Posts from Player rating for offline Heroes 3 tournaments!

Game rating for offline Heroes 3 Tournaments!

As part of an experiment, in the official Heroes 3 tournaments by VDV_forever, starting with the current Best of Best tournament, a purely game-based rating of the participants of these tournaments will be calculated. This rating will take into account the skill with which a participant completes the main objective of the tournament map (for example, a speed Walkthrough), while this rating will not affect grails or points earned by participants in these same tournaments (for example, it will not affect grails earned on mercury).
In other words, your game rating will not be linked to the "hero puppet".

The essence of the rating system for VDV_forever Heroes 3 tournaments is as follows:

1. All new players receive a rating of 0. In this case, all participants of the Best of Best - 3 tournament who registered for the tournament will be assigned an old rating = 0.

2. Current player ratings before the next tournament will be called R.old (old rating).

3. After the tournament, tournament ratings are awarded to players, which we will call R.tur (tournament rating).

4. We obtain a new rating for each player, which we will call R.new (new rating).

This formula means that the old rating R.old of each player is reduced by one third, even for those who did not play this tournament but were previously a participant. For new players, R.old=0.
Therefore, for new players, the new rating will consist purely of R.tur.
For old players who played this tournament, the new rating will consist of R.tur and R.old reduced by one third.
For old players who did not play this tournament, there will simply be a reduction of the rating by one third. This is called rating decay and is intended to remove ghost players from the current rating table.

Naturally, before the next tournament, the R.new of each player is transferred to R.old.
We are not inventing anything new here. This is a standard part and we did not come up with it.

Exceptions: To avoid decaying the rating of players who missed a tournament for a valid reason, it was decided that ONE VDV_forever Heroes 3 tournament can be missed without consequences; i.e., rating decay will activate on the second time and will work from that moment until the player reappears, or their rating reaches zero and washes them out of the current rating table entirely.

5. Calculation of R.new:
Take the player who took 1st place. Take their completion days - let's call them Days.

K = Days * 100
K – relative difficulty coefficient

R.new (i) = K / Days(i)

i - player number

From the formula, it is clear that a player taking first place in the tournament can receive a maximum of 100 rating points. Other players receive a rating depending on the days spent completing the main objective of the tournament map. Specifically, they receive a higher rating the closer their completion result is to the leader in days.

Note: The current Best of Best tournament is held on two difficulty levels. I do not want to leave people who participated in the tournament on the easier level without a game rating. Therefore, it has been decided, when calculating their rating along with participants who played on Impossible level, to multiply their result, namely Days, by a coefficient of 1.5
This was not pulled out of thin air. We have 5 difficulty levels in total. Therefore, for future joint tournaments on different difficulty levels, the following coefficients are adopted:

Level 1 – 2.0
Level 2 – 1.75
Level 3 – 1.5
Level 4 – 1.25
Level 5 – 1.0

P.S. THIS ENTIRE SYSTEM BELONGS FULLY AND COMPLETELY TO IronAxe!
The respected Prorock and I only tried to make some corrections to its wording.

Overall, I like the idea, many thanks to IronAxe for this!

Regards, VDV_forever

In light of the above, the following questions arise: 1. Has this calculation mechanism already been approved, or are changes possible? 2. How seriously do you personally consider the point mentioned below? "A valid reason must be stated in writing and sent to the email address VDV_forever@BK.ru, but no later than 10 days after the end of the tournament in which the participant did not participate." Rating is still a sport, not a sandbox... 3. How justified is the application of a coefficient of 1.5 for SUCH a tournament?

The idea is quite good. But, as I understand it, this applies exclusively to rating-related issues. What about grails? And how will the rating be calculated in other versions of the game?

The idea is quite good. But, as I understand it, this applies exclusively to ranking issues. And what about grails? And how will the ranking be calculated in other versions of the game?

I don't know anything about grails. They are counted separately from the ranking and should not depend on it. I have no idea how the ranking will be calculated in other versions. And in general, for each version of the game, there should be a separate ranking for the player - therefore, as an experiment, in order to somehow determine it, we chose only Heroes 3 for now. And I will only calculate it in the VDV-forever tournaments. In principle, you can ignore it and focus on grails.
Although one does not preclude the other.

