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.
So, what's the point of talking nonsense if my arguments, unfortunately, are not considered by you from a mathematical point of view? :D It is mathematics that ensures balance; you are appealing to selective observation, which I have already mentioned. It is not correct to do so. And that's all, let's end the discussion because it's pointless. :)
Have I seen this balance in a selective example? No, there is no balance there. You can talk about balance with Izual :)
My system, even without balanced formulas, coped with this situation - yours did not. I ask you to provide a reverse selective example where your system copes with a major situation - mine does not.
Based on this, I suggest organizing a poll (preferably an open one) with a duration of, say, a week (so that everyone who is interested has time to vote) and choosing one of these two options...
If there were people who wanted to participate, they would have already intervened... :) This has already been discussed. Our debate with Iron is purely academic, to clarify the issue in principle, so to speak. And it's not really interesting to anyone. All the opinions of everyone who wants to participate are already in this thread. Why repeat it? :)
I already told you that your calculations are correct. However, I believe your interpretation is incorrect. We are not arguing about the correctness of rearranging numbers and coefficients, but about the validity of considering the player's position.
You say that the position doesn't matter. I say it does. How else can I show this with numbers? It's already evident from our calculations. You don't want the position to have an impact and are surprised why my calculations give half the rating to the underdog and slightly increase it for those higher in the table. What's so surprising about that if that was the goal when writing the oscillator – the higher the position, the more significant the bonus...
What example should I provide in Excel? What? I'm talking about logic and the common sense of evaluating a player's result, not about numbers.
What's wrong with the logic of my system? It doesn't need any additional bonuses for either the LEADERS or the Underdogs. Everything is already perfect there :) Or is it unclear who the leader is and who the underdog is? Ha-ha, twice. Explain to Izual logically why he is rapidly falling behind in the wrong direction. Explain to Radik why his Mazai gains 10 rating points with a 10% aging rate.
Show me in an Excel table, using my system and your hypothetical major situation, the same illogical situations that you claim exist in my system.
Show me in an Excel table, using my system and your hypothetical, worst-case scenario, the same illogical situations that you claim exist in my system.
Assign a higher movement speed to the leader in the calculation scheme – for example, 5 – and see how all the values become equally close to zero. But don't tell me that such a speed is questionable in THIS tournament. I'm not talking about a specific tournament, but about your calculation method. Then apply aging and calculate the results based on the sum of two tournaments. I've suggested you do this three times now. After that, try to argue the validity of such an imbalance.
Sorry for the off-topic, but with your approach, we might start arguing: "Is an electron a particle or a wave?" Similarly, both systems are good, and both have weaknesses, and no one will be able to prove anything to each other anymore, and if we continue, maybe it's better to move to the section: CHAT.
No problem... we still have a chance to clarify things. In the future, this might not be possible anymore... So, please bear with us for a little while :)
and in an excel spreadsheet, show me on my system—given a major situation you've imagined—the same illogical situations as in my>
The calculation methodology based on the first parameter (using the recent tournament as an example) will lead to the following scenario under quite plausible developments.
1. With rating decay at 1/10, the gap in results among tournament participants who did not take} 1st place is only about 3 points, which is disproportionate to the effort expended.
2. With rating decay at 1/3, a player who took 2nd place will receive 16 points fewer than a player who took last place.
Moreover, the probability of such a situation arising is very high—it only takes one relatively strong player appearing in the tournament.
The behavior of the oscillator (with rating decay at 1/10) was proposed as a comparison to evaluate the smoothing effect on the resulting imbalance.
Set a higher completion speed for the leader in the calculation scheme — for example 5, and see how everyone becomes equally close to zero... Just don't tell me that such a speed is questionable for THIS tournament. I am not talking about a specific tournament, but about your calculation methodology. Then apply aging and calculate the totals for the sum of two tournaments. This is the third time I've suggested you do this. After that, try to justify the permissibility of such an imbalance.
