Posts from Rules for organizing, conducting, and participating in online Heroes of Might and Magic III tournaments. Auto-translated

We could create a special online randomizer.
Alternatively, we could use an existing one, like the one used on the forum to select castles. For example, we create a list of 8 castles numbered in order, and players choose odd or even. The winner is determined by the number of the first castle from the resulting pair. If a castle not on the list (the ninth) is selected, the randomizer is restarted.

I wonder if any other sports use a rating system in a similar way? I can't recall any examples. Perhaps weightlifting, but there it's the opposite – the lighter person wins.

In Russian billiards, for example, in amateur tournaments, players with a high rating (from KMS level) often give a handicap to the others. Which is, naturally, also "the opposite."

Of course, even a blind draw is preferable to selecting players based on rating.

.
I wonder if any sports use a ranking system in a similar way? I can't recall any examples.

It was used (and may still be used). In the group stage of the Champions League in football. In case of a tie in points, the head-to-head record, goal difference, and number of goals scored were considered. And if all of these were equal, the club's (or country's) ranking was taken into account. But the ranking was never used to determine which team would advance, as the other criteria were sufficient.

Checked, and that's correct – the sixth additional criterion is the UEFA coefficient.
But that's a shame :D

If the qualifying stage is held in a round-robin format, a threshold for advancing to the next stage can be set. For example, a 50% qualification rate for the "Favorites-2" would be 2.5 points. Total: 2 players scored 4 points, 11 players scored 3 points, 2 players scored 2.5 points, a total of 15 people. Next, a knockout system is used; one player is given time to rest (in our case, it's Forrest with 4 points, all matches played), and the other 14 play among themselves. After that, 8 people remain, and the rest is straightforward. At the same time, in the qualification, they will even compete for third place to earn points, as well as for the maximum number of points (a privilege in the draw for the next stage). Of course, this should have been announced in advance. Now, many may disagree.

Okay, so I was thinking about something. I'm not sure, though. Basically, here's my train of thought: There's this thing where players who only play in Tournaments are considered strong, but they're not actually at the top of the overall ranking. This means there's no single, consistent way to measure skill. Now, they want to create a unified ranking system. I mean, whatever, what's the big deal? But it seems to me that this will just be another way for players to compare themselves to each other, rather than actually helping the organizers. What was I talking about? Oh, right. I remembered tennis. Everyone plays in tournaments; there aren't any casual games. Of course, some people miss tournaments due to family reasons or injuries. So, everyone has an equal chance of making it to the top. In general, tournaments are divided into categories, and points are awarded based on the tournament's rank. The ranking is calculated based on these results. The ranking includes results from tournaments over the past year. That is, the results of a tournament that took place a year ago are no longer counted. So, it's a truly objective assessment of players' skills. I thought that if this were implemented in Heroes of Might and Magic, it would be great. But there are some challenges: tournaments should be as quick as possible, and there should be more of them; people should miss as few as possible, and there should be a lot of people participating. Anyway, I just wanted to share my thoughts. Those who watch tennis will understand. If you don't like it, you can downvote me and use profanity

The situation with rankings is quite complex. Writing reports, tracking confirmations, and so on – it's a certain amount of work that should pay off.

Writing reports for a season means losing all the results after a couple of months. That's not good.

Theoretically, one could compete for the title of season champion. But personally, I don't play as much compared to workaholics like explosive. Plus, I try to play with strong players, so I won't be able to achieve such a clean statistic anyway.

For these reasons, the title of season champion is not very prestigious – to achieve it, you need not so much skill in the game, but rather the skill of a machine operator – to churn out several dozen victories over opponents of a lower level. And avoid playing against equals or even stronger opponents.

A permanent rating is better – the result is stored for a long time, and it makes sense to invest in it. But again, the same problem – the number of games and the level of opponents.

Plus, it's difficult to take a piece of the rating from many top players – they grind SoD-2sm4d3, and I don't play that.

But the situation with tournaments is completely different. To reach the prizes of a more or less representative tournament, you need skill first and foremost, and everything else second. That is, there are few games, but the opponents are usually worthy, and the motivation is incomparable with training seasonal games.

Another layer of problems is the multitude of different rankings on different sites, which are sometimes maintained, sometimes not, change formulas, managers, etc. Today you post 10 games, and tomorrow you don't know what will happen to them.

Or you play a game with someone, and then you think – which rating should I post this game in? It's too lazy to post it in all of them at once, and it's unlikely that the opponent will enjoy writing confirmations either.

For these reasons, I proposed the tournament rating model that is outlined on the previous page.

I would also not refuse a single rating for seasonal games. Where games from all sites would go and not disappear over time. Dreamcatcher has created a fairly convenient engine for this, but I see that people are reacting sluggishly, and everyone is trying to settle in their own sandboxes.