I also believe that one doesn't interfere with the other. It's just that, as I understand it, these are completely different things. The "Grails" suggest a certain unification for all versions, while the rating should be individual for each.
In principle, this is absolutely correct. We differentiate between a more detailed rating for each version and a general parameter for all.

In connection with the above, there are some questions:
1. Has this calculation mechanism already been approved, or are changes possible?

We could discuss this endlessly and never actually start calculating the rating.
Therefore, send your suggestions for possible changes to me in a DM and we will consider them.

2. How seriously do you personally view the following point?
"A valid reason must be stated in writing and sent to the mailbox VDV_forever@BK.ru, but no later than 10 days from the end of the tournament in which the participant did not take part."

Yeah, those are already the results of revisions to my text. That wasn't in there at all :)
I believe that no one needs to be notified via emails. Just extra trouble for oneself and a heap of unnecessary correspondence. If a player decides to play once in another tournament or just take a break from Heroes—that will be considered a valid reason—why not? And why do we need to know about it :) Let them do what they want; the main thing is that their absence will be recorded. I suggested a limit of two missed tournaments without consequences, but I see only one was approved. I'm fine with that.

3. How justified is the application of a 1.5 coefficient for SUCH a tournament? Rough estimates show that you are adding a full two months of game time as a "penalty" for participants who chose a Normal save in exchange for a small amount of resources... Imbalance. And in the future, this is debatable—resources only provide an advantage in the first few days of the Walkthrough. After a week, they no longer matter... The AI strength for Normal difficulty is the same as for Impossible.

In principle, I agree regarding the influence of resources and money on the Walkthrough on certain types of maps. But what coefficients do you suggest? I specifically chose these coefficients so that players on Normal would, if possible, be unable to leapfrog the very last player on Impossible. How justified would it be if they actually managed to do so :) Suggest your own lower coefficients. Then YOU personally will have to explain it to the Impossible players who are overtaken in the rating by Normal players :)
An alternative is to not calculate a rating for Normal players at all. I stated from the beginning that it's better to hold the tournament on a single difficulty level. You did too. But that's how it goes with us. First, we create difficulties for ourselves—then we heroically overcome them. How do you compare the incomparable and then try to bring it all under one common denominator?
And my personal opinion is this—if a player considers themselves skilled but chooses to play on Normal, and as you say, there's not much difference when playing on different levels, then why the hell did they go there? While a player of the same skill level went on Impossible—and what then—who do you think will complete the map faster?
Let's hear what coefficients you are suggesting.

The AI strength for Normal difficulty is the same as for Impossible.

The AI's strength may be the same, but human players are still in UNEQUAL CONDITIONS regardless of the size and complexity of the map, provided that the players are of roughly equal skill.
And how will you then explain to the Impossible players why they ended up with a lower rating than the Normal players, provided that everyone considers themselves a pro player :D

Added after 21 minutes

I also believe that one does not interfere with the other. It's just that, as I understand it, these are completely different things. Grails imply some kind of unification for all versions, whereas the rating should be individual for each.
In principle, absolutely correct. We differentiate a more detailed rating for each version and a General parameter for all.

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. If only we could get through that to everyone :)

The game's difficulty might be the same, but human players are still in UNEQUAL conditions, regardless of the map's size and complexity, assuming the players are roughly equal in skill.
And how will you explain to players on Impossible difficulty why they have a lower rating than players on Normal, assuming everyone considers themselves to be skilled players?

Let's be clear from the start – no one should have to prove anything to anyone or provide explanations.

If a player disagrees, they should take the keyboard and type until their disagreement reaches the others... I see that only about 10 people are involved in the rating issue. And they are all undoubtedly playing on Impossible. Why, as you rightly said, create extra problems by combining incomparable parameters into one formula? Keep a separate rating for Normal, and a separate one for Impossible, and that's it?

Do you think those who play on Normal care about the rating? I won't say for sure, of course, but nevertheless, I think they probably don't care much about their rating... I don't want to offend anyone, but my understanding is this: if you want to participate in the rating, play on Impossible and compete. This will be the most worthy and respected choice.

