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

Basically, here's the plan: 1. There will be two tables: a tournament table and a regular table. The results of tournament battles will also be included in the regular table. The tournament organizer determines the prize for the winner(s). 2. The scoring system will be improved according to the suggestion by Samiy-Samiy (where D = 375). 3. During the week, I will calculate and publish the ranking based on the current standings (played games and reports on them). 4. The ranking will be updated once a week, except when the administrator is on vacation. 5. The final results will be announced on December 31, 2009. The winner will receive a cup/medal/artifact and all the forum's accolades, as befits a winner. P.S. What do you think about having all active players compete against each other, rather than just being divided into pairs? Should this be regulated in some way, and should a mandatory number of duels be established between active players in ranked duels? P.P.S. And I have another suggestion: add a column to the table called "best series." This will include the number of wins in series. Otherwise, why write "3-2 in my favor"? After all, a well-played series ultimately determines the winner of a series of duels. Are you guys still around? Comment, otherwise I'm just having a quiet conversation with myself...

They promised an RTA ranking and said it already exists. Did they lie?

Not many people are playing ranked matches yet, but soon a suitable scoring system will be chosen, and a preliminary table will be created:smile01:
:smile43:

1. There will be 2 tables - a tournament table and a regular table. The results of tournament battles will also be included in the regular table.
The tournament organizer determines the reward for the winner(s).

But then, why have a separate tournament table?

2. The scoring system will be improved, according to the proposal by Samiy-Samiy.

Good ;)

3. This week, I will calculate and publish the ranking, according to the current state of affairs (played games and reports on them).

Excellent :)

4. The ranking will be updated 1 (one) time per week, except in cases where the administrator is on vacation.

Isn't that too often? I think it's too frequent; at least once a month) or once every 3 months. For example, by seasons.

5. The results will be summarized on December 31, 2009.
The winner will receive a cup/medal/artifact and all the glory of the forum, as befits a winner.

Hooray!

What do you think about having all active players fight each other, instead of just being divided into pairs? Should this be regulated in some way, and should a mandatory number of duels be established between active players in ranked duels?

Interesting idea.

And I have another suggestion: include a column in the table called "best draft." It will include the number of wins in series. Otherwise, why write "3-2 in my favor"? After all, it is the skillful draft that ultimately determines the winner of a series of duels.

I don't know) I'm rather indifferent to this...
By the way, you could make 1 draft for 4-5 games without the possibility of re-selecting a hero.

Are you guys still here? Comment, otherwise I'm just having a quiet conversation with myself...

=^^=
We are all here

By the way, you could make it so that each player can only ban one hero for every 4-5 games, without the possibility of choosing the same hero again.

Could you please provide more details about this point? So, is it allowed to repeat heroes or not, and for how many games does one ban apply?

Added 2 minutes later
The rules don't mention anything about repeating heroes, but they clearly state that 10 heroes are banned.

1. Tournament standings.
Okay, there won't be a tournament table. To be honest, I don't really see the need for it either (WisTrit, you actually expressed support for such a table in post #44; maybe we just misunderstood each other?). After all, we're talking about a duel, and the rules are standard. This is essentially one big annual tournament.

2. Rating update.
I think updating it once a week isn't too often. It's also more convenient to keep track of the scores this way than to deal with a bunch of reports later (and you could make mistakes). If only a couple of duels are played in a week, then, of course, the update can be done a little later. Here, you can update it once a week just for your own records, and, for example, update the table on the forum once a month.

3. Cherk
There won't be a "best cherk" category because it's unnecessary. A good cherking player is already determined by the number of victories over opponents ;)

And also...WisTrit, don't confuse Yulia :). Cherk is 10 (according to the rules). You can agree on 8-12. Each player can only use the hero allowed by the other side ONCE per game (several duels). This is the rule. All duels are played this way and only this way. Period.

Soon, very soon...:)

Could you please elaborate on this point? Is it permissible to repeat heroes, and if so, how many games does one ban apply to?

The intention was that after a ban, not just one duel is played, but a series of duels (usually 4 or 5 games), naturally without re-selecting heroes; that is, the heroes used are placed in the same list as the banned ones.

Added 2 minutes later
[/U]There are no reservations in the rules regarding repetitions, but it is clearly stated that 10 heroes are banned.

I disagree with the 10 banned heroes; in my opinion, it harms the variety of pairings.
I believe that in Tournaments, the organizer chooses the number of heroes to ban, and in regular ranked battles, players should agree individually, or perhaps based on the principle of bets:
For example, both players guess a number from 1 to 16, and the arithmetic mean of these numbers will be the number of heroes to ban for the duel.

