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
No, equality won't help the situation. The problem is that the winner among 5 participants isn't to blame for having so few competitors. He might have beaten 50, but there simply aren't that many. Therefore, punishing him would be unfair.
If the winner always receives 50 grail gems, where is the punishment?
Added 3 minutes later AlexeyPank;56893
Therefore, a different scoring system should be implemented if the number of participants doesn't reach the minimum quota. I suggest creating a kind of reserve prize fund for such cases.
Although, there is something to it. We can think about it and propose some option.
Here’s a suggestion for that. In addition to the grail rewards determined by the number of participants, we could create a universal prize pool for each stage. This pool would be the same for all stages, for example, 500 grails. Then, simply divide these grails among all participants in the tournament; the proportions can be discussed. This way, players who participated in tournaments with fewer participants will also receive a decent reward.
Since there is less than a month left before the start of the tournament (February 1st), I suggest we start discussing the map for the first stage and its rules. So: the first stage – Heroes 1, playing as the Barbarian or Human Castle (we’ll see which one). What are your suggestions?
We could suggest the following for this. In addition to the grail prizes that are determined by the number of participants, we could propose creating a universal prize pool for each stage. This way, the prize pool would be the same for all stages. For example, 500 grails. And then simply divide these grails among all participants in the tournament; the proportions can be debated. This way, players who participated in fewer tournaments will also receive a decent reward.
It would be better to collect the additional prize money for all stages into one pool and hang it up for the final stage of the last tournament. A participant who has missed more than one stage cannot reach the final. In this case, I think there should be a sufficient number of participants in each stage.
The point is that not all players play ALL versions of the game. It would be unfair to deprive such players of the opportunity to earn grails. I, for one, am most interested in hearing the opinions of the tournament organizers and coordinators – so that we can decide what and how to count right away, rather than figuring it out during the tournament.
The point is that not all players play ALL versions of Heroes. It would be unfair to deprive such players of the opportunity to earn grail points. I am most looking forward to the opinion of the tournament organizers and coordinators – so that we can decide what and how to count right away, and not during the tournament.
Then there should be no additional funds at all. Otherwise, look at what happens. First, you say that the VDV system for awarding grail points is not very suitable because it does not take into account the number of participants in tournaments. Now you are proposing a system that will take this into account, and then you realize that in some version of the game, only 2 people will participate, they will receive a meager amount, although they could have defeated a thousand participants, but there are simply none, and you propose to introduce additional funds to add prize grail points to such participants.
Have you seen a cat chasing its tail? Does this remind you of anything? :)
1. Take the VDV system.
2. Introduce a scale for awarding points based on the number of participants.
3. No compensation if there are few people in the tournament for a particular version.
Why should organizers artificially raise the status of one of the game versions?
A participant who has missed more than one stage cannot reach the final. In this case, I think there should be a sufficient number of participants in each stage.
Or there will be no one in the final...
It all depends on how things turn out... :) History doesn't know of any multi-stage Tournaments that last a whole year... Most people will simply get tired of waiting, and during the Tournament, to save the situation, the organizers will start introducing new rules... Do we need that? Can't we anticipate in advance the many difficulties that may arise and not introduce any restrictions, only to cancel them later?
Let's take biathlon as an example: the overall standings are calculated separately, and the standings for each type of competition are calculated separately. There are athletes who specialize in one or two types, and participate in the rest for Tournament points...
It's easier to keep separate standings for each version of the game and summarize the results based on them. And then - combine them into a total in the overall standings. Play as much as you want - one Tournament or ten. A strong player can afford to miss Tournaments, and a weak player can achieve a good total score through their diligence and the number of starts.
And let there be leaders in the smaller cups (for example, for second or third heroes), and it is not necessary that they will be leaders in the overall standings, but at least the incentive will be preserved... And at the end of the year, everyone will receive prizes - both the winners of the smaller cups and the winner in the overall standings (who, by the way, may be an average performer in each individual standings, but a leader in the total - because they are versatile! :) )
And nothing new will have to be invented. But the fact that the final result must depend on the number of participants is correct, in my opinion...
AmberSoler, this idea is currently being discussed in the thread titled "rating across all games" at /topic/1671/. If you have time, please read it and leave your comments if possible.
Тьма - это то, что позволяет смертным не забывать, как ярок бывает свет.
Or there won't be anyone in the final... Couldn't they have anticipated the many difficulties beforehand and not imposed any restrictions, only to later have to cancel them?..