This spoils everything. Because the more players post in a rating, and the more games are taken into account, the more indicative the rating is. A rating that is regularly reset for about 20 people with a variable game mode is subject to strong fluctuations. A permanent rating for 100 people is much better.

The situation with tournaments is completely different. To reach the prizes in a more or less decent tournament, you need skill first and foremost, and everything else comes second. That is, there are few games, but the opponents are usually worthy, and the motivation is incomparable to training seasonal games.

That's not necessarily true.

I am convinced that the rating should be unified for one resource, regardless of the type of game. It is pointless to consider games from all resources. Firstly, it is unclear which sites should be considered. Secondly, it is not interesting to write reports on several sites. Thirdly, resources have their own fans and are competitive.

In theory, it would be possible to compete for the title of season champion. But personally, I don't play nearly as much compared to workaholics like explosive. Plus, I try to play with strong players, so I won't be able to achieve such a nearly perfect statistic in principle.

You practically don't play Heroes, just a couple of games on different resources. Why didn't you play in the Michurinsk qualifier? Notice that only arguments follow from you. Perhaps it is more interesting for you to "develop" the Heroes world

Sticky, Wic + 1, everything is explained clearly.

Regarding the rating – I still think that players with less than 5-10 confirmed games should not be included in the rating, and a minimum number of points should be added to the rating for winning against them. Something like that, in general, something needs to be changed. IMHO.

Plus, you can't take a piece of their rating from many top players – they grind SoD-2sm4d3, and I don't play that.

I was also thinking about this. Why does everyone play 2sm4d(3)? And I came to the conclusion that this is partly a problem with the rules. It clearly states that "templates are by agreement, but 2sm4d(3) is recommended." But if there was a list of templates, there would be more choice. The same Panic, Balance, JC, or the infamous 8mm6. The same goes for the portal. Plus, there are established traditions in the Heroes community. They've been grinding on CM, and anything else is already a hassle, and it just doesn't fit.

You practically don't play in the game, just a couple of games on different platforms.

Over the past week, I played 6 games. I didn't post any of them anywhere for the reasons mentioned above.

UPDATE: Actually, I posted one - with Cobra in "Mad Races," because it was a tournament game.

Why didn't you play in the Michurinsk qualifier?

Because 1) SoD 2) I didn't have enough time (I arrived the latest and left the earliest).

I was also thinking about this. Why does everyone play 2sm4d(3)? And I came to the conclusion that this is partly a problem with the rules. It clearly states that "templates are by agreement, but 2sm4d(3) is recommended." But if there was a list of templates, there would be more choice. The same Panic, Balance, JC, or the infamous 8mm6. The same goes for the portal. Plus, there are established traditions in the Heroes community. People have gotten used to playing on CM, and they don't want to play anything else, and it just doesn't fit.

For example, I liked Panic much more after a couple of games; there is much less free stuff and imbalance compared to CM.

I enjoy playing on new map templates: Balance, Panic, Skirmish, Nostalgia, Jebus. Except for 8mm6 – it’s just terrible :smile18:. And I also like playing on fixed maps.

Let me elaborate on my previous idea by drawing an analogy to tennis. The main idea is that Tournaments are held constantly, one after another, on a regular schedule. The schedule is tight, with about 2-3 games in 2 weeks. Let's have 4 tournament categories: 1) A regular tournament with 16 players. Something like SoD, S&M, or a quick draft. At the same time, there's a tournament on TE-Lite or Full, also S&M or a quick draft. 2) A Grand Slam tournament – a truly large-scale tournament, with nothing else running concurrently. It has 32-64 players. 3) Non-standard tournaments. Like SoY, Balance. 8-16 players. At the same time, there's another non-standard tournament running. 4) Masters. At the end of the year, for the TOP-8 players from the tournament ranking. As I said before, players should play in tournaments as often as possible. To achieve this, regular tournaments will run 2-3 in parallel, giving players a choice. They can either play in only one, or the best of their 2 results will be counted towards the ranking. Points are awarded for reaching a certain stage of the tournament – 1/4, 1/2, etc. Different categories of tournaments will award different numbers of points. The tournament schedule could be something like this: 1) Category 1 3) Category 3 1) Category 1 3) Category 3 2) Category 2 1) Category 1 3) Category 3 1) Category 1 2) Category 2 1) Category 1 3) Category 3 1) Category 1 4) At the end of the year The result is that all players have an equal chance of making it into the TOP if they play in tournaments consistently. Again, there are some challenges – players need to play promptly, without dragging out the tournament. There shouldn't be too many problems with organizing the tournaments. To ensure the ranking covers all portals, players from all resources can be invited. That's the gist of it.