I disagree with the list of 10 excluded heroes, as it was most likely created by Lord Vampire to suit his own preferences, and he mainly practiced this setup. In my opinion, it limits the variety of pairings.

I didn't invent anything; all the settings mentioned in the rules were written by Starhan and Adelaide, and they are all standard, meaning they are the default settings. If the players agree, they can play however they want. If you prefer to think that I made something for myself, then please do. I didn't develop the rules at all. I just calculated the rating. Apparently, that was unnecessary, and we should have waited for Starhan.

1. Tournament standings.
Okay, there won't be any tournament standings. To be honest, I don't really see the need for them either (WisTrit, in post #44, you expressed support for such a table; maybe there was a misunderstanding?).

I meant to keep the tournament rating and the regular rating separate, as the tournament rating is calculated differently. :smile02:

I think once a week is not too often. It's also more convenient to keep track of the scores this way than to deal with a bunch of reports later (and you might make a mistake).

Do you mean updating the scores by processing the reports? Then, of course, once a week is fine. :smile14:

Cherk gets 10 (according to the rules). You can agree on 8-12. Each player can use only ONE hero allowed by the other side during one game (several duels). This is the rule. All duels are played this way and only this way. Period.

So, how many duels will there be in one Cherk game then? 5 would be just right. :smile24:
This is just my opinion.

I disagree with the 10 banned heroes, as Lord Vampire probably came up with this to suit himself and mainly practiced with this setup. IMO, this reduces the variety of matchups.

How is that "to suit himself"? Does that mean the others can only ban heroes in a way that's clearly worse?
In my opinion, 8-10-12 is the most convenient and best option.

I didn't develop the rules. I just calculated the rating. Apparently, that was unnecessary, and I should have waited for Starkhan.

Stop being angry with everyone; it's just a mistake. :)

Hello everyone! :) So, I'm posting the revised rules and the formula for calculating ranked duels for 2009. If there are no serious objections, I will post the table with all reports for 2009 on June 1st. Note: All reports starting from post #215 will be used for the calculation, since post #214 by Starkhan was the last one with the rating calculation. If I'm wrong, please correct me, as there are reports from the end of 2008 as well. Actually, the most-most wonderful one kindly agreed to help me correct the old formula, so all respect goes to her (and she's writing her thesis right now, so show even more respect ;) ), and you can throw stones at me :smile08:. Rules (no significant changes): - Players agree on the number of duels in the planned match. - An average of 10 is taken, which is the number of heroes that players eliminate from each other. By agreement, players can eliminate the desired number of heroes. Even if it's two, don't be surprised by a 2-2 or 5-5 score :D - After the elimination, not just one duel is played, but a series of duels (usually 4 or 5 games), naturally, without re-selecting the hero, that is, the used heroes go to the list of the player who played with them, as well as the eliminated ones. - The player who created the game chooses the map on which the game will take place, then the second player chooses a hero (from their non-forbidden ones), then the first player chooses a hero (from their non-forbidden ones), and the game begins. - Dynamic combat is disabled. - The "Boarding!" and "Abyss" arenas are prohibited. Again, if the players agree, I don't see any reason to prohibit these arenas. If you want a pirate boarding, please do :), because a cooperative effort is a voluntary thing :smile01:. - It is mandatory to make a replay of each battle and keep them until you see that the game has been counted in the rating. - Any side, whether winning or losing, writes the report, but with mandatory confirmation from the opponent :smile33:. - In case of a connection break or game crash, by mutual agreement of the parties, the duel: A. is replayed B. victory is awarded to the side with a clear advantage C. the game is not replayed, and a report about it is not written. The selected heroes go to the list of eliminations if this duel is not the last one. - At the end of the year (say, three weeks before the end), the top five ranked players must play three games against each other (each with 5 duels, with 12 eliminations) and determine the strongest. Rating Calculation Formula The initial rating of each participant on January 1, 2009, is 750. New players also start with a rating of 750 by default. 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. R new - new rating, R old - old rating, D - the difference in rating, and for the player with the higher rating, it has a negative value. When the difference in rating is more than 250 points, the parameter D is equal to 250. Thus, 0.04 * 250 = 10 or -10. 1. In the case of a weaker player losing (i.e., the difference in rating is more than 250), the stronger player will be given +20 points: Rn = Ro + 30 + 0.04 * (-250) = Ro +20 2. In the case of a weaker player winning against a stronger player, the weaker player will be given +40: Rn = Ro + 30 + 0.04 * 250 = Ro +40 3. When a stronger player loses to a weaker player, the weaker player will have -25 deducted: Rn = Ro - 15 + 0.04 * (-250) = Ro -25 4. And when a weaker player loses to a stronger player, the weaker player will have -5 deducted: Rn = Ro - 15 + 0.04 * 250 = Ro -5 That's all. If the rating difference is less than 250, the calculation is standard (see above). Played duels are counted separately. In strict order, as they were played. Regarding the comments:

