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 Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.
I'm already starting to get confused about what we're discussing here. Whether it's about calculating player ratings or awarding Grail points. These two issues should have been separated into two different topics.
To be honest, I don't see any drawbacks in IronAxe's player rating system, if we remove the aging mechanic.
As for awarding Grail points, the optimal option, in my opinion, is VDV_forever's proposal.
P.S. 284 views and 16 votes. The voter turnout is slightly more than 5% - so the election would be deemed invalid :D. Is it really that hard for them to vote?
I'm already starting to get confused about what we're discussing here. Whether it's the rating system or the Grail system.
The topic is about the rating. Points and Grails are irrelevant. Sage;59907
Still, these two questions should have been divided into 2 topics.
It's one question. Sage;59907
To be honest, I don't see any flaws in IronAxe's game rating system, if we remove the aging mechanic.
I completely agree, just remove a few starting saves and leave only one. :) Sage;59907
P.S. 284 views and 16 votes. Voter turnout is a little over 5% - they wouldn't even recognize it as a valid election :D. Is it really that hard for them to vote?
Voting is actually the easiest part. But have they thought about what the result will be? ;)
1. Regarding IronAxe's rating, I expressed my opinion in a previous post. There's nothing more to add for now. We should focus on that...
2. VDV_forever's rating has one very significant drawback - the minimum number of points should be meaningful, because even the last place in the table should bring a tangible (moral) result... Let's say 50 people played in the tournament. 2/3 of them will get a rating of 1. And those who didn't play will get a rating of 0. Is that a big difference? And was it worth the effort? :)
Of course, we're not talking about playing "for fun"... We're discussing the rating. Those who play "for fun" won't need the rating at all.
My suggestion is: set a minimum rating of 20 (or 10). Everything above that is a progressive scale, increasing from last place to first. The calculation mechanism is secondary. The main thing is that the essence is not distorted - such a rating will guarantee a minimum number of points even just for participation, which is important, and also reflect the number of participants in the tournament on the winner's result.
The topic is about ranking. Scores and Grails are irrelevant.
If you read the posts, you'll see that some of them also discuss Grails.
Added 2 minutes ago AmberSoler;59916
I completely agree, but we should also remove a few starting saves and leave only one. :)
Of course, we should provide only 1 save.
Added 6 minutes ago AmberSoler;59916
Voting is the easiest thing to do. But have you thought about what we'll get in the end? ;)
I meant that reading and considering the proposed options won't take much time. It's still strange to see such an indifferent attitude from the forum members towards this issue.
Added 11 minutes ago AmberSoler;59916
My suggestion is this: set a minimum rating of 20 (or 10). Everything above that is a progressive scale, increasing from last place to first. The calculation mechanism is secondary. The main thing is that the essence is not distorted too much - such a rating will guarantee a minimum number of points even just for participation, which is important, and also reflect the number of participants in the tournament on the winner's result.
Here again, there is the same problem: in a tournament with 25 participants, the winner will receive noticeably more points than the winner among 10 participants. I won't repeat why this is not very good; it has already been written about before.
Added 2 minutes ago AmberSoler;59916
2. VDV_forever's rating has one very significant drawback - the minimum number of points must be significant, because even the last place in the table should bring a tangible (moral) result... Let's say 50 people played in the tournament. 2/3 of them will get a rating of 1. And those who didn't play will get a rating of 0. Is that a big difference? And was it worth the effort? :)
Here I agree with you; this system is not very suitable for calculating the game rating.
The same problem exists here: in a tournament with 25 participants, the winner will receive significantly more points than the winner among 10 participants. I won't repeat why this isn't ideal; it has already been discussed.
If this is the only significant issue, it can also be balanced... For example, a maximum limit could be set – although in this case, with a large number of participants, too many will receive the maximum, which is also not ideal...
In short, the only task for today is to build a rating scale based on the placement achieved. Moreover, the lower placements should remain significant, and the top placements should not be "too unattainable"... :)
Option #1
The rating for participating in a tournament, as an option, is set within the range of [100; 20] inclusive. The number of points is not fixed but depends on the ratio of the winner's result and the result of the participant for whom the rating is being calculated. This is what IronAxe suggested in his rating system.
For example, after a speed tournament, five participants achieved the following results:
1. 8 days - 100 points 2. 11 days - 100*8/11=73 points 3. 32 days - 100*8/32=25 points 4. 48 days - 100*8/48=17 points=20 points (minimum for the game) 5. 63 days - 100*8/63=13 points=20 points (minimum for the game)
Almost all previously discussed nuances are taken into account here, except for one flaw: only one strong player can lower the bar for all participants in the tournament when the first player gets 100 points, and the second gets 50... The rest will get even less.
