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.Auto-translated
to IronAxe: Regarding the first part of your post: You are exaggerating... and this only confirms what I wrote in the first part of this post. Further: You still haven't answered the question. What is the purpose of the current rating? To display the strength of the game for all players or just one? Answer this question clearly.
First, you answer me clearly about the issue with the oscillator. Because no one bothers to explain it to me, and here I am elaborating :) Fine, I will answer for the last time: The current rating is needed to show the current strength of active players at the moment, whether they have overtaken inactive players in terms of rating, taking into account the aging of the rating. Also, based on this, you can see the current strength of each player, regardless of whether he played or missed a tournament. If he misses a tournament, his rating won't immediately drop to zero, but it will decrease slightly. And what do you suggest - should we give him a medal for missing tournaments? And if he is a strong player, he will quickly improve his ranking position at the next tournament (this is if everyone ages by 33%, and with 10% it will be a little slower to correct their situation). :) One thing I can say for sure is that the numbers in the overall current ranking table will stand opposite each player and also opposite the leader. Accordingly, the table shows the current strength of each of these players in Heroes on THIS RESOURCE! Is that clearer?
Today I was thinking, and it seems to me that we are heading in the wrong direction. The rating needs to be calculated differently. First, the placement should be taken into account, as in any sport, regardless of the result. Second, the leader's result in a tournament doesn't show anything in itself. You can't say that the winner is a great player or that they just got lucky. It would be better to calculate from the last place in the tournament, giving some minimal points for it. Introduce a progressive system for adding points, so that the number of points added increases with the placement. I'll think about how this can be implemented.
Perhaps all of this is nonsense, but we need to suggest something, otherwise we will be in a vicious circle.
Today I was thinking, and it seems to me that we are going in the wrong direction. The rating needs to be calculated differently. First, the place should be taken into account, as in any sport,
Go wherever you want :) Don't touch my rating – it's experimental :) I've already shown 100 times that there is no place for POSITION in my rating because the game lasts for DAYS, it's about speed, but it's not impossible that a turtle will take first place, then the entire rating in the summary table will be skewed, and all because there were no strong players in the tournament. AlexeyPank;64134
regardless of the result. Secondly, the leader's result in the tournament itself does not show anything. You can't say that the winner is a cool player or that he was just lucky.
Imagine – a 100-meter race. 1st place – 1 hour, etc. The result doesn't matter – it doesn't show anything in itself, the main thing is that he crawled first :))) It's interesting what rating they will come up with if, in the next race, other runners run it in a few seconds. Stop wasting time :) You will never introduce a rating system :)AlexeyPank;64134
It's better to calculate from the last place in the tournament, giving some minimum points for it. Introduce a progressive system of adding points so that the number of added points increases with the place. I'll think about how this can be implemented.
And how is this different from the VDV system? Only his is better because it is calculated from top to bottom (and not from bottom to top). Therefore, his leader receives a fixed number, and since you are trying to adjust it again so that it also depends on the place and the number, we take 100 turtles and the first of them will have an amazing rating. And in another tournament, 6 cheetahs played. As a result, according to the rating, the turtle is in first place in the summary rating table! :)AlexeyPank;64134
Maybe all this is nonsense, but something needs to be suggested, otherwise we are in a vicious circle.
That's right, but I personally am not in a circle, especially not a vicious one :)
To be honest, I read about 20 posts and realized that there's a lot of confusion... so I decided not to add to the chaos... I hope you'll come to a consensus!
First, please give me a clear answer regarding the issue with the oscillator. Otherwise, no one bothers to explain anything, and I'm just rambling here :)
Do you mean this? If so, let me explain: As far as I understand, you are comparing two Tournaments for the current rating, but these tournaments cannot be compared because they do not meet the conditions that I described here. That is, either combine them into one Tournament (if the initial save is the same for everyone), or don't compare them. This is what I am talking about... it is necessary to abandon the current rating because this comparison is like comparing a 100-meter race and a 400-meter hurdle race! Therefore, the bug that you showed is not an oscillator bug, but a bug in comparing Tournaments for the current rating.
