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 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. The map is simply DIFFERENT. Therefore, the rating for each map is unique. A non-linear system would be ideal if all Tournaments were played on the SAME map. Then it would be clear that a player who is 10 days behind the leader and another who is 1000 days behind have different scores. But this is only if the map was identical, or rather, the starting saves were identical. If not, how do you compare them? This is where the oscillator and my bonus come in handy. We are comparing results on DIFFERENT maps, not on ONE.
AlexPank - you're getting on my nerves :) If you don't understand how the comparison works in a non-linear system on different maps, that doesn't mean no one else understands it. My system was reviewed by two people at the very beginning - Prophet and VDV. And they accepted it without any oscillators or bonuses. How do you explain to me that they didn't notice the "bug" you're talking about in my system? Or do you think VDV intended to always hold all his Tournaments on the same map? :)
The leader and the acceptable limits of his completion are the starting points in my system. If YOU are 10 days behind the leader on one map, and 1000 days behind the leader in another Tournament on a different map, then you played 100 times worse than in the first Tournament and will receive a rating that corresponds to your performance. What's not clear about that?
AlexeyPank;65547
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. The map is simply DIFFERENT.
:) Look at the nonsense you're writing! Let me ask you a question in the same style:
How do you want to compare results on DIFFERENT maps ACCORDING TO YOUR OSCILLATOR AND BONUS? The fact that I finished in 1000th place on one map and 10th place on another map doesn't mean I've become 100 times better. The map is simply DIFFERENT.
You understand that it doesn't matter how many days you took to complete it and what place you took. Place is a less significant parameter than DAYS. And I'm showing you that the leader completed it in 10 days and took 1st place, and you completed it in 1000 days and took 2nd place. It's probably clear to everyone now that PLACE doesn't mean anything! The number of days to complete has a basic and key weight. And you're using a bonus and oscillator to shift the focus to the PLACE parameter. I've already told you and I'll repeat it again - I'd rather be dead than use this PLACE
AlexeyPank
19 years ago
Auto-translated
In the coffin, so in the coffin. But I will still repeat: if one player completes one map in 10 days, and ANOTHER player completes a DIFFERENT map in 100 days, it only means that the first map can actually be completed in 10 days, and the second in 100. And that's it. Regardless of the relative strength of these players. The maps are different. And until the first player completes the second map faster, we won't know that he is stronger than the second. The fact that your system was adopted with practically no discussion does not speak to its universality and excellence. Because as soon as it was put up for discussion, criticism poured in from all sides. And the position and additional bonus serve to somehow link games on DIFFERENT maps into a single rating. Because if a player consistently takes 2nd place, but on one map he is 10 days behind the leader, and on another only 1 day, it doesn't mean that he suddenly started playing 10 times better. It means that he is second, following the leader.
And any method can be used when calculating the clan rating, because we are not comparing the relative strength of each player from one clan with each player from another clan, but the strength of one clan as a whole with the strength of another clan, also as a whole.
Let it be. But I will keep repeating: if one player completes a map in 10 days, and ANOTHER player completes ANOTHER map in 100 days, it only means that the first map can be completed in 10 days, and the second in 100. That's all.
So they will each get 100 rating points :) as tournament leaders, the other players are guided by the results of the leaders of their tournament. And have you ever wondered how you will determine the rating using only the place taken and what it can show. If TWO different players take the SAME place in DIFFERENT tournaments. Does this mean that they play the SAME? Haha, three times.AlexeyPank;65806
Regardless of the relative strength of these players. The maps are different. And until the first player completes the second map faster, we will not know that he is stronger than the second.
The same applies to your system. Two different players took first place in different tournaments. The maps are different. And we will not know who is stronger until they play against each other :) When you talk nonsense about a non-linear system, at the same time project your arguments onto a linear system :)AlexeyPank;65806
The fact that your system was adopted with almost no discussion does not speak to its universality and excellence. Because as soon as it was put up for discussion, criticism poured out like water from a tap.
It's just that you, Kyle, and AmberSoler are not everyone. I already wrote to you. Exclude my part of the formula from the calculation, and you will be left with just nonsense. Didn't you get it?AlexeyPank;65806
And the place and additional bonus serve to somehow link the games on DIFFERENT maps into one rating. Because if a player consistently takes 2nd place, but on one map he is 10 days behind the leader, and on another he is one day behind, it does not mean that he suddenly started playing 10 times better. It means that he is second, following the leader.