Option #2
The rating for participating in a tournament is set within the range of [100; 20] inclusive. The number of points is not fixed but depends on the number of participants and is distributed evenly:
After a speed tournament, five participants achieved the following results:
1. 8 days - 100 points 2. 11 days - 100-80/(N-1)*(R-1)=80 points 3. 32 days - 100-80/(N-1)*(R-1)=60 points 4. 48 days - 100-80/(N-1)*(R-1)=40 points 5. 63 days - 100-80/(N-1)*(R-1)=20 points
Where, N - number of participants R - player's position in the table
Here, there is a linear dependence, reflecting only the number of participants. The minimum is always 20 points, the maximum is 100.
Option #3
A synthetic parameter – the arithmetic mean of the two parameters mentioned above.
I strongly urge you not to dismiss this option if it seems inappropriate or unclear to someone. I will explain: essentially, we have obtained an oscillator that correctly smooths the results curve. On the one hand, we allow the leader to gain a non-linear advantage over competitors, which, I agree, is fair. If they achieved a very good result compared to the others, it should somehow benefit them. On the other hand, the oscillator takes into account the number of participants in the tournament and the number of players who performed better than you.
Agree, completing a map in 32 days and being in 3rd place (see example above) or, with the same leader's result, being in 8th place (more players performed better than you) is not the same and should be reflected in the final result...
1. 8 days - 100 points 2. 11 days - 76 points 3. 32 days - 43 points 4. 48 days - 30 points 5. 63 days - 20 points
That's all. Let's discuss... :)
Example calculation for the "Best of the Best" tournament.
For comparison, two abstract "bots" are introduced, which change the tournament table. Note that the first rating option does not react to the appearance of two strong players at the top of the table; the second option reacts but does not reflect the leader's advantage, which is unfair. The third option takes everything into account quite correctly and is not complicated in the calculation. Moreover, changing the number of participants in the tournament also affects the result, as required by the problem... :)
In my opinion, it's a well-balanced rating system.
You could even avoid using #3 and stick to #1.
I understand that one super-leader might negatively affect the scores of others, but it would still be fair. If they are significantly ahead of the competition, they should receive a proportionally larger reward, not just a few extra points.
Мечты сбываются, просто нужно уметь правильно мечтать.
Жизнь нужно прожить так, чтобы Боги в восторге предложили еще одну... P.S. может мне и предложили, просто я не помню :smile44:
In my opinion, it's a well-balanced rating system. You can even skip #3 and stick with #1. I understand that one super-leader will negatively affect the scores of the others, but that would be fair enough. If he has significantly outperformed the competition, then he should receive more points, not just a few...
But the first option doesn't take into account the number of players in the tournament and the number of players who have overtaken you. And that's not right. Being in second place or twentieth (with the same personal result) are completely different things, you'll agree.
In the third option, everything is taken into account...
In short, the only task for today is to create a rating scale based on the placement. Moreover, the last places should remain significant, and the first ones shouldn't be "too unattainable"...
Option #1. Everything is clear here. Option #2. Only one comment. With 2 participants, the formula will give both 100 points. I was going to suggest this option today, but you were a little ahead of me. Option #3. A very interesting option. Perhaps the best solution for taking into account the number of participants in the tournament.
I also vote for the third option. I think that few people will be able to propose an even more objective system that takes into account everything mentioned above by the forum users.
However, I think we should keep the fractional part instead of rounding it down.
Option #1. Everything is clear here. Option #2. Just one comment. With 2 participants, according to the formula, both will receive 100 points.
You are mistaken :) Calculate more carefully... 100-80=20.
Added 3 minutes later Radik;59961
I just think that the fractional part should be left, and not rounded down.
Rounding is done according to the rules of mathematics... But it's not essential. I did the calculation in Excel - it takes into account all the digits after the decimal point - and the result can be presented in any form with any number of significant digits. Although, to be honest, for the rating, one digit after the decimal point is quite enough...
That's all. Let's discuss... :) Example calculation for the "Best of the Best" tournament.
I don't understand what formula is used for the third option? The results from the first two options are added together for each player, and then divided by 2. Then the third option seems to work. The second option doesn't work at all, because it doesn't take into account the number of DAYS spent completing the map. That is, if one strong player happens to be on one of the stages and completes it in 1 day (exaggerating), and everyone else takes 1000 days to complete, then they will not be given points based on the number of days, but rather the 2nd and 3rd prize places! This is unacceptable! And if a highly exaggerated situation occurs, will the oscillator help? The first option is reliable. The second option is unacceptable. The third option is good, but we still need to calculate exaggerated situations from two stages, where on one of them everyone plays much worse than the leader of that stage.
