Posts from Questions, answers, and resolution of disputes regarding the online rating in HoMM5.

Looks like things are not going well... :smile33:


...so maybe we should pass on the responsibilities? ...because in a week or two, it will be half a year since we haven't updated it and we're just getting empty promises...
Some have stopped playing, some have started and are actively playing, and some have started and ended their careers without ever seeing themselves in the ranking... :D

I agree with you. It's been more than half a year already. Ideally, the ranking should be updated every month... Starhan, please calculate it, because there really isn't any motivation to play otherwise.

Duel rating for the topic /topic/3836/

Thank you, Lord Vampire, for understanding.

It will be updated according to standard rules soon.

P.S.
Dear current leader of the duel ranking, Eurina,)) please report like MisterM does.
Your reports are the easiest to understand: smile42:

Hello, dear Heroes 5 players and all online game enthusiasts. As you may have noticed, this section has become quite neglected and is slowly fading away. What are we waiting for? Until everything completely collapses? Last summer, there was quite a lot of activity, and everyone was playing and writing reports. We need to bring back those times. Rankings are open for three types of games. People aren't playing because there's no incentive or interest. No one has actually been keeping track of the rankings for about six months. We need three people. One for each type. Preferably someone who is well-versed in that type. For maps, regular duels, and RTA. Also, we need to refine the ranking formulas. Should we make them the same for all types? So that there is one formula, or should each have its own? We also need to look at the previous formula and, if it doesn't satisfy people in any way, refine it. There's a lot of work to do. I'm listening to your suggestions and ideas. Please don't spam or write meaningless posts. Everything is in our hands!

Good afternoon! Does it make sense to hold ranked duels now and display them in the corresponding thread? Will there be results for 2009, or is that no longer relevant? I sent this message to Starkhan in a private message. There is no response. If I understand correctly (from the message above), no one needs a ranking anymore. But I do – I play, and the ranking is a stimulus to learn. Now, regarding the substance of the above post by the respected Lord Vampire: I am ready to try and take on the task of ranking players in duels. I only play duels. To understand what is required for this and whether I can do it, I ask Lord Vampire (if this is even necessary) to contact me on ICQ or send me a private message on the forum. I am posting the result of today's duel in the reports.

The ranking will definitely be available, but it needs to be restarted.
Writing reports makes sense. All duels will be taken into account once the ranking system is restored.

I wrote this message to Starkhan in a private message.

Don't expect a response; Starkhan hasn't cared about rankings for a long time.

I'm ready to take on the task of calculating player rankings in duels.

Excellent :smile12: :smile54:

Write here 395073353.

There will definitely be a ranking system, but it needs to be restarted. Writing reports makes sense. All duels will be taken into account once the ranking system is restored.

In one of my posts above, I already suggested simplifying the ranking calculation system, and there's also a saying: "Self-help is the best help." Dear players, fans of Ranked Tactical Arena (RTA) and duels, don't wait for things to happen; take the ranking calculation into your own hands, otherwise the situation will remain at the level of "a promise kept for half a year";)

Soon, everything will be ready :smile08:
There's already a candidate for the duel rating, and I'll try to run the RTA (Real-Time Analysis), although it's not certain if I'll succeed. :rolleyes:
Only standard maps are left...

Standard map elements remain...
I could do that, but with so much activity in this area, I'm afraid I'll be left without work:(

Absolutely!

Comrades! Brothers and sisters! I turn my gaze to you, saddened by the absence of a duel rating on the HeroesWorld forum.
Still, I would like to finalize the table by the end of May and start tracking rating matches (duels).

I ask everyone to take part in the discussion. All your wishes, corrections, and ideas are infinitely welcome. By the end of May, the table must be finalized, already played games counted, and the results determined as of June 1, 2009.

WisTrit, you expressed a wish – to remove the flaw from the system where a loser gains positive rating points.
Starhan also writes about this:

"regarding doubts about correctness, if you look at the rating formula you can see that with a difference of 500 points (which is currently observed between the top spots and the middle), higher-rated players lose -35 points for a loss, and gain +10 points for a win
lower-rated players gain +5 points for a loss, and +50 points for a win."

For the life of me, I cannot find this error. Visually (based on the 2008 rating):

Vampire (1st place, rating 1 624) played and won against White Wolf (46th place, rating 750). Am I correct in understanding that when calculating the rating, the overall result of the match is taken? (when people write "total 4-2 in my favor"). Accordingly, when calculating the rating, there can be a win, a draw, or a loss.
Let's take the formula Rn=Ro-15+0.04*D to calculate the new rating for Wolf.
The difference in rating is greater than 500, so D will equal 500. 650-15+0.04*500 = 615.
The rating decreased by -35, justice prevailed. Same with players whose rating is 1 100. No plus points are given.

