Posts from Player rating for offline Heroes 3 tournaments!

by the way, we could come up with something about one-on-one duels... two players choose one map and complete it as quickly as possible within a certain time, 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.

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

So, first you suggest calculating separate rankings for tournaments with different difficulty levels, and now you suggest adding a parameter to the formula that also takes into account the size of the map?

On a standard map (where there are no specific time constraints, and where all the necessary resources can be found at the starting location), it will be impossible to find an advantage over the Impossible difficulty for more than a week due to the reasons already mentioned... Of course, if Johnson is playing on Normal, and someone else is playing on Impossible. And if Johnson surpasses Non-Johnson in the ranking? What's the point of arguing? But in the future, everyone will know about the coefficients and that they are inflated. Accordingly, everyone will know in advance what they are getting into. And in any case, no one will be to blame, even if a player from Normal surpasses someone from Impossible in the ranking, then sorry, we can't increase these coefficients even more - it's already too high :) But ultimately, I think we will all come to tournaments on the same difficulty level. And it doesn't necessarily have to be Impossible. I personally don't see a difference in which difficulty level you play, as long as all participants in a specific tournament play on the same difficulty level.

But as I said before, I fully support the idea of experiments within the current tournament.

Thank God :) So, we're playing hockey - we're counting the ranking :)

Some things are already obvious and need to be taken into account...

What exactly? The problem with the coefficients is only that the rating calculation system was announced after the start of the tournament. Well, they didn't come up with it earlier, so what now. I repeat, the coefficients are inflated specifically for the future, I explained why above. For the current tournament, those who played on Normal have the right to reset their ratings and temporarily be removed from the ranking table. And then we'll see. Are there any more questions? :)

Added after 8 hours 26 minutes

Exceptions: In order not to age the rating of players who missed the tournament for a valid reason, it was decided that it is possible to miss ONE tournament from VDV_forever in Heroes 3 without consequences, i.e., the aging of the rating will start the second time and will work from that moment until the player reappears, or his rating is reset and completely removed from the current ranking table.
A valid reason must be indicated in writing and sent to the email address VDV_forever@BK.ru, but no later than 10 days from the end of the tournament in which the participant did not participate.
...
I and the respected Prorock only tried to make some corrections to its writing.

Dear VDV and Prorock, it seems to me that this is unnecessary - it will only take up your precious time, which you already don't have enough of for everything. Tell me, for God's sake, why do you need to know the valid reason for missing the tournament? If they want, they will come up with something, and you will be crying, regretting the person :) Wouldn't it be better to allow missing ONE time for any reason? That is, a player can play every other time in your tournaments without the consequences of their rating aging. Why not?
After I calculate the rating for the first time, I will track this myself in my database. And then no one needs to be informed.
Okay?

What exactly?

It’s clear that in the end, a system will be adopted where everyone starts with a single save file, and the difficulty level will be impossible. We can even bet on it if you want :) How little self-respect does one need to have to fight the computer on a lower difficulty level?

And how many times will we go around in circles discussing an issue that probably doesn't require as much attention as it gets – depends only on the participants in this conversation...

1. Do you participate in our portal's tournaments?
/topic/1581/
2. If not, why?
/topic/1583/

:) If there was only one difficulty level, there would be less of a headache.

Discrimination against those who participate! :) We urgently need to add the question:
3. And if you participate, why here specifically?
I think that would be right.

Just implement this rule and be done with it! That's exactly what we're all saying...

And why can't this rating be applied to tournaments for other versions of the game?

I believe we should go all the way. In the "Van Cunningham" tournament, if it actually takes place, I think this parameter can be used as well. This rating can be used both for individual versions and for the tournament as a whole (but in this case, aging should be removed, as not everyone will participate in all versions).

And in parallel, use the system with grails. We will get two different parameters, one of which will reflect exclusively the skill of speed-playing, and the second—the general level across various parameters.