Further: IronAxe;64100
The current rating is needed to show the current strength of players who are currently active, whether they have overtaken inactive players in terms of rating, taking into account the aging of the rating.
Hmm, how will you distinguish, by just one number, between an active average player and an inactive strong player? IronAxe;64100
It is also possible to look at the current strength of each player in connection with this, regardless of whether he played or missed a Tournament. ... One thing I can say for sure - the numbers in the General current ranking table will be next to each player and next to the leader as well. Accordingly, the table shows the current strength of each of these players in Heroes on THIS RESOURCE! Is that clearer?
You mean this one? If so, here's the explanation: As I understand it, you are comparing two Tournaments for the current ranking, but these tournaments cannot be compared to each other.
But they can be compared – we were talking about VDV Heroes III Tournaments. He held one tournament, then another. Since I maintain the Current Ranking for all players, I need to combine all six participants into a single general Rankings table. Take another look at what happens there, but pay attention this time, or you won't understand anything again. This topic discussed not only the ranking system for Kanighem's Tournament, but also the General Current Ranking for players in version three of this resource. The system I proposed can be applied to other versions of the game as well.Kyle;64168
because the conditions I described here are not met. That is, either combine them into one tournament (if the initial save is the same for everyone), or don't compare them to each other. Which is what I'm saying... you need to abandon the current ranking because it's like comparing: a 100-meter race and a 400-meter hurdle race!
And AmberSoler told you in that very post that you gave an incorrect example, that it was irrelevant, but you somehow shouted "Hooray" and plunged into further details :)Kyle;64168
Therefore, the bug you showed is not a bug with the oscillator, but a bug with comparing tournaments for the current ranking.
This is actually a bug with the oscillator – if you understand the given example correctly. What does bug with comparing tournaments for the current ranking mean? In other words, you suggest maintaining a Current Ranking for each Tournament, so express yourself clearly about what you mean by Tournaments of different game versions. But there can also be Tournaments of the same game version. I am not against having separate Current Rankings calculated for different versions of Heroes. But in the example with the bug that I provided, I repeat once again, we are talking about Tournaments of the same version, for example, version three. It just happened that two Tournaments were held for version three, and we tried to combine all players from version three into one general table. This creates inconsistencies, which are caused precisely by the places occupied by the players. Take another look at the results of the Best tournament. You have already been assigned a rating based on the experimental system. We are waiting for another tournament from VDV for version three; hopefully, you will participate in it; otherwise, your rating there will simply decrease by 10%. By participating and showing a good result, you will compensate for the decline, and your current rating will improve :)Kyle;64168
hmm, how do you distinguish, by a single number, an active but average player from an inactive but strong player?
I personally won't distinguish anything there. I will look at my ranking and compare it with the results of others. I think other players who play for the ranking will do the same. Accordingly, whoever is higher in the General Current Ranking table – they get the bragging rights. Whether they played or not is not a problem for the ranking, but for the players.
I had another idea (perhaps a bit radical). What if we awarded additional points based on the ratio of the player's current rating to their placement in the tournament? That is, if a player ranked 10th out of 10 in the tournament suddenly wins, they should be significantly rewarded. Conversely, if the top-ranked player finishes last, their bonus should be minimal. I propose the following formula for bonus points: B = N / (M(i) / R(i)), where N is the number of players, R(i) is the player's rating, and M(i) is the player's placement in the tournament. For example, a player ranked 10th wins the tournament. They receive 10 / (1/10) = 100 bonus points. Yes, that's a lot, but it's a significant achievement. Conversely, the leader who finishes last will receive 10 / (10/1) = 1 point.
Or, here's another formula: B = N / (M(i) - R(i)). In this case, if a player finishes lower than their rating, points will be deducted.
In this case, we could also do without the "aging" mechanic (using either of these formulas).
What do you think?