I wrote this in light of the fact that we shouldn't come up with additional prize pools for those types of tournaments where there might be few participants.AmberSoler;59801
And there will be no need to invent anything. But the idea that the outcome should definitely depend on the number of participants is correct, in my opinion...
I agree with the organization you proposed; it could work that way too. But if there are only 2 participants in one of the stages, on what
It all depends on how it works out... :) History doesn't know of many multi-stage tournaments that last for a whole year...
Perhaps not for Heroes, but I know of a game where a similar tournament (an offline tournament) was held in 10 stages (1 stage per month) + a final stage for the top 10 players. Moreover, the number of participants in each stage ranged from 10 to 30.
2 IronAxe: Could you please clarify your suggestion: "1. Take the VDV system. 2. Introduce a scoring scale based on the number of participants." How should this look if VDV_forever has a fixed number of grail points, regardless of the number of participants?
2 AmberSoler: This is exactly what we're moving towards – to create separate rankings for each version and a general ranking. I personally support this system.
2 IronAxe: please clarify your suggestion: "1. Take the VDV system. 2. Introduce a scale for awarding points based on the number of participants." How should this look if the respected VDV_forever has a fixed number of grail points, regardless of the number of participants?
1. Take the VDV system for grail points - this means that for each stage, you will award each player grail points as in the VDV system. 2. Introduce a scale for awarding points based on the number of participants - this means that the total amount received by each player in this stage according to the VDV system will then be recalculated with a coefficient that takes into account the number of participants in this stage. i - player number from 1 to 5 participants: Sum(i) = Sum(VDV) * 0.25 from 5 to 10 participants: Sum(i) = Sum(VDV) * 0.5 from 10 to 15 participants: Sum(i) = Sum(VDV) * 0.75 more than 15 participants: Sum(i) = Sum(VDV) * 1 :) I took the coefficients randomly, but maybe these are exactly the ones that will work.
Now imagine a new player comes to this site and decides to participate in a tournament, and there's even a ranking system here, which is great. But what does he need to do to get more points? And he starts figuring it out and reads:
i - player number from 1 to 5 participants: Sum(i) = Sum(VDV) * 0.25 from 5 to 10 participants: Sum(i) = Sum(VDV) * 0.5
)) It's more likely that my cat will become a virgin than he'll understand all of this...
What's the point of all this complexity? Just create a separate "Hall of Fame" or "List of Heroes" on the main page where all your rankings are displayed, separately for each version and one general one for all versions combined, and award points as in Formula 1: for example, 50 points for first place, 40 for second, 30 for third, and so on, let's say 5 points for tenth place and zero for the rest. And it doesn't matter that in version 3, 40 people participate and 30 are left without points, and in version 4, there are only five people, and someone who can't play at all gets, say, 20 points in last place... It doesn't matter because the players who didn't participate are to blame themselves; they didn't want to be included in the general ranking. And the fact that they didn't get points in version 3 because there are many players in it is their problem that they play so badly in such a popular game. And there's no need to try to calculate everything so that every player gets points, so that no one is offended; just adopt a system and let everyone adapt to it.
1. I don't care who among the players will figure out the rating calculation methodology or how they'll do it. It's not their concern. Only the tournament organizer or the person calculating the rating should deal with this.
2. If a player cannot/will not delve into the calculation themselves, that is their problem; the rating will be calculated regardless of their understanding of the same mechanism.
3. And as for the blatant nonsense, excuse me, that you've presented here, there is only one answer — rather than calculating the rating "randomly," which is what you are suggesting here, by the way...
let's say first place gets 50 points, second 40, third 30 and so on. let tenth get 5 points and others zero
... it is better not to calculate it at all. We can actually do without a rating, agreed?
4. And if there are those willing to maintain and calculate the rating, then we will do it by all the rules. No matter how complex they may seem to you.
Now imagine a new player comes to this site and decides to participate in a tournament, and there's even a rating system here, which is great. But what does he need to do to get more points? And he starts figuring it out and reading:
)) It's more likely that my cat will become a virgin than he'll understand all of this...
Actually, in this specific situation you're talking about, dear Toha, we were discussing GRAILS, not the rating system. :) And don't worry about not understanding how the rating is calculated – you don't even need to delve into it. No one will cheat you. You'll get as many points as you earn by completing the map. :)
Sage
