Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Preparing for the "Van Kanegem" tournament.Auto-translated
All players can participate in all versions of the game, even if the clan is not registered for a specific version. Clan standings will be calculated if at least three players from the clan participate, but individual standings will be calculated regardless. There are no restrictions for tournament participants, except for one: do not be rude to each other during the tournament (after all, it is a tournament under the auspices of the G.I.).
In addition to the grail system, I propose introducing a rating system for this tournament, as suggested by the respected Iron Axe. However, for this to work, we need to discuss all the details with the organizers of the tournaments for each game version so that we can create a unified system.
1. Grails are awarded based on three parameters: a) Speed of completion (the main parameter); b) Number of rare resources collected (mercury + crystals + gems + sulfur); c) Hero leveling (the result is taken from the three best heroes; if there are fewer than three heroes, the parameters of the available heroes are added to the parameters of a level 1 hero). 2. The number of prize grails depends on the number of participants who submit their final save files. 3. 1 grail is awarded for last place in any of the categories. Thus, the minimum number of prize grails is 3. 4. The maximum number of prize grails in the second and third groups is equal to the number of participants. (each subsequent place receives 1 more grail than the previous one). 5. The number of grails for places in the first group is calculated as follows: S (n-th place) = S (n+1-th place) + 2*X (number of participants * 2 or the sum of the prizes for the first two places in the second and third categories). The maximum number of points is ((X-1)*2X)+1. Thus, with 10 participants, the distribution of points should be as follows:
Place
For speed of completion
For resources
For leveling
Maximum points
1
181
10
10
201
2
161
9
9
181
3
141
8
8
161
4
121
7
7
141
5
101
6
6
121
6
81
5
5
101
7
61
4
4
81
8
41
3
3
61
9
21
2
2
41
10
1
1
1
21
That is, a participant who takes last place in speed but first place in resources and leveling receives 21 grails. But a participant who takes second to last place in speed, even if they take last place in leveling and resources, will score at least 21+2=23 grails, and will always be higher. 6. With this calculation of prize points, there is an opportunity for stronger players to gain a significant lead in fewer stages, but on the other hand, it will give a solid mid-level player, participating in all stages, the opportunity to take a worthy final place. 7. The final tournament table should look like this:
Place
Number of games
Number of prize places
Number of grails
Efficiency ratio (grails/games)
Thus, the table will reflect the real strength of the players (based on the number of prize places, the efficiency ratio) and the results of the tournament in terms of grails.
I look forward to any suggestions and additions regarding the organization of the tournament. Sincerely, AlexeyPank.
I will try to comment on the system for calculating Grails based on the system proposed by the respected AlexeyPank.
So, after analyzing the proposed system, I came to several conclusions:
1. The idea with the number of participants is very interesting and requires attention, but only in CLAN WARS, with a fixed number of tournament participants!
2. The system is relatively unstable according to the proposed scheme; I will explain with an example:
The respected AlexeyPank calculated the points for 10 participants in 1 tournament. Let's consider 2 tournaments.
Let's assume that 50 people played in tournament 1 (TOUR1)! In the other tournament (TOUR 2), 4 people played.
We will get that the winner of TOUR1 will receive ((50-1)*2*50)+1=4901 Grails! And the winner of TOUR 2 will receive ((4-1)*2*4)+1)= 24 Grails!
Accordingly, the first 47 participants in TOUR1 will score more grails than the winner of TOUR2! This is simply unacceptable in my understanding.:eek:
But that's not all! Let's continue: The winner of TOUR1 will be able to purchase a complete set of artifacts for their hero with their 4901 Grails! While the winner of TOUR 2 will be content with a centaur axe or a similar artifact at that price! :eek:
This will cause misunderstanding among the participants and confusion among the organizers. :(
Therefore, in light of the above, I believe it is my duty to leave the current system unchanged, at least for now! ;)
3. The only addition to the system for awarding Grails could be some kind of difficulty coefficient, but who will determine it, and is it necessary. I don't think it's worth making things more complicated for ourselves. Moreover, there is an experimental GAME RATING for this, which takes into account both the number of participants and the difficulty coefficient. ;)
4. First of all, it is necessary to adhere to one ideology; otherwise, we will mix things up again...:o
Conclusion:For all tournaments held by me, Grails will be awarded according to the system that is currently in effect; participants can exchange these Grails for artifacts, magic, and troops, which will be included in the user's profile, and in particular, their hero! This is, of course, the first large-scale experiment on our portal, and in connection with the difficulties of technical implementation (users cannot buy and attach artifacts, magic, and troops themselves), all transfers will go through me, at least for now.
For the "Van Canningham" tournament, I suggest not deviating from the accepted system and boldly awarding Grails according to it.