Here's a silly example, but still: stage for the Firsts - 2 participants: 1st player - 1 day 2nd player - 1000 days
option 1 1st player - 100 points 2nd player - 100*1/1000 = 0.1 !!! And this is fair !!! But the 2nd player gets -> 20 points.
option 2 1st player 100-80/(2-1)*(1-1)= 100 points 2nd player 100-80/(2-1)*(2-1)= 20 points
option 3 1st player - (100+100)/2 = 100 2nd player - (20+20)/2 = 20 He didn't even earn a single point!
Stage for the Seconds - 5 participants (example AmberaSolera): 1st option: 1. 8 days - 100 points 2. 11 days - 100*8/11=73 points 3. 32 days - 100*8/32=25 points 4. 48 days - 100*8/48=17 points=20 points (minimum for a game) 5. 63 days - 100*8/63=13 points=20 points (minimum for a game) 2nd option: 1. 8 days - 100 points 2. 11 days - 100-80/(N-1)*(R-1)=80 points 3. 32 days - 100-80/(N-1)*(R-1)=60 points 4. 48 days - 100-80/(N-1)*(R-1)=40 points 5. 63 days - 100-80/(N-1)*(R-1)=20 points 3rd option: 1. 100 2. 76.5 3. 42.5 4. 30 5. 20
Conclusion: A player from the first stage, who is 1000 times behind the leader of his stage, has the same PURE GAME RATING as a player from the fifth place of the second stage, who is only 8 times behind the leader of his stage (8*8=64 -> approximately 63). Is this correct? An exaggerated situation will show where the problems lie :) My system is not threatened by such a discrepancy, even theoretically. Aging can be excluded for this tournament. I'm just talking about the overall rating on this resource. But it seems that the rating of the Kanighem tournament cannot be combined with the rating of the VDV tournaments, which I will be calculating. Although I think it could be combined somehow if the players agreed to age the rating at a certain time in both.
I don't understand what formula is used to calculate the third option? The results from the first two options are added together for each player, and then divided by 2. Then the third option seems to fit.
Yes. It's the arithmetic mean. IronAxe;59973
A player from the first stage, who is 1000 times behind the leader of his stage, has the same PURE GAME RATING as a player from the fifth place in the second stage, who is only 8 times behind the leader of his stage (8*8=64 -> approximately 63). Is this correct?
You understand everything correctly. I commented on this point a little higher:
"the minimum number of points should be significant, because even the last place in the table should bring a tangible (moral) result... Let's say 50 people played in the tournament. 2/3 of them will receive a rating of 1. And those who didn't play will receive a rating of 0. Is that a big difference? And was it worth the effort?
My suggestion is to set the minimum rating to 20 (or 10)."
Based on this idea, both participants you are talking about will receive 20 points, even though one of them didn't earn even one. But he participated! And he was rewarded for that, with an eye toward the future...
You are mistaken :) Count more carefully... 100-80=20.
Added 3 minutes later Rounding is done according to the rules of mathematics... But it's not essential. I did the calculation in Excel - it takes into account all the digits after the decimal point - and the result can be presented in any form with any number of significant digits. Although, to be honest, one digit after the decimal point is quite enough for the rating...
Based on this idea, both participants you are talking about will receive 20 points, even though one of them didn't earn a single point. But they participated! That's why they were rewarded, with an eye towards the future...
No, a purely game-based rating shouldn't take into account any rewards for the future, which may not even happen. It's better to give them Grails as a reward, but not to distort the game rating, that's my personal opinion. After all, that's why Grails were invented :) Ah, I understand, in the Kiningham tournament, they decided to do the opposite, not to give out extra Grails, but to reward players with game rating points. Is that right?
Stage for the second round - 5 participants (example: AmberaSolera):
1st option: ... 4. 48 days - 100*8/48=17 points=20 points (minimum for a game) ...
2nd option: ... 4. 48 days - 100-80/(N-1)*(R-1)=40 points ...
3rd option: ... 4. 28.5 points ...
Probably, the third option would be the most correct way to calculate it (I did the calculation for the BB tournament based on this). Rounding to 20 should only be done at the very end, and during the calculation process - no rounding.
Probably, it would be more correct to calculate it this way (I did the calculation for the BB tournament based on this). Rounding to 20 should only be done at the very end, and no rounding should be done during the calculation.
Still, my example shows that someone who completed it in 1000 days will get 10 points, and the first option's component basically doesn't play a role, even though it's where the most important indicator is considered – how close their days are to the leader's days! And the place they took in connection with this may be completely meaningless, but the second option's component pulls the player up in the ranking very strongly and not entirely deservedly!
Sage