Nonsense. If a player played and was 10 days behind the leader, and in the previous tournament he was one day behind, and although the maps are different, this means that at the moment he played 10 times worse, and the current rating will show this. And the fact that he took second place with such a result only indicates the absence of a player who could have easily overtaken him. Therefore, if there is a parameter in days, it is stupid to compare strength by PLACE.
Added 5 minutes ago AlexeyPank;65806
Because as soon as it was put up for discussion, criticism poured out like water from a tap.
Now - criticism is pouring out. There was no criticism. Everyone rushed to improve it - but why? They don't understand it themselves :) Don't use my part of the formula in the rating calculations, leave only the improvements for yourself :)
...you're really getting on my nerves... What don't you understand? Look at the nonsense you're writing... And I'll repeat it again – I've seen that PLACE in my dreams... The same goes for your system... you're talking nonsense... Remove my part of the formula from the calculation, and all that's left is a mess. Still don't get it? It's rubbish...
Strong arguments indeed. It's hard to disagree with that...
That's a strong argument. It's hard to disagree with that...
So, agree then :) It's all been written and explained, and because of some dubious coefficient, I have to explain everything again. I don't want to talk about this anymore, but I will respond to any unfounded criticism of the non-linear system. And if, after so many explanations, they still write nonsense, then I will respond in the same way. Let Path project his arguments not only onto the non-linear system but also onto the linear one, and then he will understand everything himself. And by the way, AmberSoler, when we were still having a normal discussion, you didn't point out to me that
AmberSoler
19 years ago
Auto-translated
From post to post, your texts are becoming increasingly rude and aggressive. I don't even want to read them, let alone respond. I won't stoop to your level. Even if you disagree with your opponent, you should still show some respect. At least a little.
Let's return to the discussion after at least ten tournaments in the 3v3 format have been completed... Until then, please spare me your ideas about the ranking system. There is a high probability that you will abandon this idea before you receive any confirmation of the correctness of your position. Right now, it's all pointless.
Your posts are becoming increasingly rude and aggressive. I don't even want to read them, let alone respond. I won't stoop to your level. Even if you disagree with your opponent, you should still show some respect. At least a little.
That's right, but nerves aren't made of steel, and repeating the same thing over and over again is exhausting. Moreover, the opponent's arguments are only projected onto a non-linear system and not considered in a linear system. AmberSoler;65896
Let's return to the discussion after at least ten tournaments for the 3-player mode have been completed... Until then, spare me your ideas about the ranking.
That's your tactic – to avoid uncomfortable questions. I looked through your posts and found my rough arguments – but did you see any normal explanations in between the lines? :) You, by the way, were the first to send me posts with personal attacks. AmberSoler;65896
Until then, spare me your ideas about the ranking.
Then you shouldn't have jumped in right away. AmberSoler;65896
There is a high probability that you will abandon this idea before you get any confirmation of the correctness of your position. Right now, it's all pointless.
Then what are you doing participating in all these discussions? So, you're sure that I'll abandon the ranking idea for the 3-player mode, but the ideas about the clan ranking won't be abandoned, and AlexPank won't abandon his coefficient? We'll see. Let everyone do what they want and think as they please, but just leave the non-linear aspect and me alone
AlexeyPank
19 years ago
Auto-translated
No one is suggesting that the non-linear component should be the sole, primary, but not the only part of the ranking system! People are objecting to its use as the *only* component! The linear component itself has its own flaws. The non-linear component has its own, and my bonus system has its own. But all together, they provide an opportunity to achieve an acceptable result. No one is suggesting abandoning the non-linear system in favor of the linear system or the bonus system. The point is that they need to be combined. And you are demanding that everyone acknowledge that your system is perfect.
No one is touching the non-linear component as one, main, but not the only part of the rating! They are against using it as the ONLY one! The linear component itself has its own flaws. The non-linear one has its own, and my bonus has its own. But all together, this makes it possible to get an acceptable result. No one is talking about abandoning the non-linear system in favor of the linear one, or in favor of the bonus one. The point is that they need to be combined. And you demand that everyone recognize that your system is perfect.
I showed real flaws that the linear part of the formula introduces, and this was already visible in real calculations. My system did not suffer from this. I asked to provide an example where a purely non-linear system would have a flaw, and the oscillator would bypass it. No such example was provided. With the bonus, it's generally unclear. According to AmberSolera, something was wrong there, but since it doesn't significantly change the rating, it's okay. I don't like the bonus just because it won't be possible to calculate the rating for my player on another resource, in another tournament. And I don't like that. But otherwise, I don't care about the bonus – it doesn't have a big impact. I am much more against the linear component, which, due to the occupied place, greatly distorts the result in days. If the leader completes it in 10, and the second place in 1000, then I don't consider this second place for the PLACE. The example is exaggerated, but it shows the essence of your flaw. Yes, take another C+, I feel sorry, or what? :)
AlexeyPank
19 years ago
Auto-translated
Alright, we'll see how it goes. Let's hold at least 5 more tournaments, and then we'll take a look. Maybe I'll find a formula for geometric progression that applies to clans.