Honestly, take any analogy from sports. It's not for nothing that there is a division into leagues, categories, etc. For now, these are all experiments. But it seems to me that this unclear "bias" has been going on for too long... You can't embrace the unmanageable. Let's see what percentage of tournament participants will submit a save from Normal, and we'll draw conclusions based on that...

And right now, the main thing is to refine the mechanism. And there is no need to punish the majority for the sake of the minority. This will be a Pyrrhic victory. In my opinion, it is better to spend efforts on teaching all those who want to play the game, so that they can easily start on Impossible, than to try to adapt the tournament work to several categories of players. And there will be one save for everyone, and no disputes or explanations... And it is better to do this as soon as possible, while there are still those who want to create something...

Let's make one thing clear right away – no one owes anything to anyone.

That's what we kept in mind when determining these coefficients :)

Why, as you rightly said, create extra problems for yourself by combining incomparable parameters into one formula? Just keep a separate rating for normal difficulty and another for impossible difficulty, and that's it?

Not only do we need to keep a separate rating for each version, but also for each difficulty level? Wow, that's a lot of work :) And what if next time they split the tournament into 5 difficulty levels? Introducing such coefficients is precisely intended to encourage people to participate in the impossible difficulty. Previously, it was discussed that not only weak players who find it difficult to play on impossible difficulty can sign up for normal, but also strong players. In the future, if such players do pay attention to their rating, they will not participate in tournaments with easier difficulty levels, thereby leaving weaker players alone :) And if only weak players remain there, why should they be against such coefficients? They will learn and gradually improve their rating by moving on to tournaments with more difficult levels.

Do you think those who play on normal difficulty pay attention to the rating? I won't make a definitive statement, of course, but nevertheless...

I don't even want to think about that. I'll calculate the rating based on the system that has been approved on an experimental basis, and if there are no changes to the coefficients, I'll calculate it for normal difficulty as well. If they don't pay attention to the rating, then they don't care. If there are dissatisfied players who demand that their results be removed from the rating table, I think VDV will grant their request. And then we'll see.

With a very high probability, I think they don't really care about their rating... If you want to participate in the rating, play on impossible difficulty and compete.

That's exactly what I mean. And for the first time, this rating might be enough for them, just to get started. After all, it seems better than nothing. And besides, I don't know if they will be ready with dolls and artwork by the new year, but at least the rating will start to be calculated. And as I have repeatedly emphasized, it will not affect the grail count or the dolls, and it will not obligate anyone to do anything. Perhaps in the end, it will only be calculated for about 10 people who are interested in competing in speed and comparing their results with other players who are doing the same, for whom grail count is secondary.

Honestly, take any analogy from sports. That's why there is a division into leagues, ranks, etc. For now, these are all experiments. But it seems to me that it has been going on for too long with this unclear "trend"... You can't grasp the ungraspable. Let's see what percentage of tournament participants will submit a save from normal difficulty, and we will draw conclusions based on this...

Yes, I know the analogy with sports. But who will calculate the rating for all our leagues and clans? Especially if we also introduce a division by difficulty level. I personally took on the task of calculating the rating only for the top three, only in VDV tournaments, and if the tournaments are at different difficulty levels, then I introduced the corresponding coefficients, even if they may not be entirely correct.
If there are dissatisfied players from normal difficulty, we will remove them from the rating table – that's all, let them play on impossible difficulty if they want in the next tournaments. If everyone from normal difficulty removes their results, then we will remove the coefficients and calculate only for impossible difficulty. But the main thing is that the rating will be calculated for at least someone. And many people need and are interested in it. Let them figure out how many grails they will pay for normal and impossible difficulty – is it the same? I don't really care about that.
However, I won't give up on my share :) Maybe the normal difficulty players won't give up on their share of the rating either, even if it's small.

And right now, the main thing is to work out the mechanism. In my opinion, it is better to spend efforts on teaching all those who want to play the game, so that they can easily start on impossible difficulty, than to try to adapt the tournament work to several levels of players.

I already said that, at the first request of players from normal difficulty, their results will be removed from the rating table, and they will do it themselves. Let them accumulate grails and learn :)

Added 10 minutes ago

Why, as you rightly said, create extra problems for yourself by combining incomparable parameters into one formula?