I know all that. Regarding the zeros, I mentioned how I would get around that situation. But show me just one Official tournament with a huge crowd where some weirdo finished in one day, and the rest in a thousand. In the ones I've attended, and here already three times at VDV's tournaments, the gap between the leader and second place was roughly twofold. The rest follow smoothly. And this system works there. That is, the situation where the leader pulls away from second place by double is a verified scenario. But don't suggest I generate an excel sheet anymore — I already generated one today and showed everyone the inconsistencies. Now it's your turn, and I'll show you what I will do with that sheet so there are no zeros, but the rating still realistically reflects strength in proportions.
A situation where the leader pulls away twofold only shows that there are still players who haven't filled the niches of those spots. And that's exactly the situation I examined in excel today. My system works when the leader is detached from the main mass. Yours fails right here. I believe it is correct that if there is a super player at a tournament or a missing middle layer, the following happens: Since a player cannot take more than 100 for first place, but a large gap exists, my system allows the leader to lower the rating for the others. He pulls away without any bonuses, while everyone else's rating is lowered according to their result. But at the same time, the last person's rating is not halved. And what does your correction do? It pulls the first place up by the ears regardless of how many days the player took to finish. And it kicks the last place with its feet, just so they'll leave the tournaments entirely. And as for the threshold you proposed, where the last 20 outsiders are crammed in with 20 points each. How are the numbers of twenty 20s different from twenty zeros at the end of the rating table? Especially since I already said how I'd avoid zeros. Tell me how you'll avoid the 20s under the threshold, and how you'll remove the artificial rating reduction for last place by half?
Added after 16 minutes AmberSoler;60922
The calculation methodology based on the first parameter (using the previous tournament as an example) will lead to the following scenario under a quite possible development of events. 1. With rating aging at 1/10, the gap in results among tournament participants who did not take 1st place is only about 3 points, which is disproportionate to the effort expended. 2. With rating aging at 1/3, a player in 2nd place will receive 16 points fewer than a player in last place. Moreover, the probability of such a situation arising is very high — it only takes one relatively strong player appearing at the tournament. The behavior of the oscillator (with rating aging at 1/10) was proposed alongside it as a comparison for the smoothing effect of the allowed imbalance. Please comment.
I don't have excel at home. I'll check at work, but I'll comment anyway, just make sure you answer my questions that you find unpleasant too :)\ What does it mean "receive 16 less than the player in last place"? I've already seen how those in last place get a ton with you :) especially with smoothing :) The player in second place simply receives a portion that is 16 smaller. This is exactly how the bonuses you're trying to artificially cram into your system work automatically for me. The leader can lower the rating of players at the bottom, while those at the top receive smaller portions as the rating accumulates. Because there is a ceiling, and you know it. The higher you climb, the harder it is to climb. And so that you aren't quickly caught up to by someone else's result, you try to lower the rating of those trying to catch you. What's not clear here? Why artificially resolve this situation? Or do you want to accumulate rating infinitely, so that a player arriving in a couple of years looks at ratings of celestial heights that can never be reached and just quits?
1. After you see the example, please comment specifically on it, as you have repeatedly asked me to provide you with a specific calculation.
2. This file does not contain a +20 point bonus for the underdog, so remove all old questions from your arguments that have already been addressed, and after reviewing the calculation, answer the specific questions posed to you by my example.
3. The rating adjustment for the underdog is precisely the result of the balance calculation method. And this correction is not the same for everyone – the higher the ranking, the greater the bonus...
1. After you see the example, please comment specifically on it, as you have repeatedly asked me to provide you with a specific calculation. 2. This file does not have a +20 point bonus for the underdog, so remove all the old questions from your arguments that have already been addressed and answer the specific questions posed to you by my example. 3. The rating of the underdog is reduced by half precisely by the balance calculation method. And this correction is not the same for everyone - the higher the position, the greater the bonus...