The idea was slightly simpler, but along the same lines: compare the player's rating with the average rating of the other players in the tournament and add a bonus that depends on the placement. That is, if a player takes Nth place in a tournament among relatively weak players (the average rating is not high), they receive a small bonus. But for the same place among strong players (the average rating is higher), they receive a larger bonus. The calculation principle is the same – a proportionality coefficient. I think this option is more appropriate because it still reflects the strength of the opponents, not the player's rating itself...
There's nothing absurd about this. Although, someone will definitely see something absurd here and say, "Why give bonuses to turtles! Give out Grails by the bucketful, but don't give out ratings for free!" :D
But I think it's worth introducing bonus optimization after the main calculation schemes have been worked out. Because it's still unknown how everything will look in reality – maybe the bonuses will really be excessive... Things are moving too slowly with the tournaments... They should have already created some maps, set deadlines, and let people have fun! :) Little by little, the process will get going. But the more talk and theory, the more boring and vague the prospect becomes...
I apologize for my slow participation in this important topic!
I have a lot of work in real life... I hope the rush will end soon. :(
Very briefly:
Regarding the Heroes 1 tournament – it will be held on time.
Regarding the in-game ranking system: Of course, the discussion should continue, because we perfectly understand that the more we discuss all the nuances of one system or another, the higher the probability of creating the most optimal system! The only thing I want to note is that instead of arguing and rehashing the same questions in different interpretations, it is better to think and offer more fresh ideas to improve both systems proposed by the respected AmberSoler and IronAxe, or perhaps, by combining some parts of the aforementioned systems, come to a compromise solution: it would be reasonable to make changes and group them (taking into account all the disadvantages and shortcomings of each system) into a single system!
AlexeyPank: until a final concept for calculating the in-game ranking is adopted in this topic, I suggest that you calculate the Keningham Memorial tournament using 2 systems.
IronAxe: Or maybe we should only reduce the rating by 10% for players who missed the tournament? This way, one-time players will quickly drop down the tournament table!
Regarding the Grail awarding system:AmberSoler, I would be grateful if you could indicate the clear advantages of your system in the GRAILS section! Perhaps your system will be the main one for calculating the GRAIL RANKING!
AlexeyPank, IronAxe, Kyle, Sage and all other interested forum members, I very much ask you to carefully review the Grails topic! And express your opinion on it. I would not refuse your participation in the development of this issue!
With great respect, VDV_forever
You can definitely compare them – we were talking about VDV Heroes III Tournaments. He held one tournament, then another. Since I maintain the Current ranking for all players, I need to combine all 6 participants into a single General Ranking table. Take another look at what it looks like, but pay attention this time, or you won't understand anything again. This thread discussed not only the rating system for Kanighem's tournament, but also, for example, a General current ranking for players in version three on this resource. ... This is precisely an oscillator bug - if you approach the given example correctly :) That means a **bug in comparing tournaments for the current ranking.** In other words, you are suggesting keeping a Current ranking for each tournament; express yourself clearly and state that you mean tournaments with different game versions. But there are also tournaments for just one game version. I am not against having separate Current rankings calculated for different versions of Heroes. However, in the example with the bug that I provided, I repeat once more, we were talking about tournaments of the same version, for example, version three. They simply held two tournaments for version three, and we tried to combine all the version three players into a single General table. There are inconsistencies, which are caused by the positions occupied by the players....
Judging by your post: you don't seem to understand what I'm trying to tell you... :D
And judging by this:IronAxe;64222
In this very post, AmberSoler told you that you gave an incorrect example, that it was irrelevant, but you somehow shouted "Hooray" and rushed off into further details :)
You obviously haven't read our conversation... So, read it, especially this one, and you will see that AmberSoler agreed with me that the "current ranking" in its current form is not correct. IronAxe;64222
I personally won't distinguish anything there. I will look at my rating and compare it with the results of others. I think other players who play for the ranking will do the same. Accordingly, whoever is higher in the General Current Ranking table gets the prize. Whether they played or not - that's not the problem of the ranking, but of the players.