Alright, we'll see how it goes. Let's hold at least 5 more tournaments, and then we'll take a look. Maybe I'll find a formula for geometric progression for the clans.
I'm even sure that clans need some kind of bonus coefficient, and I've already written that it should encourage the participation of a large number of clan members in the tournament. However, it would be good to have purely objective results for each player in the tournament, without any distortions or bonuses. AmberSoler's formula for clans is optimal. However, I think that the situation with fake missing saves for three or more players is quite possible.
AlexeyPank
19 years ago
Auto-translated
Here's a proposed system for calculating clan ratings. The clan rating (Rklan) consists of two components:
1. A non-linear component: Rnel = ∑R(n), where R(n) is the rating of each clan member according to a non-linear system.
2. A linear component: Rlin = ∑M(n), where M(n) is the number of points each member receives for their placement in a tournament. M(n) is calculated using a geometric progression (this is done to ensure that the gap between stronger players who place higher is significant. This allows small but strong clans to achieve high ratings). So, M(n) = M(n+1) * q, where q is the progression multiplier. M(n)min = 1, q = 2. The maximum number of points for first place is limited by the number of participants, but only those belonging to clans (i.e., if players not belonging to clans participate in the tournament, their placement is not counted as an existing one). The progression multiplier is chosen as 2, as the minimum value that yields whole numbers.
Rklan = (Rnel + Rlin) / 2 This will allow strong players to easily outperform "noobs," as the rating of one strong player exceeds the sum of the ratings of all lower-ranked players.
This is just a rough draft, and I look forward to receiving constructive criticism.
Here, I suggest the following rating calculation system for clans. Thus, the clan rating (Rklan) consists of two components: 1 - Non-linear component Rnel=∑R(n), where R(n) is the rating of each clan member according to the non-linear system. 2 - Linear component Rlin=∑M(n), where M(n) is the number of points received by each for their place in a tournament. M(n) is calculated via a geometric progression (this is done so that the gap created by stronger players who took higher places is significant. This allows small but strong clans to occupy high places in the rating). Thus, M(n)=M(n+1)*q, where q is the progression multiplier. M(n)min=1, q=2. The maximum number of points for first place is limited by the number of participants, but only those belonging to clans (i.e., if players not belonging to clans participate in the tournament, their place is not counted as existing). The progression multiplier is chosen as 2 as the minimum that yields integer results. Rklan=(Rnel+Rlin)/2 This will allow strong players to easily outperform the "Chinese," since the rating of one strong player exceeds the sum of the ratings of all those below. All this is a rough draft; I await crushing criticism.
:) I can't say anything bad yet. We need Kyle to recalculate the rating for all clans again, just to see in reality what the results will be; maybe this time they won't forget to include me in the preliminary calculation :)
PS. I read the thread "Order of the Phoenix challenges to a fight" and came across an interesting post by AmberSolera:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for "place or days," it's more customary to consider the place, of course. But it depends on other "outside" participants. Well, for example, I trailed you by only 2 days. But 30 people jumped in between us... So, compare our places? While at the same time you trail the leader by 10 days, but in terms of places, you are right behind him... An imbalance occurs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Draw your own conclusions regarding the non-linear and linear parts of the formula for calculating the personal player rating :) The conclusion was made by AmberSolera himself, however, for some reason, he forgot it in the discussion about personal player ratings, even though I was talking about exactly this flaw that the linear part of the formula introduces into the non-linear one :)
And as a result, we see that for this type of Competitive event, they decided to determine the winner by the minimum sum of Walkthrough days without considering places. And in the clan rating, Kyle performed the recalculation once more, but still did not use the oscillator and the bonus coefficient. I personally consider these decisions correct. Further comments on this matter are apparently redundant. AmberSoler;66326
At that moment, the conversation was not about player ratings. Therefore, there was no other method of evaluation at all. Players did not have a rating as an asset per se. And how else to compare six results with each other if the results of other players were not taken into account by definition?
So what? The conversation was about how to determine the results of several players and your speech was about how the places held create an imbalance, therefore they decided to count by days spent on the Walkthrough and that is sufficient :)AmberSoler;66326
I hear a bell, but I don't know where it is... A good saying and very appropriate in this case... And our logic hasn't started improving yet... :)
And that's where I see that you hear the bell but don't know where it is. You admitted it yourself honestly :) And your logic hasn't started improving either :)Kyle
Secondly, I have already explained to you here why the clan rating was calculated according to your system. Further discussion in this thread will be considered off-topic and deleted
Dear Kyle, I do not intend to argue with you further and even less to off-topic. I only want to know from you why you calculate the PRELIMINARY rating for clans using a formula that is knowingly disapproved of by you, because the Best Of Best rating was posted on the 3rd. You said that the official version would be calculated from the beginning of this year and old tournaments would not count. What then is this preliminary rating for? How do you intend to calculate the official version? Please explain to everyone, because it is not clear. Will you calculate it the same as the preliminary one or differently? Will you preliminarily test the NEW coefficient proposed by AlexPank and the oscillator in the calculations? If YES, then why do you and we need preliminary calculations for clans based only on the non-linear formula? That is what interests me, and probably other players as well.
.... I just want to know why you are calculating a PRELIMINARY rating for Clans using a formula that you yourself disapprove of, especially since the Best Of Best ranking was published based on previous results. You said that the official version would be calculated from the beginning of this year and that old Tournaments wouldn't count towards it. So what is the purpose of this preliminary rating?
IronAxe;66302
...why do you and we need preliminary calculations for Clans only using a non-linear formula?
As I already wrote here, the preliminary rating was calculated for discussion! Moreover, the discussion was specifically about the Clan rating, not the Tournament rating! If I had calculated it using different systems, I am 100% sure that we would have been discussing the Tournament rating instead of the Clan rating! (although there were still attempts to do so) IronAxe;66302
How are you going to calculate the official version? Please explain to everyone because it’s unclear. Will you calculate it in the same way as the preliminary one or differently? Will you preliminarily test the NEW coefficient proposed by AlexPank and the oscillator in the calculations? .... This is what interests me, and probably other players too.
The Clan rating will be calculated based on the Tournament rating. And as far as I know, there are currently three different calculation methods, which means there will be three different versions of the Clan rating. At the end of the year, we will all look at them together and discuss which option is the most accurate.
So what? The conversation was about how to determine the results of several players, and you were talking about how the positions taken create an imbalance, so you decided to count by the number of days spent on completing the game, and that's enough.
Hey, is anyone home? :) Otherwise, I don't see the point in the dialogue when you don't read what I write...
At that specific moment, the results of six players were being considered against each other. All other results – for example, yours – were irrelevant and interfered. We were playing against each other. A duel: clan against clan. And only six numbers mattered – the results of the players mentioned in that post. And to prevent any extraneous results from creating interference (imbalance), it was decided to remove them from the analysis.
You, on the other hand, are referring to the ranking, which takes into account the results of ALL players who participated in the tournament... In this case, the imbalance would be not taking into account the results of the others...
Therefore, there is a clear case of a change of concepts, caused by your misunderstanding of the situation that developed at that moment and was being discussed between the participants in the clan confrontation. Moreover, this was a private decision within the framework of one private tournament. And this does not mean that this approach should be applied to everyone...
I also noticed something else. Quite a long time has passed since the end of our debate. I deliberately refrain from commenting on the ranking calculation except when you ask me questions, posting excerpts from my posts on another occasion. Nevertheless, you continue to look for justification for your method, apparently realizing its inadequacy. If you were completely confident in its validity, I think you would have stopped looking for justifications a long time ago... :D But the fact remains! IronAxe;66302
That's why I see that you hear the bell, but you don't know where it is. You yourself honestly admitted it :) And your logic is not getting any better :)
To be honest, I was convinced that you would not use this childish trick of shifting the blame in a conversation, turning the opponent's words 180 degrees without changing the essence... Alas! It's getting worse and worse...
P.s. Dear IronAxe, I ask you in the future not to comment on my words, taking them out of context of any conversations in the past, due to the inability (confirmation - above) to understand their meaning. (This is not a personal attack! - I anticipate the statement - I am simply stating a fact). I do not have the time or desire to explain again what exactly I wanted to convey with my words in a particular situation. Those who participated in that conversation understood everything. You did not participate - what is the point of you getting involved? It was a private conversation between the participants in the clan duel, and my words did not apply to you... Right? ;)
If you write a reply, read it several times. Otherwise, there will be statements like "you are avoiding the conversation," "you do not want to prove your point," "you do not see the mistakes that I have shown you"... And so on. You are already too predictable.
P.p.s. If you do not answer this post of mine, I will be grateful to you... I'm tired of the spam.