Furthermore, I believe that a weaker player gaining more rating points for defeating a stronger player is fair. This is the basis of all rating tables in sports (boxing, for example, etc.).
I ask you to clarify specifically what exactly you dislike in the old calculation system.

Here are Vampire's posts:

"By the way, the rating formulas also need work."
"We should also look at the previous formula, and if people are not satisfied with it, refine it."

More specifically, please, more specifically. To understand what needs to be changed, it is necessary to define the direction of the work. Add new coefficients? Introduce new variables? I await specifics. Refining/changing is not a problem, I will do it.

If there are no comments, we can simply leave this scheme as is and proceed with the calculations.

Let's continue with the comments. KillAndAction:

"Regarding the rating calculation, I propose:
1. No privileges in the rating calculation (who is higher or lower – doesn't matter...)
2. Regarding different points for regular and tournament games – maintain 2 ratings (tournament and regular)...
3. Play or don't play – the more you play, the more chances you have to raise or lower your rating – it's all in the player's hands
4. To increase interest in tournaments, introduce, for example, a table of ranks, honorary titles, prizes, etc."

1. What do you think? Meaning, a formula is made and points are awarded equally to all players, regardless of their position (e.g., +10 for a win, -5 for a loss, +2 for a draw).
2. I don't see the point. Make 2 tables, but what's the difference? Different players, nothing more.
3. This is clear, he stated his point of view.
4. I support this. For example, above 1 500 points – Lava, from 1 300-1 500 – Jarl, and so on. Icons could be set depending on the player's preferred faction.

Leolopus:

"...food for thought - any mediocre player, or even a beginner actively playing on Jubilee with others like themselves, can in the end accumulate a much higher rating than a more serious player who prefers to play only in tournaments..."

With a serious attitude towards the rating and consistent play (if it's not a random "fly-by-night" player – played and forgot), all regular players constantly encounter each other in duels. We could make a rule – at least 3-5 (your number?) games with each other (by game I mean a general match – it can contain any number of duels). Meaning, 3-5 games must be played, but the players will play 10 or more duels. I hope I expressed myself clearly...

In short, let's begin. I ask you to be brief and to the point.

Attention! – The longer we chew over and argue into exhaustion about insignificant details, the longer the reports section will remain empty, and the fewer people will even want to play for rating, etc. The faster we do it, the faster people will return to the game.

Whew.. That's a lot of text, but bear with it, that's how it turned out.

P.S. In a follow-up, I will write another calculation system. There, everything is simple: rating is awarded according to the player's positions, with decreasing coefficients, depending on the player's level.

Let's use the formula Rn=Ro-15+0.04*D to calculate the new rating for Volk.
The rating difference is greater than 500, so D will be equal to 500. 650-15+0.04*500 = 615.
The rating decreased by -35, justice has prevailed. The same applies to players whose rating is 1,100. There is no benefit.

You have an error in your calculations here; in case of defeat, if the rating difference between the players is 500 or more, the number we multiply by 0.04 is positive, meaning we add twenty to minus fifteen, and consequently, we get +5;
Therefore, my suggestion is to consider the maximum difference to be 375 points (when multiplied by 0.04 = 15).

The rating is calculated using the formula Rn=Ro+30+0.04*D in case of victory, Rn=Ro-15+0.04*D in case of defeat, where Rnew is the new rating, Ro is the old rating, D is the rating difference, and for the player with the higher rating, it has a negative value. In case of a draw, Rn=0.04*D.

Then:smile13: in case of victory, the weaker player will gain Rn=Ro+30+0.04*(-375)=Ro+15, which, I agree, is quite significant;
in case of victory for the weaker player against the stronger, the weaker player will increase by 45, Rn=Ro+0.04*375=Ro+45, which I also think is quite deserved:smile49:
In case of defeat of the stronger player by the weaker, 30 will be deducted. Rn=Ro-15+0.04*(-375)=Ro-30. This is certainly not small, but the imbalance is lower:smile01:
And in case of defeat of the weaker player by the stronger, the weaker player will not gain anything, but also will not lose anything, Rn=Ro-15+0.04*375=Ro, which is not very fair:smile42: Therefore, I suggest making an amendment, but I don't know how to include it in the formula. In case of defeat, the player should lose at least 5 points.:smile12:
Here is my suggestion; the only remaining question is whether the rating is calculated for each duel or for a series of duels, and if for a series, then why?

The only remaining question is whether the rating is calculated for each duel or for a series of duels, and if for a series, then why?

For each duel, the win/loss ratio is calculated.
The rating is awarded for winning/losing in a series.
That's how I understand it.

System 2.
Everything is very simple - we discard the old formula, and calculate the rating based on the position occupied by the duelists.