:) I commented on all of this without even looking in my previous post. I just went to my neighbor to make sure - it's exactly as I said. In my system, the leader reduced everyone's rating because he cannot get more than 100, and his increase will constantly decrease due to aging, so what should he do? He then targets the players in second place, reducing their rating. After all, the calculation is relative anyway. But the rating works correctly in this case. The leader played great, so he is pulling away!!! And the method doesn't matter.
No one is offended in my case. The leader rose, and everyone else was slightly reduced. But how did he reduce them? When aging at 33%, he pushes the player closest to him in second place into the negative more than anyone else, because otherwise he cannot pull away in the rating. The rest are reduced by a smaller amount. And who is to blame? The rating? The player in second place and the others should have performed better in relation to the leader's result, measured in days. Why blame the mirror when the face is crooked?
AmberSoler - thank you for the very successful example that so clearly shows how my system works in a major situation - I'm giving you a thumbs up. And the system also works with 10% aging. Why didn't you plug in your system for comparison? Do that and comment on it too. I want to hear your comments on how my system and your system work in the major situation you created.
The player in second place simply receives a smaller bonus of 16. This is exactly how it works automatically for me; the bonuses you are trying to artificially force into your system.
Yeah... a minus 16 for second place in a tournament, considering that the underdog maintained their point level... :)
Yeah... minus 16 for second place in the tournament, considering that the underdog maintained their point level... :)
Why would the leader push the UNDERDOG down with the same force as the player who is right on their heels? Please answer this question!
:) His main goal is to push that specific player away, and then let them fight amongst themselves. But what prevented the player in second place from completing it in at least 11 days? Was it the RATING?
The rating simply reflected the fact that in this particular race, the leader pushed the second-place player so hard that the entire group fell back. In other words, he demonstrated the leader's strength in reality, and the strength of the others as well. The second-place player fell back significantly, the third is now slightly behind the second, and so on. The force of the push on the underdog has completely faded. But the fact that the player in second place didn't gain any points doesn't mean anything; they could have been in fourth place. As it is, they played, albeit unsuccessfully, but managed to stay in second place. This means their efforts were not in vain. Skipping the tournament could have had even worse consequences, ESPECIALLY if the bonus ended
According to my system, the leader's rating is being negatively affected because he can't get more than 100, and his bonus will constantly decrease due to aging...
In my opinion, this is the most incorrect and unbalanced aspect of the system, and I was (and still am) primarily focused on addressing it. I've always told you this. So, I don't understand what new things you wanted to see in the calculation? Two days ago, I pointed out this problem created by your calculation method :) Now you agree that you are intentionally creating this problem with the calculation mechanics :) What's the point of fighting for 2 rating points in BB-level tournaments?
In other words, for you, the rating is like your space races, which you admired somewhere and now want to see everywhere...
So, I consider this discussion finished :) We initially had different goals, and both of us achieved them in a fairly correct way. Congratulations to both of us! :) And five pages of chatter – that's the price we paid...
So, we have two balanced systems, but they pursue opposite tactical and strategic goals.
1. (IronAxe) The rating is not elastic and instantly reflects all the changes that occur in tournaments, correctly showing the current short-term situation. However, it depends to a much greater extent on the results of the most recent completed tournament than on the results of previous tournaments... A win by an average player in the latest tournament will almost always put him in first place, but only until the next tournament, if he doesn't win it again. Because even second place doesn't guarantee him a high result.
A large gap between the leader averages out the results of all players - although proportionally to the results achieved by these players, the entire scale can fit from zero to 20 points for everyone, while the leader reserves the right to get 100 points in any case... However, it should be noted that the rating aging always occurs at a rate of 10% of the nominal value, and therefore it is often observed that, as a result of a tournament, a player who achieved a good result will receive a decrease in the rating in absolute terms.
2. (AmberSoler) The rating is elastic and distributes the result more evenly among the players. That is, it provides a bonus to the player who showed a high position in the tournament (even with a large gap from the leader), but the price for this is a reduction in the tournament rating if the player took one of the last places. Last place in a tournament results in the player losing 50% of his tournament (but not current) rating. However, as a rule, this amounts to no more than 10 points in nominal terms.
