Connection ErrorBad RequestSession 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.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Soler, I don't think anyone here intended to rehash this again... Besides, the ranking has already been published, and it's quite objective, based on several parameters, catering to different tastes, as they say (there are some minor flaws, but they can be easily fixed). So, there's really nothing to discuss, and the author of the ranking asked for comments regarding making the ranking time-limited.
Soler, I don't think anyone here intended to rehash this again... Besides, the rating has already been published, it's quite objective, based on several parameters, as they say, to suit every taste (although there are some minor flaws, but they are easy to fix), so there's really nothing to discuss, and the author of the rating asked for comments regarding making the rating time-limited.
I absolutely agree with the respected Adelaide! Currently, there are already 6 ratings available! I think you can choose any that suits you. Respected Kyle, open a vote on the existing ratings (in this thread), where you can include yours and get a real result of
...there are already 6 rankings!... Dear Kyle, please open a vote for the existing rankings.
I hope you're joking... Considering that you won't get more than 20 votes, and half of them will be for statistical purposes, i.e., without relevant comments, I think it will only create extra traffic... :) In my opinion, you should narrow down the number of options to 2-3 at most and then put them up for a vote if you trust this method of decision-making...
In general, the ranking will be based on the option that is closest to the opinion of the person doing the calculations :) And no one will force him to calculate it differently... There's no need to look far for examples... :) After Iron didn't find support for his calculation method in the thread, he simply published the ranking, thereby securing his right to this particular method... His calculation method wouldn't have survived a vote... :) So, it's all just a game... However the ranking is calculated, let it be calculated that way - as long as there are equal conditions for everyone. And, preferably, also tournaments... :)
I hope you're joking... Considering that you won't get more than 20 votes, and half of them will be for statistical purposes, i.e., without relevant comments, I think it will just be an extra load on the traffic... :)
I completely agree, and I think that those who are interested can express their opinions anyway. AmberSoler;65132
And in general, the rating will be calculated based on the option that is closer to the opinion of the counter himself :) And no one will force him to count it differently... There are plenty of examples... :)
In general, the rating will be based on the option that is closest to the opinion of the person doing the calculations. And no one will force him to calculate it differently... There's no need to look far for examples... :) After Iron didn't find support for his calculation method in the thread, he simply published the rating, thereby securing his right to this particular method... His calculation method wouldn't have survived a vote... :)
But you should still look at the vote in that thread :)
Added 1 minute ago Kyle;65134
I completely agree, and I think that those who are interested can express their opinions anyway. :smile52: :smile12: :smile40: Spot on!
And this guy is laughing, but he calculated the tournament rating for clan players based solely on the non-linear component, i.e., according to my system. Although he seems to think he's against it :D. It's clear, it's a case of scratching each other's backs - clan members :) However, he supported AmberSoler, but calculated the rating in a way that is better and more convenient :)
Added 9 minutes ago VDV_forever;65124
I absolutely agree with the respected Adelaide! Today, there are already 6 ratings! I think you can choose any that suits you.
And in most of them, the non-linear part, the dependence of the rating on the number of days the leader has been playing, is supposedly taken as the basis. That is, everyone is trying to improve something, give bonuses, smooth out the results, take into account as many parameters as possible. They are already using formulas that are not just three-story, but four-story :) And this usually leads to the result - they wanted to make it better, but it turned out as always :) And therefore, Carthage must be destroyed :D
AlexeyPank
19 years ago
Auto-translated
Still, a single linear result doesn't tell us much. The fact that one player completed a map in 10 days, while another took 12, doesn't reflect the real ratio of their strength. It's one thing if these are the first and second results. It's another if they are the fifth and sixth, and a third if they are the second and fourth, and so on. Indeed, a non-linear system is simple. But this is the kind of simplicity that is worse than theft, IMHO. That's why suggestions are made to introduce additional parameters: the player's position, the number of players in the tournament, the player's rating in similar tournaments, the average rating of the tournament, etc. This is not a complication of the formula, but its addition and development. And the non-linear part itself is certainly key, but not the only determining factor.
And this one is laughing while calculating the tournament rating for clan players based solely on the non-linear component, i.e., according to my system. Although he claims that he is against it :D It’s clear – they are helping each other out, fellow clansmen :) However, he supported AmberSolera, but calculated the rating in a way that is better and more convenient :)
Take it easy! Don't draw incorrect conclusions from correct facts! Yes, I believe that the oscillator is more accurate than your system. And I calculated the rating (by the way, it's preliminary) using your system only because the “Best of the Best” tournament was already calculated using your system. I didn't change the system for calculating the tournament rating to avoid questions like: "Why does my rating in the topic "TOURNAMENT RESULTS!" show 'x', but in your table it shows 'y'?"
AmberSoler
19 years ago
Auto-translated
Iron! Maybe it's time to stop acting like a child?.. Everyone is tired of it.
I am writing here, and not in private messages, for one single purpose - stop sowing discord regarding the rating calculation. Everyone around says the same thing - the non-linear component is the basic foundation of the rating. But due to its high coarseness and rigidity, attempts are made to smooth over the rough edges using mathematics and logic. If someone doesn't quite understand how mathematics and logic work, a special thread can be created for this in the Off-topic section to practice eloquence...