The calculation is as follows: the number of wins is divided by the number of losses, based on a ratio of 5-10 (your number?) games. Let's say, 6 wins, 4 losses. With 1.5 points, you enter the main table. Then, a sequential number is assigned to the player, depending on the points initially scored (win/loss ratio).

Then, we proceed based on the sequential number, which directly depends on the rating.

A win is calculated as follows: we divide our sequential number by the number of the losing player. The lower the player is in the table, the more points he will receive for winning against the leaders of the table. And vice versa - the lower the player is with whom the leader plays (in this context, the player who is higher in the list), the fewer points he will receive. We add the points.

A loss is the same, only the points are subtracted.

Example:

Player 1 (1st place) won (meaning in matches, for example, with a score of 3-2) against Player 2 (5th place). Then 1/5 = -0.2 is subtracted from the rating of Player 2, who is in 5th place. The same amount (0.2) is added to Player 1.

A bias occurs when Player 2 wins. Then 5/1 = +5 points for Player 2 and -5 for Player 1. We need to think about introducing a coefficient, for example.

For adequate calculation, we can introduce increasing/decreasing coefficients (for example, 0.8 or 0.6 or 0.4 - decreasing, 1.4 or 1.6 or 1.8 - increasing), then:

Player 1 (1st place) won (meaning in matches, for example, with a score of 3-2) against Player 2 (5th place). Then 1/5 * 1.6 = +0.32, and for Player 2, 1/5 * 0.6 = -0.12

Player 1 (1st place) lost to Player 2 (5th place). Then 5/1 * 0.6 = +3, and for Player 1, 5/1 * 0.6 = -3.

All this is quite raw (the coefficient system needs to be refined). All this is as an alternative suggestion.

I'm listening...

Added 7 minutes later

You have an error in your calculations here; in case of a loss, if the difference in rating between the players is 500 or more, the number we multiply by 0.04 is positive, that is, we add twenty to minus fifteen and, accordingly, we get +5;)
Therefore, my suggestion is to consider the maximum difference to be 375 points (when multiplied by 0.04 = 15)

Okay, what if it's like this:

650-(15+0.04*500) = 615 ;)

I also disagree with the second system, and what if a player isn't in the table? There are also many other "buts." I think that the existing system should be improved, taking into account the shortcomings (I wrote about them above).
And also, I think that each duel should be counted.

Correct
Starhan def Adelaide
Starhan lose Adelaide

Incorrect
Starhan def Adelaide
Adelaide lose Starhan

(This is related to the fact that I enter name1 and name2 in the program and then click on the buttons "player1 won" or "lost")

This is from a post by Starhan; I think he counted each duel.
Who regulates the rules? Please confirm or deny my thought.:confused:

Each duel is counted separately. In a strict order, just as it happened. That is, if the score is 4-1 in my favor, for example.

I won against Nick
I won against Nick
I won against Nick
I won against Nick
I lost against Nick

with this arrangement, my rating will be lower than if

I lost against Nick
I won against Nick
I won against Nick
I won against Nick
I won against Nick

1. No privileges when calculating the rating (who is higher, who is lower - it doesn't matter...)

Still, the system with player precedence is much better.

2. Regarding the different number of points for a regular game and a Tournaments game - have 2 ratings (Tournaments and regular)...

That would be interesting) because Tournaments should differ from regular games in originality. IMHO.

When a strong player defeats a weak player, 30 points will be deducted from the weak player. Rn=Ro-15+0.04*(-375)=Ro-30. This is not a small amount, but the imbalance is still lower.
And when a weak player defeats a strong player, the weak player will not gain anything, but also will not lose anything. Rn=Ro-15+0.04*375=Ro, which is not very fair. Therefore, I suggest making an amendment, but I don't know how to include it in the formula. When a player loses, they should lose at least 5 points.

Not bad at all. :smile20:

System 2.
Everything is very simple - we discard the old formula, and the rating is calculated based on the position occupied by the duelists.

I don't like it very much, but it's also not bad.

Each duel should be counted separately. :smile13: That's what I think.
But in Ranked Tournament Arena (RTA), it would be good to calculate the score for several.

Another question, how often will the season leader be determined?
That is, what is the duration of the season?

P.S. This is just my opinion

Regarding the different number of points awarded for regular and tournament games – maintain two separate rankings (tournament and regular).

I have another suggestion: maintain one general ranking for both tournaments and regular games, and separately track only tournaments, awarding different titles, statuses, and prizes, etc., depending on what people prefer. Publish the results in parallel.

Another question: how often will the season leader be determined?
In other words, what is the duration of the season?

The answer is in the question. We have 4 seasons a year. We can provide preliminary results at the end of each season (similar to "What? Where? When?"): a summer series of games, an autumn series, a winter series, and a spring series, and at the end of the year, determine one overall winner. Do not reset the results between seasons, but only at the end of the year:smile49: :smile13: