponents, which is why I have a negative balance. However, with a reasonable scoring system, my rating should be positive; I'm sure of it. Regarding Vigo, I have already provided evidence of his cheating; they were deleted, but he is allowed to accuse others of cheating without any attempt to justify it. I state responsibly and am always ready to prove that Vigo is a CHEATER. Let him refute this, but I think he will remain silent again.
I hope they’ll delete everything anyway. Pit for LM
There is a completely unique atmosphere here. It cannot be destroyed. Some kind of wild and absurd coincidence of circumstances… And a deplorable result. WE ALL must come together and restore what was.
09.03.2009 Here I found something that caught my attention not so long ago, something that is truly the truth and what we need to strive for. But somehow there wasn't much reaction to it, although I am sure that most people read it, saw it, and participated in it. Everything has been said, discussed, and debated in the topic about this rating, but now, when the number of games starts to work against those who used to play them – dissatisfaction arises, and even with such, let's say, "not mature," funny, in my opinion, ultimatums. No, this is nonsense! It was clearly stated that the rating would become more or less optimal only after six months, or even a year. And now, too much depends on the number of games. This rating, as far as I understand, takes this into account: /topic/5631/ hence the zeros in the table. Wlk, you were higher than many of those whom you subsequently lost to in this table, and according to these formulas (which, by the way, are recognized worldwide), losing to an opponent who is lower than you in the table subtracts quite a lot of points compared to what is added when winning against such a player. If I’m wrong, criticize me. I’m just tired of pointless arguments. P.S. seems like they moved it to a normal thread...
Compared the old and new alternative rankings. The differences are significant, of course. Why? Because, according to VBN, tournament games were not taken into account. Why? Because it hasn't been decided yet what coefficient should be given for a victory in a tournament game. Why? Because everyone basically doesn't care about it. As well as about the rules for conducting tournaments. And about many other things too. Including the "forum atmosphere," which is why the old-timers left. They said a few words, like "everything is fine," and smoothed over the unpleasantness. And then you wonder, "What the hell is going on here all of a sudden? And who is to blame?" Keep taking care of your delicate behinds, fellow forum members.
There's a suggestion to award more points for a win than are deducted for a loss. This would benefit players who play frequently, which would offset the difference in the number of games played. Because with the same numbers, a player who has played one game and won it would be in the top half of the table. But they should be in the bottom half.
Since the rating is calculated using a statistical formula, it only makes sense when a player has played a certain number of games. Therefore, there is a suggestion not to include players who have played, say, less than 5 games. Then, Valentin's position will be twice as high.) Secondly, the rating counts games played during the year, not during the season, so people with approximately the same statistics in the spring may be at different ends of the table.
And there is no need to make ridiculous accusations of cheating. If there are facts, please present them, but otherwise, it is absurd and inappropriate. There have already been several instances on the forum where, due to a difference in skill, a weaker player simply didn't understand the actions of a stronger player. One player, for example, decided that I was revealing the map because I was taking too long to make my move (this was one of the main arguments).
At one time, I suggested on the forum:
to use the following method for a more objective ranking in the lower part of the table:
award +100 or +200 for the first victory
or start with 800 points and award +200 bonus points for the first victory
Then, all players who have not won a single match will be demonstrably lower than players who have won at least one match, which, in my opinion, is more objective, of course, except for situations where 1 victory is achieved in 500 games.
I'll edit the post to avoid personal attacks. Dream's rating is clearly suffering from the same bias towards players who specialize in beating newcomers as SSD's rating. A player might set a goal to be at the top of the rating and play 4-minute matches against beginners. Where is the objectivity in that? But if we adjust Stick's rating, for example, by giving a -100 penalty to someone who hasn't played 5 games, then everything will fall into place.
So what? The person played 23 games and deserves it.
We can only talk about the effectiveness of the ranking over a longer period. If everyone played 1000 games, then everything would be in its place, I'm sure.
Because, according to WBN, tournament games were not taken into account. Why? Because it still hasn't been decided what coefficient should be given for a victory in a tournament game. Why? Because everyone basically doesn't care about it.
Now, it seems that tournament games are not being taken into account... (I'm judging solely based on myself and my results in the table - there are zeros).
I also think it's unfair that a person who hasn't played a single game (and I only have tournament games) is ranked higher than people who play constantly... IMHO, such "non-players" should be removed from the ranking until they've played at least one game in the season... So as not to confuse anyone.
Если тебе не везёт в жизни, - играй в какую-нибудь другую игру:rolleyes: Лидер клана "Из многих единое" Приключения – это сплошные неприятности, только про них почему-то потом интересно вспоминать...
In my opinion, players who have played less than one game in a season should be removed from the ranking altogether... so as not to confuse anyone.
No - that's not entirely fair, what if this "non-player" plays another 10 games in a month or two? We just need to introduce a minimum barrier (3 or 5 games) to be included in the ranking... which, by the way, is not reset!
It would be good to implement a reset, meaning the results would be calculated for a period of six months to a year. Otherwise, a newcomer who loses the first 20 matches won't be able to improve their ranking within that time, even though their skill level will likely increase. This is a common practice in any sport – tennis, football rankings, etc.
No - that's not entirely fair; what if this "non-player" plays another 10 games in a month or two? We just need to introduce a minimum threshold (3 or 5 games) to enter the rating... which, by the way, does not reset!
You are right, and TaKo is too, but in the HeroesWorld rating, out of the first 100 people, 50-60 don't have a single win, which is a bit strange IMO =\
Otherwise, a beginner who loses the first 20 matches might not recover even after six months, even though their skill level will likely improve.
You are wrong. In an alternative ranking system, a player with a low rating will receive more points for victories, and as their skill level increases, they can quickly climb the ranks.
Alex_R