If you have no constructive suggestions other than primitively "dividing one by another," it doesn't mean that none can exist at all. Keep your version of the calculation to yourself and continue working on it. No one is stopping you.
Stop arguing and trying to pit everyone against each other. It's the same thing in every thread... I hope you at least know where this Carthage is?..
Still, a single linear result doesn't say anything. The fact that one player completed a map in 10 days, and another in 12, doesn't reflect the real ratio of their strength. It's one thing if these are the first and second results. It's another if they are the fifth and sixth, and a third if they are the second and fourth, and so on. Indeed, a non-linear system is simple. But it's the kind of simplicity that is worse than theft, IMHO. That's why suggestions are made to introduce additional parameters: the player's place, the number of players in the tournament, the player's rating in similar tournaments, the average rating of the tournament, etc. This is not a complication of the formula, but its addition and development. But the non-linear part itself is certainly key, but not the only determining factor.
I absolutely disagree. Especially with the examples given. I'll repeat my example: when the first place is completed in 1 day, and the second in 1000. Which one better shows the strength? The non-linear part, DEFINITELY. And when using the linear part and bonuses, the result obtained by the non-linear part will be distorted beyond recognition :) And you've somehow twisted your example :D You're starting to compare results between 5th and 6th, between 7th and 8th place :) You're not mentioning that ALL results are compared in relation to the leader's result. Therefore, the place is absolutely irrelevant and unnecessary. The number of people is even more so. It's like with the question about the Clan: they explain very well that the number is not needed there :) But is it needed in a speed tournament? Does it matter how many people are playing in the tournament. How does it complicate the game for you?
Or, when asked about clan matters, they explain very well that the number of members isn't important. But is it needed for a speed tournament? Does it really matter how many people participate in the tournament? How does it complicate your game?
When calculating the clan rating, the number of participants in the clan does not matter. Otherwise, there is no point in calculating the rating. Just count the number of players, and that's it.
When calculating the tournament rating, the number of opponents does matter, because this factor reflects the player's strength when considering their placement.
Iron! Can you please stop acting like a child? Everyone is tired of it.
You are not my father or mother to tell me what to do, especially in that tone. So take a deep breath :). AmberSoler;65325
I am writing here, and not in private messages, solely for one reason – to stop spreading confusion regarding the rating calculation. Everyone says the same thing: the non-linear component is the basic foundation of the rating. However, due to its high degree of inaccuracy and rigidity, attempts are being made to smooth out the sharp edges using mathematics and logic. If someone doesn't quite understand how math and logic work, they can create a special topic in the Offtopic section and practice their eloquence... Stop arguing and trying to pit everyone against each other. In every topic, it’s the same thing… I hope you at least know where Carthage is located? :)
Who is "everyone"? Three people don't represent everyone. With your logic and mathematics, you are not improving but DISTORTING the non-linear part, so don't confuse others with this. It seems like you have the same things in all your posts. For example, Kyle constantly writes about no aging, and you constantly resort to personal attacks, Lobachevsky! Indeed, it was one of the forum members who wrote this to YOU, not ME: "Soler, I think someone didn't want to go over this again..." So you yourself suffer from what you try to attribute to me. And if I believe that the linear part distorts the results, then for any of your promotional posts in its favor, I will continue to give a comment that I deem necessary.
Added 2 minutes ago AmberSoler;65328
When calculating the clan rating, the number of participants in the clan does not matter. Otherwise, there is no point in calculating the rating. Just count the number of players. When calculating the tournament rating, the number of opponents does matter because this reflects the player's strength when considering their position. What is unclear?
Don't mislead people. The player's strength is shown not by the number of people they have beaten, but by their result relative to the leader in days. Is it still unclear?
Added 58 minutes ago Kyle;65307
Take it easy! Don't make incorrect conclusions from correct facts! Yes, I believe that the oscillator is more accurate than your system. And I calculated the rating (by the way, it’s preliminary) using your system only because the "Best of the Best" tournament was already calculated using your system. I didn't change the system for calculating the tournament rating to avoid questions like: "Why is my rating 'x' in the "TOURNAMENTS RESULTS!" topic and 'y' in your table?"
AmberSoler said here that I established a rating calculation system by publishing the results for BestOfBest based on three parameters. I think you are acting rashly by using the same methodology. You should have calculated it as you see fit, instead of adapting to it. Questions about why there is a different rating ("why is my rating y there and Y here or vice versa?") with many different rating calculation systems are inappropriate. Therefore, while it's not too late, recalculate the clan rating using the oscillator and don't forget about the AlexPanka coefficient. Let's see what happens, and then tell us how much effort the recalculation required. And one more time, let's see how you smooth out the rating with the linear part and bonus for outsiders. I think you will greatly please them with your improvements :)
AlexeyPank
19 years ago
Auto-translated
If you compare everyone only to the leader, the meaning of the other results is lost. If there is one player who will always outperform everyone else, what is the point of comparing only to him? I already know that I am inferior to him. But if I have outperformed someone in a tournament, or he has outperformed me, then I am much more interested in comparing myself to him, rather than to the unattainable leader. And here, the non-linear aspect will only say one thing: we are both playing worse than the leader. So what?