...the rating is named after Van Kanigem, by the way, who is that? But this has nothing to do with the tournament rating from VDV_forever. Or is he organizing this tournament?

Well, that's pretty much how it is... :D Actually, if it weren't for him, I doubt VDV-forewer would have been able to hold the Best of the Best tournament... John helped us all a lot, and we have a lot of respect for him! :D

The tournament will be organized by all the tournament organizers on the portal, for all versions. This is where they can try to come to an agreement, because the tournament will include all versions, and all organizers will have to work together.

1. Has this calculation mechanism already been approved, or are changes possible?

2. How seriously do you personally take the point mentioned below?

3. How justified is the use of a 1.5 coefficient for SUCH a tournament? Rough estimates show that you are adding a full two months of "penalty" gameplay time to participants who chose a Normal save in exchange for a small amount of resources... Imbalance. And for the future, this can be disputed — resources provide an advantage exclusively in the first days of a Walkthrough. After a week, they no longer matter... The computer's strength for Normal difficulty is the same as it is for Impossible.

Do you think those who play on normal pay attention to the rating? I won't be categorical, of course, but nevertheless — with a very high probability, I think they don't particularly care about their rating... I don't want to offend anyone, but my understanding is this — if you want to participate in the rating, take impossible and fight. That will be the most worthy and respected choice.

Let's see what percentage of tournament participants send a save from normal, and we will draw conclusions based on that...

In my view, it is better to spend effort on teaching game mastery to all those interested so that they can comfortably start on impossible, rather than trying to fit tournament work under several player ranks. And there will be one save for everyone and no arguments or explanations... And it's better to do this as quickly as possible while there are still people willing to create something...

Let me first figure out how many grails will be paid on normal and on impossible — is it the same?

So that next time no one has to explain anything about difficulty levels, slightly inflated coefficients were introduced. These coefficients automatically clarify at what difficulty level one should strive to play. And the text about the rating explains that we will also count normal so as not to leave beginners without their starting rating, therefore we introduce such coef., especially since the accrual has experimental status and furthermore nothing prevents these players from increasing their rating in the future. If it were without these coefficients, I'd get tired of explaining what I wrote in the previous post. And regarding your point that no one should have to explain anything to anyone — well, here I am answering you how and why, even though no rating has been assigned to anyone yet. Suppose you don't need it, but there are other people who do. How to handle this? Deriving these damn formulas for the rest of my life and still not calculating anything. If you are aware, VDV already calculated a rating and is calculating one, but many didn't quite like that it constantly increased and therefore by definition cannot remove same-day ghost players. In the proposed system now, much is linked. There is rating aging; the rating can increase or decrease depending on the player's result taking days into account. Each person's rating is determined relative to the leader's result per day. The closer your result is to the leader's result per day, the higher it is. Obviously, the system isn't perfect, but it's something. Moreover, VDV put forward simplicity as one of the requirements for the system. Therefore, I believe that a rating system even in this form will be better than the one VDV used before. Have I explained everything more clearly now or what?

So, why am I saying all this? Because dividing by difficulty levels according to a fixed system leads to absolutely different results depending on the map. On large and complex maps, the advantage of normal is minimal. On small ones — undeniable. And how should this be accounted for in the rating? Is it really justified to apply a 1.5 coefficient in both cases?

Hence the conclusion — one save, equal conditions, and therefore — an objective rating. In the case of several difficulty levels, there is no point in calculating a rating, because over time distortions will only accumulate... There is no other way.

Esteemed VDV and Prorock, it seems to me this is excessive — it will only take up your precious time, which you already lack for everything. Tell me for God's sake, why do you need to know a valid reason for skipping ??? If they want to, they'll make up so many reasons you'll be crying out of pity for the person. Wouldn't it be better to allow skipping ONCE for any reason? That is, a player can play every other time in your tournaments without consequences for their rating aging. Why not ?
After I calculate the rating for the first time, I will track this point myself from my database. And then no one needs to report anything.
Ok ?