Therefore, you admit that the "current ranking" does not reflect the real strength of the players... Therefore, why did you claim:IronAxe;61791
-- This is what is written in our rules --- As part of an experiment, official Heroes III tournaments from VDV_forever, starting with the current Best of Best tournament, will calculate a purely game-based ranking of participants in these tournaments. This ranking will take into account the skill with which the participant completes the main task of the tournament map (for example, completing it quickly),...
In order to make this condition feasible: you just need to keep a cumulative or average ranking, but without any aging!!!
P.S. as for my question: "What is this term 'current strength'?"
It would be better to compare with the average rating among players, rather than with specific results. This is simply more illustrative, to avoid problems with those whose rating was 0 before this tournament. And the "turtles" won't get a big bonus unless they have a sudden breakthrough. But the leaders will have to constantly perform at their best to prevent weaker players from getting ahead.
IronAxe: Maybe age the rating by 10% only for those players who missed the tournament? That way, one-day players will drop down the tournament table very quickly!
We have already lowered the aging to 10%. What is it for? A player who has played a tournament should achieve a result that can cover the aging with their tournament rating, and thereby strive to increase their current rating to prove they are not losing their skill, as they are climbing the ratings. If they receive a tournament rating smaller than the value of the rating aging, then the rating may decrease. This danger especially awaits strong players. But that is exactly what they need—to constantly demonstrate their status quo. For weaker players, the amount of rating aging is so small that it is easier for them to cover it with a new tournament rating. As for those who missed the tournament—obviously age them; they will have a clear decrease.VDV_forever;64322
Regarding the Grail award system: AmberSoler, I would be grateful if you could specify the clear advantages of your system in the GRAILS section! It is possible that your system will become the primary one for calculating the GRAIL RATING!
To be honest, I'm tired of discussing this—everything has already been written and rewritten here. I believe that my specific system should not be used for awarding grails. No aging is needed for grails. An oscillator, as proposed by AmberSoler, would work there. That is, the non-linear part is calculated as I suggested, and the linear part is calculated according to AmberSoler's formula, taking into account the significance of the place taken. Then we take the arithmetic mean and award the player grails. You probably couldn't come up with a better way to award grails.VDV_forever;64322
AlexeyPank, IronAxe, Kyle, Sage and all other interested forum members, I strongly ask you to look at the Grails topic most scrupulously! And express your opinion on it. I wouldn't refuse your participation in developing this matter!
Well, what I said here—I will say there as well.
Added after 20 minutes Kyle;64359
Judging by your post: it is exactly you who doesn't understand what I'm trying to tell you... :D
I will answer you in your own style. Judging by your post, it is exactly you who doesn't understand what I'm trying to tell you, so does it make sense for me to keep talking?Kyle;64359
And judging by this: You clearly haven't read our correspondence... So read it, and especially this, and you will see that AmberSoler agreed with me that the "current rating" in its present form is not correct.
And judging by this, you clearly haven't read the whole topic. What you personally said is only one page long. And in what form would it be considered correct? AmberSoler actually said that there is no absolutely right and correct rating at all. Even in your cumulative system, some will play less often, some more often. Whoever played more gets the prize, especially if you consider the place and ignore the days taken to complete, and even without aging :) Your table would only show activity.Kyle;64359
Consequently, you admit that the "current rating" does not show the real strength of players... Consequently, why did you claim:
Have I eaten too many belins or something—of course I don't admit it. My current rating is exactly what shows the real skill of play. And if you claim that cumulative is forever, then I told you—some play more often, some less often, and besides, you don't consider results in days or they are eaten up by the second component due to place. A cumulative system especially hits forum newcomers. Someone just arrived, while everyone else has already played 6 tournaments in half a year. Everyone has accumulated everything and nothing decreases without aging. Yeah, right, is he going to wait half a year until you all reset the accumulations—that's a madhouse :)Kyle;64359
P.S. as for my question: "What is this term 'current strength'?"
Decided to nitpick words? A player's current strength is the result of their activity in tournaments (played or missed), and the results obtained in completion days relative to the leader, expressed in the current rating. More details in the next post, and maybe it will be the last one in this topic—I'm tired already. I will calculate my rating regardless, even if VDV gives up on it. No one can forbid me from opening a topic and publishing my table there. It doesn't bother anyone. Whoever needs it will look. And your claims about played/not played—nothing is clear; it will be the same with any rating, especially cumulative :)
Added after 1 hour 25 minutes AmberSoler;64292
The idea was a bit simpler—but in the same vein: compare the player's rating with the average rating of other players in the tournament and add a bonus depending on the place. i.e., if a player takes place N in a tournament among relatively weak players (average rating is low), they receive some small bonus. But for the same place among strong ones (average rating is higher), they receive a larger bonus. The calculation principle is the same—coefficient of proportionality. I think this option is more appropriate because it reflects the strength of opponents, and not the player's own rating... There is nothing delusional here. Although one person will definitely see delusion here and say "why give bonuses to turtles! give grails by the bagful but I won't give rating for free!" :D
I don't think I was against this coefficient of yours, nor did I say it was delusional. And regarding AlexeyPank's formulas—I'll say the same thing—you are correct. A player is in tenth place in the Rating table. Suddenly they take first place in a tournament because those 9 above them somehow didn't show up and they get a bonus of 100. For those nine, aging will be enough. Ratings must be aged at least out of respect for forum newcomers who also want to play here. In any rating system, there will be those who miss. And in reality, it's unlikely you can tell what a player represents at the moment by looking at any of them. But it is more realistic to rely on results in completion days than on the place taken, and even more so to give bonuses to turtles. You'd better just not halve their rating for the last place using the oscillator :)
Added after 5 minutes AlexeyPank;64393
It's better not with the average rating among players, but with specific results. This is simply more transparent so that problems don't arise with those whose rating before this tournament was 0. And turtles won't get a large bonus unless they have a sharp breakthrough.
If a sharp breakthrough meant a reasonable number of completion days for the map, then YES. But if it only means first place due to the absence of leaders, while the days show a turtle, then what happens here?
Added after 13 minutes AlexeyPank;64277
In this case, it's possible to do without aging (by any of these formulas). Someone please weigh in.
Aging reduces the old rating by 10% for all players. And it doesn't assume any bonuses because they aren't needed. A player receives their bonus in the form of a tournament rating from the current tournament, which is added to their reduced rating. A leader with 100 rating points will have to earn at least 10 points (this is thanks to the insistent requests of the workers to reduce aging from 33% to 10%, otherwise the leader would have had to earn at least 33 points) in order to stay where they are. Want to increase your rating—play according to your previously shown results. For an outsider, it's easier. 10% of 10 points of their old rating is one point. Imagine they play for 10 points again. 10+9=19. They almost double their rating through effort. In this case, you can do without any bonus formulas. Why account for something a second time when everything is already accounted for?
Okay, that’s enough arguing! Let’s have some tournaments, director! Otherwise, Iron Woodcutter will chop everyone to pieces...:) Don’t bother him with your nitpicking. He’s ready to track his own rating and doesn’t bother anyone with his ideas. Time will tell what’s better and what’s worse... No one can say anything new – everyone is up to speed. And if someone is too lazy to read and understand the essence of the issue, there’s not much desire to post the same thing over and over again. It’s time to close the thread, IMHO.
Alright, everyone, enough arguing! Give us the Tournaments, Director! Otherwise, the Tin Woodman will chop everyone into cabbage...:) Don't provoke him with your nitpicking. He is ready to calculate his own rating and doesn't bother anyone with his plans and ideas. Time will tell what is better and what is worse... It's time to wrap up this thread, imho.
Exactly, exactly, otherwise some people here just can't help themselves and want to attach a location somewhere too :) But why? Is it not clear from the days? As if no one has ever played Heroes for speed :) AmberSoler - let's go discuss the Grail system. There, I am completely in favor of the oscillator without aging. I won't accept any other formula :) Because that is honestly what I believe. Location should be heavily considered regardless of the result in days! Who knows why someone didn't show up to a tournament. Yes, I'm a turtle, I arrived and suddenly took FIRST place! Give me the money! I earned it honestly :)
AmberSoler - let's discuss the grail system. I am completely in favor of an oscillator without aging. I won't accept any other formula :)
Are you kidding? If you support the oscillator with the same energy that you criticize it with, then there is nothing for me to do here... Adopt the formulas and calculate them as much as you like. :) It's all sophistry... Grails are not an indicator of anything.
If there is no indication of where to spend them, then there is no point in arguing about the mechanism for their calculation. Whether I get a thousand or five thousand – what difference does it make? This has absolutely nothing to do with the game. Someone wrote a beautiful description – get a bag of grails, someone drew a beautiful emblem – two bags! And what does this have to do with heroes, excuse me? Let's say I have a lot of grails, so what?.. The doll doesn't count. A very dubious project solely in terms of complex technical implementation. I foresee a dialogue:
- Three tournaments have already passed, I spent all my grails, but they haven't added anything to the doll yet!!!
- Unfortunately, we don't have time right now. If anyone can help with the work, please send me a private message.
Then - silence... :)
So, it’s too early to go into details. Everything that exists is quite enough to cover all the needs of the grail allocation system.
But when the main directions of financial flows are formed, when grails will help influence the rating, and the rating will help form the player's initial capital (and how else?), when Clans appear, whose goal is to control the portal's economy, and they start fighting each other for supremacy (within the game, of course). When the main restrictions on the emission of grails are approved, which will allow maintaining a real deficit (and therefore value) of the currency, when it will be possible to create a bank to issue loans at interest –
then there will be a reason to discuss balancing the mechanism of their circulation... Wow, I got carried away... :)
For now, it's still too early... Grails are not an end in themselves; they are a tool for a big game within the game. In the end, this creates an opportunity to attract strong players to your side and lobby for the introduction of a clan ranking – for even greater profit. Create internal institutions of legislative and executive power, involve proactive and resourceful people to support the entire gameplay process – then we won't have any doubts about why there is no centralized tournament management mechanism within the portal, why everyone is stuck in their own world and nobody cares about others, why the current authorities do not participate in the life of the community they created...
To avoid being verbose, here’s a quote from 18.07.2006 from the topic "Suggestions and Wishes":
Message from VDV_forever Dear ADMIN!!! Can you make the portal mailbox more capacious, say, designed for 100 messages? Because I'm tired of deleting things, and I can't reach you (your inbox is full) with an important letter!!!
Sincerely, VDV_forever
admin;20465Good suggestion. We will do it.
How many private messages fit in each user's inbox? Mine still holds only 50. Only six months have passed. Or here - a cry from the heart. The reaction – zero. I hope you understand what I am talking about?
And if there are no far-reaching imperial goals for all this gathering, then is it worth the effort? Who needs a rating if there is no interest in participating in tournaments? Rating is secondary. If you had spent as much effort on creating the mechanism that I am talking about as you devoted to defending the primitive calculation (primitive in the sense of simple, not bad), everything would be much more fun – and the rating would long ago cease to be your sole value... :)
P.s. "Democracy is the worst form of government" (c). Therefore – no popular sovereignty and discussions in the form of voting on key issues of organizing life on the portal. Only the volitional decision of interested and competent people, period. And if a resident does not like the existing system, then please provide reasoned arguments. And no need for chatter... Things will move faster. Otherwise, we’ll just get crowds of idly wandering lovers who want to discuss abstract topics... (I specifically highlighted “competent” because all volitional decisions must be balanced, well thought out, and justified).
So, what was I getting at? That it's better not to have illusions than to lose them later. Imho, as always.
IronAxe