By the way, I didn't say that, and that's not what I meant. The extra problems were created by splitting the tournament into difficulty levels, and you were one of the first to support holding the tournament at one difficulty level.
So that next time no one has to be explained anything about the difficulty levels, I introduced slightly increased coefficients. These coefficients automatically explain at what difficulty level you need to try to play :) And in the text about the rating, it is explained that we will also calculate for normal difficulty so as not to leave beginners without their initial rating, so we will introduce such coefficients, especially since the calculation has the status of an experiment, and moreover, no one prevents these players from improving their rating in the future. And if without these coefficients, then I will get tired of explaining what I wrote in the previous post. And you say that no one owes anything to anyone – well, that's what I'm answering you, explaining how and why, even though no one has been assigned a rating yet :) Suppose you don't need it, but there are other people who need it. What to do about that? To derive these damn formulas until the end of life and still not calculate anything. If you know, VDV has already calculated the rating and is calculating it, but many people don't like it because it is constantly increasing and, accordingly, cannot, by definition, remove one-day ghost players. The proposed system has many things connected. There is a rating aging, the rating can increase or decrease depending on the player's result, taking into account the days. The rating for each player is determined relative to the result of the leader for the days. It is higher the closer your result is to the result of the leader for the days. Of course, the system is not perfect, but it is at least something. And besides, VDV put forward one of the requirements for the system – simplicity. Therefore, I believe that even in this form, the rating system will be better than the one that VDV used before. Now I have explained everything more clearly, or what?

Yes, indeed, simplicity is key. If there’s a three-line formula for calculating the rating, we’ll never be able to calculate anything for anyone. Dividing into leagues based on skill level might be possible, but only if players in the stronger league actually have a higher rating. The division will make sense when several tournaments have been held, and players with higher ratings are moved to the “impossible” league, while those with lower ratings are moved to the “normal” league. But what’s the point of that?
Indeed, it’s better to have one difficulty level, one league, and one rating. And finally, open a school of Heroic Mastery to bring everyone up to the same level.

The division will make sense when several Tournaments have been held, and players with higher ratings are sent to the Impossible League, and those with lower ratings – to the Normal League. But what’s the point?

Actually, what’s the point? Ideally, if all resources agreed to use a single rating system, making the division only by game version and Tournament type (ON/OFF) would be good.
Later, it would be possible to make the system more complex by taking into account the rating of the Tournament itself, which is made up of the ratings of the players participating in it. But at the moment, this is practically impossible. In my opinion, ratings are rarely kept, and they are not brought to a common denominator. So, we need to go from simple to complex. But the main thing is to start moving, otherwise we won’t get anywhere. The system I proposed is already the second step in the right direction.
The first step was taken by VDV.

Indeed, it is better to have one difficulty level, one league, one rating. And finally, open a school of Heroic mastery to bring everyone to the same level.

Tournaments are the best school of mastery, if, as you say, everyone will play at the same difficulty level, using the same rating system. The leader will definitely post some description with the nuances of the Walkthrough. And if a beginner plays exactly the same map with the same conditions, then he will better understand this description. Because sometimes the key to success is the first or second week of development, depending on the map, of course. Some maps are sometimes completed in such a short time, as Prorock said. And still, I don’t quite agree with AmberSolero that the initial resources are not significant on large maps. He argues that the strength of the game’s AI is approximately the same. Let it be. :)
Let’s take two players – AmberSolero and AmberSolero again. Let him play the same map for speed on different difficulty levels. The question for everyone is: which map will each of them complete faster, even if only by one day?

Have I explained everything clearly now, or what?

Yes, it's quite clear. I completely agree with you, "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam!" (by Cato the Elder)

Indeed, it would be better to have one difficulty level, one league, and one rating. And finally, open a school of Heroic Mastery to bring everyone up to the same level.

Excellent point! It's clear you're one of us! :D

Added 12 minutes later

Let's take two players - AmberSoler and, again, AmberSoler. Let him play the same map for speed on different difficulty levels. The question for everyone is: which map will he complete faster, even if it's just by one day?