If everything is compared only to the leader, the meaning of the other results is lost. If there is one player who will outperform everyone anyway, what is the point of comparing only with them? I already know that I am outclassed by them. But if I outperformed someone based on the tournament results, or they outperformed me, it is much more interesting for me to compare myself to them than to an unreachable leader.
Just look at the actual calculation results for the non-linear part alone. What, can you really not compare your result with other players? I'm surprised :eek: The point is this: each player receives their rating relative to the leader's result. But nothing stops you from then visually comparing the players' ratings AMONG themselves. Moreover, these will be real results without any straightening or distortion :) If the leader finished in 10, you in 900, and someone else in 1000, will you really not see from the rating who was worth what and be unable to compare your result with the player who finished in 1000 days? Furthermore, the non-linear part will show that your rating is significantly closer to the player who took 1000 days and lags far behind the leader — everything is strictly proportional; whoever played for what, received that. And the oscillator is precisely what tries to smooth out these moments. So, what you wrote applies more to the oscillator than to the non-linear system :) Why are you confusing people?AlexeyPank;65404
And this is where the non-linear component will say only one thing: we both play worse than the leader. And so?
"And so" what? Explaining is probably useless, BUT I WILL! Yes, the non-linear result will say that you both play worse, because that's how it is. Just please do not claim that in my system you and the player who took 1000 days will have an equal rating. So don't go on about how you can only compare your result with the leader's result :) As confirmation of my words, look at the actual rating calculation results carried out using the non-linear system. Now, the linear component will start to straighten the result obtained by the non-linear system, to say what? That you play ONLY SLIGHTLY :) worse than the leader because you took 2nd and 3rd place (ha-ha three times)? Even though this contradicts the facts expressed actually in Walkthrough days? And what now?
PS. And if we now move to the next tournament, where players finish close to each other, and neither of you is there. Then a player who takes the last place in this tournament, say 10th, but trails the leader (the leader finished in 1 day) by ONLY 10 days, will receive a rating in the final table lower than or equal to YOURS! And who turns out to be the free-loader in this example? This is what you achieve by "improving" my system. This is the kind of distortion we can get from your smoothing of my sharp corners :) To hell with such improvements :)
For the first tournament, the Player who took 1000 days will get 1 point from the non-linear and 50 from the linear. Total -> oscil. = 25.5 In the second tournament, the Player in 10th (10 days vs the leader's 1 day) will get 10 from the non-linear and 0 from the linear — oh, whatever, let's say they get 5. The oscil gives 7.5. This situation clearly shows the flaw related to accounting for placement and the number of players. And you cannot remove it with any bonus! AlexPank - is this how you want players to compare their ratings among themselves? :) As for myself, I've already said where I've seen such rating comparisons. How will you explain to the player with a rating of 7.5 why a weak player's rating of 25.5 is THREE times higher than theirs, even though that player clearly plays worse? I don't even want to hear nonsense about different maps — we rely on the leaders' results and the players' personal results, even if they are on different maps.
Specifically for Kyle: The example uses two similar tournaments for the three-map set — 1st and 2nd. AlexeyPank
Indeed, the non-linear system is simple. But it is the kind of simplicity that is worse than theft, IMHO. That is why suggestions arise to introduce additional parameters: player placement, number of players in the tournament, player's rating in similar tournaments, average tournament rating, etc. This is not a complication of the formula, but its supplementation and development.
Regarding theft, look at the example — how cunningly you snatch part of the rating :) from normal players, as well as for the very last place :)AlexeyPank
And the non-linear part itself is, undoubtedly, key, but not the sole determinant.
I absolutely agree — the non-linear part cannot determine that a weak player has a higher rating than a strong player in the final rating table. Your refinements can do this with ease. And if these blunders are not clearly visible, it doesn't mean they aren't there in the real calculations :)AmberSoler
... the non-linear component is the basic foundation of the rating.
AmberSoler
If you have no constructive suggestions other than primitively "dividing one by the other",
This most primitive "dividing one by the other" was called by you above: by AlexPank as , and by you as :) Remove this part from the formula and you will be left with one big BLUNDER :) Although you've already "perfected" it so much that in your system it is neither key nor basic :) Therefore, my constructive proposal is that Carthage be destroyed :)
Kyle
19 years ago
Auto-translated
Comrade, vote, otherwise you'll lose. (I think everyone knows where this slogan comes from.)
AlexeyPank
19 years ago
Auto-translated
How do you want to compare results on DIFFERENT maps? The fact that I completed one in 1000 days and another in 10 doesn't mean I've become 100 times better at the game. The map is simply DIFFERENT. A non-linear component would be ideal if all tournaments were held on the SAME map. Then it would be clear that a player who is 10 days and 1000 days behind the leader has different scores. But this is only if the map was identical, or rather, the starting saves were identical. And if not, how do you compare them? This is where the oscillator and my bonus come in handy. We compare results on DIFFERENT maps, not on ONE.