A feature of this calculation method is the fact that in order to significantly change the position of the current leader, it is not enough to win one or two tournaments. This process will not be easy, unlike the previous calculation method, but on the other hand, it should be noted that the current leader also spent a lot of effort at one time to achieve a high result. So, it can be considered that his relative stability is a well-deserved reward.
***
There is no bad or good rating. There is only a different way of transferring tournament results to the overall balance. Both ratings use the results shown by the players to calculate the coefficients, and there is not a single unjustified number. So, you can accept any of the proposed options as the main one. The second will remain in reserve and will be tracked in parallel in the background - for statistics. And, possibly, in the end, it will replace the main rating.
Decide. Time will tell the rest. Thank you to everyone who participated in this conversation.
P.s. IronAxe. Add everything you think is necessary.
In other words - the rating for you is like your space races, which you admired somewhere and now wish to see everywhere...
Not exactly. Because in my example on my system, Mozay barely reaches VDV, while according to your system he rapidly overtakes Radik. How do you explain that? So, an average player under your system took a HIGHER place in the rating than under mine after completing only two tournaments, let's say, due to the absence of some players.AmberSoler;60944
So I consider the dispute closed :) We initially set different goals and both achieved them in a sufficiently correct way. Congratulations to us both! :) And five pages of flood are the price of the question...
I thought, and still think, that dependency on party strength and number of players could be added to my system. But in such a way that it doesn't introduce great distortions to the main component - GAME STRENGTH IN DAYS close to the leader's result. Perhaps dependency on the place taken could also be added, but the requirement is the same.AmberSoler;60944
1. (IronAxe) The rating is not elastic and instantly reflects all changes occurring in tournaments, correctly showing the current short-term situation, however it depends significantly more on the results of specifically the last completed tournament than on the results of previous ones...
I can agree, but not with everything. Yes, the rating promptly reflects the situation after each of the tournaments. But it will be inelastic in cases where all players fall behind the leader by dozens of times in days, or conversely, the Leader overtakes everyone by dozens of times—regardless of the reason, whether some players were absent, or everyone played poorly, or the Leader just had a moment of brilliance, take it however you like :) Moreover, my system is not to blame in this situation. People played; it only reflects what happened. Furthermore, it doesn't grant any additional bonuses to leaders or underdogs—everything depends on the players themselves. Learn to play better - show Walkthrough results closer to the leader and bring your rating closer to the leader's rating - that is its motto.AmberSoler;60944
The victory of an average player in the last tournament will almost always put them in first place, but only until the next tournament, unless they win it again.
The example provided again disagrees with you. Mozay's victory in the second tournament under my system didn't even let him reach second place, only fourth, ALTHOUGH almost all top players were absent from the tournament. Under your system, however, Mozay reached second place, and along with him a couple other players overtook Radik. So you've mixed something up here :) But I agree again that this could happen under my system too, if a player won the last tournament by beating all participants dozens of times faster in days, and the rating would reflect their surge because it is the Current Rating. But why did Mozay jump so sharply under your system? Simply because he took second place, even though the result in days was mediocre.AmberSoler;60944
Because even second place does not guarantee him a high result.
It guarantees it! In the case where his result is close to the leader's in days. The place itself has nothing to do with it. Therefore, a high result is guaranteed for almost everyone if all are close in days to the leader's result. In your system, this is possible ONLY with absolute equality of places taken, which practically never happens in Heroes tournaments. So I consider that a plus for me :)AmberSoler;60944
However, it should be noted that rating decay always proceeds at exactly 10% of the nominal value, and therefore such a situation can often be observed where, based on tournament results, a player who achieved a decent result will see a decrease in their absolute rating.