I meant to count tournament and regular ratings separately, as they are awarded differently in tournaments. :smile02: Update in the sense of accounting for reports? Then, of course, it can be done once a week :smile14:

Okay. The rating for non-tournament and tournament competitions is kept separately. I agree. Yes, accounting. It can be updated less often, I agree.

How interesting is it "for yourself"? Like, the rest can only eliminate worse heroes? In my opinion, 8-10-12 is the most convenient and good option. Enough already to be angry with everyone, what's the big deal if someone made a mistake :)

What are these old squabbles? :D Stop it ;) And regarding 8-10-12 eliminations, I think it's like this: 10 eliminations +/- 2 is optimal, as reducing the number of eliminated heroes increases the likelihood of the match ending in a draw. That is, a large selection of heroes provides more room for maneuver and there is always a strong counter to the chosen one. Thank you for your help and active participation in the discussion WisTrit, Alex_R, The Most-Most Wonderful, Lord Vampire :smile54:. Additions/Corrections: 1. I received an answer to my request from Lord Vampire - the calculation of reports will start from post 218 of the corresponding topic. All other posts are already included in the results for 2008. 2. alex_nv found an error in formula 1 (when calculating the awarding of points to the "stronger" player, in case of victory over a player with a rating difference of more than 200). Fixed. I don't think this will significantly affect the balance. Well, it's clear that someone carefully checked the pile of formulas. And I wanted to cheat the veterans, you see ;) It didn't work! :D :D Please come to the table, let's analyze everything :) OK! DON'T KICK! TOMORROW MORNING THERE WILL BE A TABLE! I NEED TO RECALCULATE! THANKFULLY, I HAVE A CHECKER! :) YULYA, THANK YOU! THANK YOU FOR REMINDING ME OF THE BASIC MATHEMATICS OF THE 5TH GRADE! :D :D :D

Thank goodness there are still people who can create something new or continue working on existing projects. Respect and kudos to them! I completely agree with the idea of calculating the rating based on duels. But who will take care of the maps? Lёnya, maybe you could take on this task? If you agree, we need to think about a rating system or leave everything as it is!

Good weather to all! :)

...

1. In case of a weak player losing (i.e., the rating difference is more than 250), the strong player will gain +10 points:

Rn=Ro+30+0,04*(-250)=Ro+10

...

There is an error here: Rn=Ro+30+0,04*(-250)=Ro+20! Therefore, the strong player gains 20 points, not 10!

Absolutely!

As of June 2, 2009, the leader of the non-tournament duel rating is KonServator :smile49:!
Our congratulations and applause:smile12:.

Currently, a large number of people – 8 (eight) – are participating in ranked duels. Although, it can safely be divided by 2, as some haven't reported their results since winter.

The rating will be maintained and updated CONSTANTLY. Updates will be monthly or upon request. Familiarize yourself with the rules, coordinate (haha), and battle :smile13:, and don't forget to report in the appropriate thread.

The attached file contains the rating table as of June 2, 2009. Please attach it to the corresponding thread along with the rules and calculation formulas:smile01:.

Those who wish can also check my calculations (in the second sheet of the file).

Good luck! I'll be back in a week.

P.S. Yulcha, our report #230 was not counted by agreement, as it was a "mess":rolleyes:.
P.P.S. I've corrected and re-uploaded it; everything should open now.

It gives me an error message saying that the archive is corrupted or something like that.

It still displays the error.

Happy summer to everyone!

This reminds me of a poem by a classic:

"It's good in the village in summer,
Manure sticks to your boots,
If you spend a couple of days in this village...and so on" :)

It's nice to see that nothing has changed during my absence.
There were no ranked duels, nor a new topic with rules and a table for 2009.

Summer, it's understandable...And tournaments are in full swing right now.

Good luck to everyone in your battles, and I'm going to fight a mole that is digging a metro all over my property. Maybe I should cast a slowing spell on it, huh?

I've updated everything related to duels; I'll create the RTA (Real-Time Attack) later, probably tomorrow... for now, it's just in Beta:rolleyes: