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.
How many players should be considered when calculating the clan rating?
28
voters
Single choice
Public votes
This poll is closed.
Take into account the result (or absence) from Tournaments for all members of the Clan who participated in this version of Heroes.
21.4%6 votes
Take into account the results of Tournaments among a specific number of participants.
32.1%9 votes
Take into account the results of Tournaments for all players who participated in the Tournament; that is, do not assign a score of zero for missing a tournament.
If players exchange game tactics and tricks and apply them in practice, then this is only worthy of respect. That's what Clans are for. And the portal will only benefit from this. That's what I think...
In other words, prohibiting the discussion of a tournament Walkthrough during its course will not prevent Clans members from exchanging ideas about the Walkthrough if the other side does not object. Okay, these are not my problems. Let everyone decide for themselves and choose what suits them. I voted for your option because it is more acceptable than the first. But the question remains - let's say there is a limit of three players. And only two played. Why not take the arithmetic mean of the two, and if three played, then take it from three when calculating? Okay, I don't want to go into details - I will play for my rating, if this is good for the Clan, then so be it.
Added 15 minutes ago AmberSoler;65517
But forging a save is a lie - it's dishonesty. If you doubt it, check it. This is not prohibited.
I agree with everything you wrote. But what if a monster, or not a monster, completes a map once and then suddenly decides to improve and replays it much better. Doesn't he care what the leader will do with his previous reconnaissance Walkthrough? Well, he will find a suitable player for this result who is not participating, he will ask him - throw this save into the final - we don't want a ZERO for the absent player. Who will go against the leader and the interests of the Clan, and also get a free rating? This option is not excluded, although the chance of it may be small. It will be impossible to catch such a substitution and check it, in my opinion, although I may not understand something. This will require comparing the saves at the end of each day between these players. We need to come up with an appropriate punishment for the Clan and the players if someone is caught. And what if the replay was from the very first day?
PS. Just now, the names of the voters were visible under the voting bars. Where did they go? Why did the voting status suddenly change to a closed type?!
PS. I forgot to comment on the third option. If the arithmetic mean of the players is not taken there, then AmberSoler is right - there may be situations where numerous Clans can take advantage and win by quantity - like the Chinese throwing hats! :) And if you take into account the arithmetic mean, weak players are at risk of being eliminated from the Clan.
Therefore, I consider AmberSoler's option to be the most optimal. There is a point in developing it when there are not enough players to make three. There is a choice when there are more than needed. There is an incentive for Clan members to compete so that it is precisely his result that is chosen to calculate the Clan rating.
CrasH
Auto-translated
To be honest, I didn't really want to suggest any particular system... I just wanted to challenge the idea that the number of players listed in the ranking should be counted... Then you could simply remove all the entries... But why???
Added 3 minutes later By the way... I wanted to vote for #2 and #3... I checked the box for #2, then for #3, and voted... I didn't even notice that the first one was deselected... I don't care which of them it is, as long as it's not the first one =).
Лишь в споре рождается истина!!!
AlexeyPank
Auto-translated
I don't understand why I was listed as a co-author of the first option. I never suggested penalizing for missing a tournament, neither in the individual standings nor even more so in the clan ones. I believe that the results of everyone who played should be taken into account, but at the same time, we shouldn't make a tragedy out of the fact that more people from some particular clan played. Anyone interested will simply look at the results and see that such-and-such clan is in first place only because of the number of players, while another one is truly strong because its representatives took the top two spots. All of this can easily be displayed in the Clan Rating. As for lowering one's own rating—how do you imagine that working? Purposely lose a couple of tournaments, fall into a negative bonus, and then win a tournament where no one wanted to participate to get your legitimate zero? Too many things would have to be taken into account, including the desire of specific players to play in a specific tournament.
Regarding artificially lowering your rating – how do you envision that working? Intentionally lose a couple of tournaments, get a negative bonus, and then win a tournament where no one wants to participate, thus regaining your rightful zero rating? There are too many factors to consider, including the desire of specific players to participate in a particular tournament.
Alex, let's go back a bit to our conversation about bonuses. Remember my example, where a player with a zero rating could gain 2,500 points in a single tournament, while the rest would be stuck around a hundred...
Iron specifically recalled this scenario, and if we don't see it as a problem, then a particularly "gifted" player, without breaking the rules, could lower their rating by skipping a couple of tournaments due to the aging system... And then, their brilliant performance would raise them to an unreachable height... The difficulty lies in the fact that a conscientious player, who is actually a strong player but, for objective reasons, cannot play frequently, could end up in a similar awkward situation. And from the outside, it would look exactly the same... So, that's why we're having this conversation – it's better not to create such scenarios in the first place.
I've made a few adjustments to the formula, adding another element. Now it looks like B = (R(i) - M(i))/N * (SQUARE ROOT of K), where K is the average tournament coefficient. This significantly reduces the possibility of errors. And there's simply no aging system in my system, so skipping a tournament can only lower the rating if other players surpass you in their total rating. Plus, it's necessary that in the tournament where this player participates, their rating (specifically in that tournament, among all players who submitted saves) is the lowest. You'll agree, that's too many conditions.
To be honest, I didn't really want to suggest any particular system... I just wanted to challenge the idea that the ranking should consider the declared players... Then you could simply remove all the declarations... But why??? Added 3 minutes ago By the way, I wanted to vote for #2 and #3... I checked the box for #2, then for #3, and voted... I didn't even notice that the first one was unchecked... I don't care which of them it is, as long as it's not the first one =)
I basically agree with that. But option #2 is a little more optimal. If option #3 passes, then you need to calculate the arithmetic mean from the calculated ratings of the clan's players. What will happen to the weak players? Saving drowning people is the responsibility of the drowning people themselves - they should have voted - AmberSoler explained this clearly. But it seems they are hoping that the arithmetic mean will not be used, and then the "Chinese" will show who is who :) As for the arithmetic mean option, nothing prevents the Outcasts from creating their own clan and calling it "The Outcasts" :)
Added 15 minutes ago AlexeyPank;65551
I've slightly modified that formula, adding one more element to it. Now it looks like this: B = (R(i) - M(i))/N * (SQUARE ROOT of K), where K is the average tournament coefficient. This reduces the possibility of errors by an order of magnitude. And there is simply no aging in my system, so you can only lower the rating by skipping a tournament if other players surpass you in their total rating. Plus, it is necessary that in the tournament in which this player participates, his rating (specifically in this tournament, among all those who submitted saves) is the lowest. You have to agree, that's too many conditions.
Oh, come on, you fixed it :), is that even a formula, it's so small, where are the logarithms? tangents? catenaries? You need to refine it further. I'm curious, besides AmberSoler, how many people understood the amazing effect of this formula :) And what to expect from it during calculations. I'll repeat once more. Using my system, I can easily calculate a rating for our player even if he played on a different map, with a different resource, with a different set of players who don't even have a rating. I suggest a compromise for the last time :) 1. Speed, experience, resources, and unit tournaments should only be calculated using a non-linear system. (The main parameter here is the quantity). No coefficients should be used. 2. The arena should only be calculated using a linear system. (The main parameter here is the PLACE). Coefficients are at AmberSoler's discretion. 3. These ratings should be considered equivalent and allowed to be added together for players.
Otherwise, you understand, Carthage must be destroyed :)
AmberSoler
Auto-translated
Out of the 12 who voted, only 5 explained their position. The rest voted without comment. Therefore, the question is – why were the usernames of the voters removed from the voting table? By the way, only one player (AlexeyPank) voted FOR the third option, and yet it is in the lead... I ask that you identify those who are lobbying for it. :) This is not a secret ballot.
2 Kyle. I would like to hear your position on this issue.
You are the author and the driving force behind this topic. The ball is in your court.
Added 9 minutes later
AlexeyPank;65544
Anyone who wants to can simply look at the results and see that a certain clan is in first place only because of the number of players, while another clan is truly strong because its members took the first two places. This can easily be displayed in the clan ranking.
Are you talking about the ranking? It seems to me that you are only talking about statistics – how many people participated, how many didn't, who took what place, etc...
Your words:
and some [clan] is truly strong
So this very clan should be leading in the strength ranking. Isn't that right? Your option does not provide for this.
Therefore, the question is - why were the usernames of those who voted removed from the voting table?
I don't know, maybe it's a bug... but the funny thing is that I can see everything... Currently, the votes are: For the first option: DarkMavr, Kyle, Night For the second option: AmberSoler, IronAxe, Ta Kotoraya For the third option: Agilist, AlexeyPank, Аделаида, CrasH, vbn, Джомалунга
I don't know, maybe it's a bug... but the funny thing is, I can see everything... So far, the votes are: For the first option: DarkMavr, Kyle, Night For the second option: AmberSoler, IronAxe, Ta Kotoraya For the third option: Agilist, AlexeyPank, Аделаида, CrasH, vbn, Джомалунга
Ok, thank you. Do we have a list of Clans for today, or are they still in development?
AlexeyPank is there a [clan] that is actually strong?
So, this particular clan should be at the top of the power ranking. Isn't that right? Your option doesn't account for that.AmberSoler, calm down, the nine-story formula for the coefficient, which corrects the flaw in version three, is already in the works, and AlexPank will publish it soon.
Out of the 12 who voted, only 5 explained their position. The rest voted without comment.
I commented on my choice, but not in this thread... We discussed and argued this issue quite actively within the clan – I'll move my post here now...
Added 25 minutes later Here it is...
I voted for the second option, as it seems the most optimal. Our clan is large, and there will be plenty to choose from when playing many versions... I don't see the point or benefit in considering everyone, as many clan members are, let's say, in the training and learning stage, and the results may vary greatly.
Also, I'll add that, as a rather large clan, the third option would also be beneficial for us, but the second option seems fairer to me – otherwise, we might end up being those very "Chinese" players ;) In my opinion, that's not right.... Although, as I see, my clanmates are currently voting for this option (No. 3). In general, the main thing is that it's not option No. 1 – otherwise, I'm not against it....
Если тебе не везёт в жизни, - играй в какую-нибудь другую игру:rolleyes: Лидер клана "Из многих единое" Приключения – это сплошные неприятности, только про них почему-то потом интересно вспоминать...
Plus, I'll add that as a fairly numerous clan, the 3rd option is also beneficial to us—but the 2nd seems fairer to me—otherwise we might actually end up being those "Chinese" ;) In my IMHO, this isn't right.... Although, as I see, my clanmates are currently voting for exactly this option (№3). Anyway, the main thing is that it's not option №1—as for the rest, I don't mind....
No, well if everyone is counted according to the third option, we should at least calculate the arithmetic mean. Otherwise, it turns into who knows what—some kind of nonsense :) And how do your clanmates argue that they prefer the third option? I still think it will lead not only to fake saves, but also to fake players. We'll be like on hirpor :) hunting for doubles! Do we really need that?
Well here it is... please. Plus I'll add that, as a sufficiently numerous clan, the 3rd option is also beneficial to us...
I will quote how the third option sounds:
Take into account the results of tournaments for everyone who played in the tournament
I draw your attention to the fact that there is not a word there about HOW to take into account the results of all players. After all, the conversation is most likely about an arithmetic mean, and not a "Chinese" sum of all results... :) And in this case, the third option is oh so NOT interesting for your numerous clan... For our clan, it is more beneficial (compared to yours, for example). But we strive for prudence. If the players still decide to calculate according to the third option - I will not argue :) But I won't think for others either. And thank you for your civic position. The right position. :)