Decay under my system is originally 33%. A grace period for missing 1-2 times. Speaking of a player with a decent result, AmberSoler means the place they took, not how fast the player completed the map and how far behind the leader they were in completion time. That is, if the leader finished in 50 days, and another player finished in 500 days but still took second place, then in AmberSoler's opinion - that is also considered a decent result. Well, I fundamentally disagree with this, which is why I made a different rating calculation system. We seem to be done with mine.AmberSoler;60944
2. (AmberSoler) The rating is elastic and distributes the result more evenly among players. i.e., it gives a bonus to a player who achieved a high place in the tournament (even with a large gap from the leader -- IN DAYS -- ), ...
AmberSoler's system is not a Current Rating, in the sense that I understand it. A current rating is a rating reflecting the current state of affairs in tournaments, with sufficient consideration of previous tournaments. I would more likely call AmberSoler's system an accumulative rating, which at this current moment might show not exactly the player's current rating, but their Current :) rating, which they now have thanks to the tournaments of the whole year. Even if they performed poorly in the last few tournaments. But there is no escaping past merits :)AmberSoler;60944
but the price for this is the cutting of the tournament rating in case a player took one of the last places. Last place in a tournament brings the player a loss of 50% of their tournament (but not current) rating. However, as a rule, this amounts to no more than 10 nominal points.
The main Price of the cut is paid specifically by the player in LAST place. I didn't quite understand the 10-point nominal value. But if a player somehow got 4 rating points, imagine for them 50% is ONLY two points. And personally, I think that's not a small amount for them. Why take it away from them? Just to linearly level the rating for others and raise it for the top half of the tournament table, whose players—even with a large gap from the leader—took second places?AmberSoler;60944
A feature of this calculation variant is the fact that to significantly move the position of the current leader, winning one or two tournaments is not enough. This process will be difficult, unlike the previous calculation variant, but on the other hand, it should be noted that the current leader also spent considerable effort in their time to achieve a high result. So, its relative stability can be considered a deserved reward.
Correct, because after each tournament the rating is stretched linearly in different directions - Leaders get a bonus increase in rating, and underdogs get a bonus decrease, depending on places taken and without considering days.AmberSoler;60944
So, we have two balanced systems, but pursuing opposite tactical and strategic goals.
I personally think my system is more balanced :) Because AmberSolera's tactical and strategic goals are already being shaped into dolls and grails on the resource. The tactical and strategic goals of my system are the prompt reflection of current reality. Without artificial bonuses for anyone. Even if it be a NOVICE.
I am not saying that AmberSoler's system is bad. It is good. Perfectly suited for awarding grails in tournaments. And much from it can be added to my system, but only not by simple addition of two components, and then dividing by 2. But since our tactical goals were initially different, as AmberSoler correctly says, the formula never developed in that direction. Maybe this will be done later.AmberSoler;60944
There is no bad or good rating. There are only different ways of transferring tournament results to the general balance. Both ratings use the results shown by players to calculate coefficients, and there is not a single unjustified number.
AGREED. In principle, in both systems, everything ultimately depends on each player's personal game and luck. Luck is also an important matter, although it's better to rely on one's own strength :)
Well, that's wonderful. I praised your system, and you praised yours... :) :) So, we're both doing great. And let's end it here for now...
P.s. IronAxe;60958
I can agree, but not with everything. The rating does reflect the situation after each tournament. But it won't be flexible in cases where all players are far behind the leader in terms of days, or vice versa...
"Elasticity (or inelasticity) of the system" is the ability to respond to changing external circumstances...
An elastic system reacts with a delay, has a lower frequency and amplitude of oscillations, and therefore is more stable over time. An inelastic system reacts instantly, immediately reflects the final changes, has a higher amplitude and frequency of oscillations, and as a result, has less stability.
So, it's not entirely clear why you are trying to dispute each of my statements, even if there is no argument.
I simply stated the definition of your model according to generally accepted rules. Take economics, mathematical analysis, etc. - everyone will say the same thing. So, I don't understand what you wanted to say by denying the inelasticity of your calculation method, if inelasticity is the cornerstone of your entire system of evidence... :)
But this is no longer relevant to the conversation. Thank you for the informative dialogue.
IronAxe