It is visible to the naked eye that eventually a system of playing from a single starting save for everyone will be approved. And the level will be impossible. We can even bet, if you want. To what extent must one not respect oneself to fight the computer on a lower difficulty level?

We calculate the rating from this tournament and the difficulty coefficients will show where one should strive to play. But what VDV says about Grail accrual and points for the doll on this and that difficulty level — if he assigns them equally for equal places here and there, is that justified or not? I think it's time to implement AlexPanka's idea that accrued grails should depend on the number of players who sent saves for this and that difficulty level of a given tournament.

A small amount of resources… How should I put this… In my opinion, it's actually quite a lot. Normal is easier by definition, which is why the coefficient is lower! Everything is perfectly balanced! As for the future, less experienced players can transition to a harder level with a higher coefficient over time.
THE COEFFICIENTS, AS WELL AS THE FORMULA PROPOSED BY IRONAXE, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REVISION!:cool:

That's exactly the point—this is your opinion and understanding, but users are all different and everyone has different opinions. Some play strongly, some weakly!
If we follow your logic, then users who play on Normal should not be considered players at all! Do I understand you correctly?
:confused:

It's simple: on Normal, all rewards remain exactly the same as on Impossible, except for the RATING (GRAIL), which will be reduced by 2 times. i.e.
25 Grails for first place, 23 for second (rounded), 20 for third, and so on. Skills, resources, and descriptions remain UNCHANGED!

I absolutely agree with everything, dear IronAxe, but I'll make one correction. I use and will continue to use that system, but exclusively for awarding Grails.

I can say one thing for sure: Normal is Normal, Impossible is Impossible, and this coefficient clearly reflects this essence, since a player's rating on Impossible will be higher than a player's rating on Normal given equal placement! And distortions have absolutely nothing to do with this!

I will try to comment on the Grail calculation system proposed by the respected AlexeyPankom.

That's exactly it, that this is your opinion and understanding, but users are all different and everyone has different opinions. Some play strong, some play weak!

AmberSoler is simply considering a situation for some reason where one of the strong players decides to play on normal in the tournament. Accordingly, he will receive a rating there that does not correspond to his status, since the advantages of the normal level over the hard one may be minimal, while the coefficient brutally suppresses with constant force, regardless of the quantitative indicator of these advantages, because determining them by some other coefficient is very difficult, if possible at all. But my question is: why did he go there? Or better yet—why would he go there if he knew about the assigned coefficients?

What difficulty level did you yourself start playing Heroes on? I'm 90% sure it was NORMAL!

First of all, my entire idea from the very start of the "Best of the Best" tournament was that everyone should play from the same save. Impossible or normal difficulty – it doesn't really matter... If you forgot -

Secondly, I haven't encountered a single well-reasoned argument from a player on "Normal" in defense of your policy. And statements like

All those who sent you a save on "Normal" would have played on "Impossible" just as well if there was one save for everyone. Those who consider "Impossible" to be an impossible starting level (exactly – a starting level, not a game), will not send you their final save because they don't have one.

Therefore, I am distancing myself from the discussion of tournament balance.
I personally agree 100% with everything you propose. And I tried to point out the imbalance that may arise in relation to any of the parties being discussed. But now I will no longer speak on behalf of those who do not want to speak for themselves.

There is logic in your phrase, undoubtedly. Only I was thinking about a completely opposite point, which you, for some reason, are silent about:
Why did you offer "all willing" players to participate on "Normal" and then, after a long time after the start, introduced a reducing coefficient for the current tournament? While you yourself agree that this coefficient cannot realistically reflect the difference between the starting saves.

While you yourself agree that this coefficient cannot realistically reflect the difference between the starting saves.

And if the introduction of a reducing coefficient has the goal of "luring" players from Normal to Impossible, then why was Normal introduced? That's what I can't understand! :D A vicious circle...