HeroesWorld
  • Log in
  • Create account
  • Mode
    Interface scale

Posts from Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

Rating systems.
5.0 (1 rating)
Open
Which rating system should I choose? (see the text for details)
33 voters
Single choice
Sign in to participate in this poll.
Poll results will be visible after you vote or when the poll closes.
In reply to AlexeyPank
User Avatar
Offline IronAxe
Registered:
Posts: 1,495
#272
Auto-translated
AlexeyPank;62190
Let's just test everything in practice. We'll keep two rankings running in parallel (just to find out their strengths and weaknesses). Give me the formulas, and I'll calculate everything myself so as not to bother anyone. And after 5-6 Tournaments, we'll argue having specific examples.
Since you want to calculate using both formulas, why should I calculate the same thing? Then I will calculate the VDV Tournaments using my system, as promised, and try to improve the system by comparing the results of ALL participants, not in relation to the leader, but in relation to the result on one day, conditionally taken as the best Walkthrough. And to whom is your request directed - give the formulas? Take them. All the formulas are in this thread. AmberSoler described the rating calculation with an oscillator in great detail in this thread. A detailed description of the simplified system without an oscillator can be found in the Heroes 3 - Offline section. There is a separate thread specifically discussing the rating system I proposed. You can already find the results according to my system in the thread announcing the results of the best of best Tournament.
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline AlexeyPank
Registered:
Posts: 2,396
#273
Auto-translated
Please send the formulas via private message so as not to disrupt the entire thread while searching for them. And then we will continue the discussions in this thread after a few tournaments.
Мы спасемся? Я не знаю. Верьте...
Геройский Интернационал
Клан Homo homini - основатель клана
Член РКСМ с 07.07.07.
ФЛУДОВСКИЕ ССЫЛКИ!- сообщить о бесполезной теме/сообщении.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to AlexeyPank
User Avatar
Offline IronAxe
Registered:
Posts: 1,495
#274
Auto-translated
AlexeyPank;62353
Please send the formulas via private message so as not to disrupt the entire thread while searching for them. And then we will continue the discussion in this thread after a few tournaments.
Where exactly? Your email is disabled – I don’t know it. I don’t know how to attach files in a private message on this resource.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to IronAxe
User Avatar
Offline AmberSoler
Registered:
Posts: 1,394
#275
Auto-translated
As promised, I am posting a calculator for calculating the tournament rating using two methods for all interested parties (non-linear rating, which takes into account only the lag behind the leader, and an oscillator, which also takes into account the player's ordinal position). In addition, the calculator presents an alternative method for calculating the rating for tournaments, where the criterion for victory is not speed (days), but the result (points, number of resources, or number of units). The method of working with the calculator (Excel) is very simple and described in the file itself. In the future, it will be possible to add a calculation of the current rating, taking into account the aging of the previous result. And also, supplement the calculation mechanism with the rank of the tournament, which will be the arithmetic mean of the current rating of all players who participated in the
Attachments 1
1 file attached • Total size: 12.2 KB
Сначала было слово...
FizMiG v.2.0 *** Очередное обновление справочника! *** http://vk.com/fizmig

0
⚖️
0
In reply to AmberSoler
User Avatar
Offline Zingel
Registered:
Posts: 311
#276
Auto-translated
AmberSoler;63113
As promised, I'm posting a tournament rating calculation tool for all interested parties...
Please post all questions, suggestions, and comments in this thread.
This isn't a question, suggestion, or comment; it's an expression of gratitude for the work done.
And not just theoretical work, but practical work as well.
Mega Respect :)
Герои - это клёво.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to AmberSoler
User Avatar
Offline Darth Saruman
Registered:
Posts: 1,220
#277
Auto-translated
AmberSoler;63113
As promised, I'm posting a calculator for calculating tournament ratings using two methods for all interested parties (non-linear rating, which only takes into account the gap from the leader, and an oscillator, which also takes into account the player's ranking). In addition, the calculator presents an alternative way to calculate the rating for tournaments where the criterion for victory is not speed (days), but the result (points, number of resources, or number of units).

The method for working with the calculator (Excel) is very simple and described in the file itself. In the future, it will be possible to add a calculation of the current rating, taking into account the aging of the previous result. And also, to supplement the calculation mechanism with the tournament rank, which will be the arithmetic mean of the current rating of all players who participated in the tournament.

Please post all questions, suggestions, and comments in this thread.

Downloaded, looked at it, was surprised, agreed... In short, it's a good table, I can't say anything bad! Well done!:D
Сила Тьмы - в бессилии света.
Нет невежества - есть Знание
0
⚖️
0
In reply to AmberSoler
User Avatar
Offline Kyle
Registered:
Posts: 2,153
#278
Auto-translated
AmberSoler;63113

Please post all questions, suggestions, and comments in this thread.
Guys, I've been thinking about it and decided to put the following option up for discussion:
First, why do we need aging? Could we do without it? To do that, we would then need to maintain two ratings: "General" and "Current". General is the sum of all ratings from all tournaments in which a player participated. Current is General/number of tournaments in which the player participated.
Consequently, the current rating shows the average strength of the player, while the General rating shows how long ago and how often a participant has been entering tournaments. For example, for the Van Kanigem tournament, the winner would be determined by the General (for that tournament) rating!
If such a system is introduced, the rating for first place in all tournaments must be the same number.