I absolutely agree with the respected AlexeyPank on all other points!
3. The only addition to the Grail scoring system could be some kind of difficulty coefficient, but who would determine it, and is it even necessary? I don't think we should complicate things for ourselves. Besides, there's an experimental GAME RATING that already takes into account both the number of participants and the difficulty coefficient. ;)
The proposed GAME RATING doesn't take into account the number of players in the tournament; it only depends on comparing the map completion speeds between an individual player and the tournament winner.
Regarding Grails, I can suggest introducing a dependency of Grails on the number of participants: A participant receives Grails according to VDV forever's system + receives additional Grails, depending on the number of participants. The additional Grails are calculated using the formula 3*n/(m+2)-1, where n is the number of participants in the tournament, and m is the player's place in the tournament. Thus, the winner will receive an additional n-1 Grails, the second-place finisher will receive (3/4)*n-1 Grails, the third-place finisher will receive (3/5)*n-1 Grails, and so on, and the last-place finisher will receive an additional 1 Grail (except in the case of 1, 2, or 3 participants, where they will receive 0). When calculating, rounding is done downwards.
I simply proceeded from the assumption that if a tournament isn't popular, winning it shouldn't grant a huge amount of grails. After all, it's one thing to beat three opponents, and another to beat 49. Besides, we haven't had a single tournament yet where the number of people submitting saves was more than 20. So, I didn't take that into account, I admit. But in that case, additional grails could simply be added for the winner. I just believe it is unfair to grant grails without considering the popularity of the tournament (the number of participants). Victories are different, after all. And winning a tournament with 50 participants is a very great achievement; a corresponding reward can be given. Moreover, since the "Van Cunningham" tournament will also be experimental, many things need to be checked. Perhaps it should be held first, and then, using the data from it, an analysis of various grail awarding systems can be conducted?
But then you could simply add extra points for the winner. I just think it's unfair to award points without considering the tournament's popularity (number of participants).
That's why I suggested adding extra points, and not just for the winner.
Yes, this is definitely a good idea. The main thing is that it works in practice. And there needs to be participation in this tournament. Otherwise, it really could happen that we have 50 participants in the stage with three players, and only 5 in the stage with four. This would create special problems. Perhaps we could make it so that players are ranked according to my formula when the number of participants submitting save files is between 10 and 30? Otherwise, they would be ranked according to the system used by the respected VDV_forever. Or should we set a quota on the number of players so that the final allocation of points is approximately equal?
I mean a minimum quota of players. That is, if the number of players is below this quota, the rating points will be awarded according to a different system. Or they won't be awarded at all according to the system, but simply distributed among the participants depending on how many points the organizers decide to allocate for the tournament. So that the winner among 5 people doesn't end up in 45th place in terms of rating points, compared to a tournament with 50 players.
Yes, this idea is certainly correct. The main thing is that it actually works in reality. And people need to participate in this tournament. Otherwise, it could really happen that we have 50 participants in the stage for three players, and only 5 for four. That's where specific problems will arise.
We are still far from 50 participants. In BB, more than 60 participants have already registered, but as for sending saves, God grant it'll be about 25-30 people — that's my prediction, so to speak. For now, 5 people for the 4-player format is a more realistic result than 50 for the 3-player one. But we need to think about the future.
I take all of that into account. But still, the number of participants in the matches with three players will be significantly higher than in the matches with four. And, therefore, the winner in the matches with four will be in a disadvantageous position. Perhaps it would make sense to introduce a reserve prize fund into the game, from which such significant differences could be compensated?
This will essentially just slightly improve the outcome. But it won't significantly close the gap. After all, the winner among the five players will only receive an additional 4 grail. This is clearly not enough for a serious improvement in their position. Something more substantial needs to be done.
This will essentially just slightly improve the result. But it won't significantly reduce the gap. After all, the winner among five players will receive only an additional 4 grail points. This is clearly not enough for a serious improvement in their position. Something more substantial needs to be done.
Yes, he will get 54 grail points, which is more than for 5th place with 50 participants. BUT, as a rule, it is more difficult to overtake 49 opponents than 4. This is the essence of the proposal: the more opponents you overtake, the more you receive, and not only for first place.AlexeyPank;56825
This will essentially just slightly improve the result. But it won't significantly reduce the gap.
Currently, there is equality - all winners receive 50 grail points (VDV forever's system), and it doesn't get any fairer than that.
No, equality won't help the situation. The problem is also that the winner among 5 participants isn't to blame for having so few competitors. Perhaps he could beat 50, but there simply aren't that many. Therefore, punishing him would be unfair. So, we need to create a different scoring system if we can't reach the minimum quota of participants. That's why I suggest creating a kind of reserve prize fund for such cases.
AlexeyPank