No, let's use abstract characters instead, like Johnson and Johnson :) So, on the current tournament map, the difference will be no more than a week.

Why? Because with a shortage of resources and a focus on building dwellings in the first week, there are no funds to buy troops in the second week. Therefore, the delay occurs solely due to waiting for financial income to hire troops. That's it. If on Normal, we buy troops on the first day of the second week, then on Impossible, it will be approximately in 3-4 days...

Well, with a particularly rich resource spawn, on Normal, we can afford to hire one or two secondary heroes, who will help to quickly clear the spawn and bring more resources into the treasury (per unit of time, of course), compared to Impossible. Then, these secondary heroes can be arranged in a chain to transfer troops to the main hero... This will save another couple of days of initial development.

Furthermore, the development scheme at these difficulty levels is practically identical. If we are talking about a map of the difficulty level presented in the current tournament...

If we consider a map of S or M size, then the advantage of the starting bonus on Normal will, as a rule, be unattainable. This is obvious and doesn't need to be explained.

So, what am I getting at? That dividing into difficulty levels according to a fixed system leads to completely different results depending on the map. On large and complex maps, the advantage of Normal is minimal. On small maps, it is undeniable. And how can this be taken into account in the rating? Is it fair to apply a coefficient of 1.5 in both cases?

Therefore, the conclusion is: one save, equal conditions, and therefore - an objective rating. If there are several difficulty levels, there is no point in calculating the rating, because over time, the distortions will only accumulate... Otherwise, there is no other way.

No, let's better take abstract characters, for example - Johnson and Johnson :)

:D

So, what am I getting at? The fact that dividing into difficulty levels according to a fixed system leads to completely different results depending on the map. On large and complex maps, the advantage of the normal difficulty is minimal. On small maps, it is undeniable. And how to take this into account in the rating?

That is, first you suggest calculating separate ratings for tournaments of different difficulty levels, and now you suggest adding a parameter to the formula that takes into account the size of the map? By the way, on large and complex maps, but poor ones, imagine a desert where there is no easy loot anywhere, and everything is guarded, one starts with 0 coins, and the other with 5000 coins or whatever I don't remember. Therefore, even on some very large maps, the advantage of the normal difficulty may still be noticeable. Say that there are none, but someone will take and draw one. Then you need to add another parameter to the formula, in addition to the size, also a parameter of the map's poverty / richness. What else haven't we taken into account? Cast a resurrection spell on Lobachevsky and let's start composing a formula :)

Isn't it legitimate to apply a coefficient of 1.5 in both cases?

Yes, it is legitimate. This coefficient takes into account everything that we cannot yet take into account in the formula without Lobachevsky. And it is also legitimate because it will make the conclusion you made below, by the way, correct, work automatically, precisely thanks to the assigned coefficients :) Even if they make a tournament with 5 difficulty levels, players will go for the rating on impossible. And if someone settles on easy, then the rating, and even some kind of coefficient, is absolutely irrelevant to him :) He will get his small rating, and he doesn't care about it. And so what? Who will be offended?

Hence the conclusion - one save, equal conditions, and therefore - an objective rating. Otherwise - no way.

by the way, we could come up with something regarding one-on-one duels... two players choose one map and, within a certain period, complete it as quickly as possible, and accordingly, one loses and one wins. This could be used to create elimination-style tournaments, i.e., a draw is held, and then the competition proceeds according to a semi-final/final system. Well, this is for the future, just some ideas...

So, on the map for the current tournament, the difference will be no more than a week.

Okay, tell me later how you defeated the Warlocks near the Fortress or the Phoenixes at the port in the second week. By the way, considering that it is desirable to do this with minimal losses, the timeframe is simply excellent. Or what was meant by the word "difference"?

by the way, we could come up with something about one-on-one duels... two players choose one map and, within a certain period, complete it as quickly as possible, and of course, one loses and one wins. This could be used to create knockout tournaments... i.e., a draw is held, and then the competition proceeds according to a semi-final/final system... well, this is for the future, just some ideas.

in my opinion, it takes too much time... and if you give 1-3 days to complete the game, few people will be able to participate...