I would be happy to hear your opinion.
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline GriB_o.k.
Registered:
Posts: 106
#279
Auto-translated
I will never tire of repeating:
/topic/1316/
Get What You Want
0
⚖️
0
In reply to GriB_o.k.
User Avatar
Offline AmberSoler
Registered:
Posts: 1,394
#280
Auto-translated
toha;63173
I will keep repeating:
/topic/1316/
You can find the answer there as well.

Added after 7 minutes
Kyle;63161
Guys, I was thinking about it and decided to suggest such an option for discussion:
firstly, do we really need aging? Maybe we can do without it? To do this, we would then need to maintain two rankings: "General" and "Current". General is the sum of all ratings from all tournaments in which a player participated. Current is General / number of tournaments in which the player participated.
The question isn't about the calculation method, but about the flaws hidden in this method. For example, a player comes to a tournament, plays brilliantly, gets first place - 100 rating points, and doesn't show up again.

He will always be the leader based on the average score per game, while he has only one game. And no matter how hard you try, your average will be less than 100. So, the goal is that non-participating players gradually move down the table. This has already been discussed in the thread...

Although I understand that nobody wants to reread 10 pages of chatter... And it seems like I have to answer the same question over and over again... :D
Сначала было слово...
FizMiG v.2.0 *** Очередное обновление справочника! *** http://vk.com/fizmig

0
⚖️
0
In reply to AmberSoler
User Avatar
Offline Kyle
Registered:
Posts: 2,153
#281
Auto-translated
AmberSoler;63191

He will always be the leader based on the average score for the number of games played, and he has only played one game. No matter how hard you try, your average will be less than 100. So, the goal is to gradually move non-participating tournament players down the table. This has already been discussed in the thread...
This is easily solved, in my opinion. Let's say once a year (for example, on New Year's Eve), this table with participants is reviewed, and if someone has not participated in tournaments during the year, they are removed from the rating calculation table and moved to the Hall of Fame for the nth year. This way, "inactive" players will not accumulate.
Sincerely.
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline AmberSoler
Registered:
Posts: 1,394
#282
Auto-translated
Aging only applies to the current rating, while you are talking about the annual one. The current rating is not reset at the end of the year. And the annual rating does not age... :) So, there is no problem.

Firstly, what are the criteria for removing a player from the rating? A certain number of months of inactivity? Or too few tournaments played? Or something else... Why introduce unnecessary rules? And here - the rating lists ALL players, only those who play little or very poorly move to the bottom of the table. And there are no questions about filtering players - everything is taken into account in the calculation formula. Introduce this mechanic once, and it will maintain itself...
Сначала было слово...
FizMiG v.2.0 *** Очередное обновление справочника! *** http://vk.com/fizmig

0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline GriB_o.k.
Registered:
Posts: 106
#283
Auto-translated
You can find the answer there.

I read it, and my head is spinning. I can't understand why reinvent the wheel?
Get What You Want
0
⚖️
0
In reply to GriB_o.k.
User Avatar
Offline AmberSoler
Registered:
Posts: 1,394
#284
Auto-translated
tokha;63215
I read it, and my head is spinning. I can't understand why reinvent the wheel?
But did you ask VDV_forever why he created and sent out those certificates, why he even holds tournaments, if you can just play at home against the computer and have no problems...? And therefore, if you don't need it, then you don't need it. :) I don't understand what the argument is about? Is anyone forcing you to participate in this? Asking you for anything? No? Well, then enjoy what you like, and don't stop people from doing what they consider perfectly acceptable...
Сначала было слово...
FizMiG v.2.0 *** Очередное обновление справочника! *** http://vk.com/fizmig

0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline GriB_o.k.
Registered:
Posts: 106
#285
Auto-translated
if it weren't necessary, I wouldn't even express my opinion. I thought here everyone's opinions are heard, and not told:
Is anyone forcing you to participate in this? Asking you for anything? No? Then just enjoy what you like, and don't interfere with people doing what they consider perfectly acceptable...
If you are deciding this issue between yourselves, why open a thread on the forum?
Get What You Want
0
⚖️
0
In reply to AmberSoler
User Avatar
Offline Kyle
Registered:
Posts: 2,153
#286
Auto-translated
AmberSoler;63211
Aging only applies to the current rating, and you are talking about the annual rating. The current rating is not reset at the end of the year. And the annual rating does not age... :) So there is no problem.
No, you didn't understand me. I'm not talking about the annual rating. Once a year, you can reset a player's current rating if they haven't participated in Tournaments, but if they have participated, there is no reset. This is needed to remove "inactive" players. The General rating is never reset!
Firstly, what are the criteria for removing a player from the rating? A certain number of months of inactivity? Or too few Tournaments played? Or something else...
This question is, of course, debatable... For example, I suggest once a year, because if a player hasn't been active for a year, it means they are not interested in Heroes or this portal...
Why introduce unnecessary rules? And here - all players are listed in the rating, only those who play little or very poorly - move to the bottom of the table. And there are no problems with filtering players - everything is taken into account in the calculation formula. Introduce this mechanic once, and it will maintain itself...
It's simple, the proposed system (yours and IronAxe's) has flaws (which has been shown more than once), and it is simply impossible (in my opinion) to achieve a single universal formula. Therefore, we need to look for a compromise. And this compromise is the introduction of an additional rule.
Sincerely.
0
⚖️
0