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.
46.4%13 votes
VDV_forever
19 years ago
Auto-translated
Kyle;64557
P.S. I would be very grateful to those who teach me how to draw a table in a post... for example, like here.
Topic: HTML from simple to complex!
In this topic, I fully described drawing tables, basic tags, and more. /topic/1407/ I think you will find everything that interests you there.;)
Voted for option #2 because I believe that the results of the best players should be taken into account. IMHO. The number of participants must be agreed upon individually for each specific tournament.
Let me quote how the third option sounds: ... I would like to draw your attention to the fact that there is not a word there about HOW to account for the results of all players. After all, we are most likely talking about the arithmetic mean, and not some "Chinese" sum of all results... :)
CrasH
That is exactly how you understood me correctly!!! =) Of course, I didn't want to just sum up the ratings of all the clan players )))
--- 1) Cumulative rating: AllRating_new = AllRating_old + (P1 + P2 +...Pn) where: AllRating_new is the rating after the tournament; AllRating_old is the rating before the tournament; P1, P2,...Pn are the ratings of players participating in the tournament. i.e. the larger the clan and the more often it participates in tournaments, the higher the rating. --- AmberSoler and CrasH, what do you mean "not stated how it will be accounted for"?! Kyle's formulas were published a long time ago. Look at the "Chinese" formula above :) Where does it say anything about the arithmetic mean? Huh?
--- 2) Average rating: MeanRating = AllRating_new/N where: MeanRating is the average rating; N is the number of clan members nominated in this version of heroes (Thanks to AlexeyPank) i.e. the presence of "dead souls" in the clan is discouraged. --- Aha, thanks :) Here the Chinese are finally backing down! Note that the average rating here is calculated not by the number of participants from the clan, but by ALL clan members nominated in this version of heroes—those who played and those who didn't. But just because a person didn't play doesn't mean they've died :) What "dead souls" are we talking about? My aging by 10% compared to what's here is just child's play :)
My opinion is that ONE formula is needed instead of these two! AllRating_new1 = AllRating_old + (P1 + P2 +...Pn)/N where N is the number of participants from the clan who ACTUALLY took part in the tournament for this version of heroes. In this form of the formula, if anyone feels like it, they can add the zeros of those who missed it too :)
Moreover, it will work regardless of whether option 2 or 3 is adopted. The first one definitely doesn't pass. Kyle cleverly split the voting into three points, although many here understand that points 2 and 3 are almost the same; in option 2, only the number of P is limited. Combine these two points into one, and it's immediately obvious that option 1 is out the window :)
However, there is one big downside to this formula. Weak players, even if they aren't kicked out of the clan, will simply be afraid to play in tournaments and send their results, fearing they will ruin the clan rating earned by the clan's strong players in the tournament! Therefore, I suggest keeping the Chinese formula as well: AllRating_new2 = AllRating_old + (P1 + P2 +...Pn)
AllRating_new1 - average power of the clan for the version of heroes AllRating_new2 - total power of the clan for the version of heroes
If anyone wants to think about how to combine the two parts and calculate the GENERAL clan rating, then this is perhaps where we should talk about the oscillator and AlexPank's coefficients. The refinement should be aimed at encouraging mass participation in tournaments from the clan. That is, the more people from the clan come to the tournament, the larger the bonus they should receive for their clan GENERAL rating! The bonus should be reasonable. Perhaps this is exactly where AlexPank's clever bonus will work. AmberSoler and AlexPank—this is your chance to shine :) Just don't distort the personal ratings of players, which they receive via the non-linear system :)
For example: General = ( AllRating_new1 + AllRating_new2 ) / 2 Will this be very skewed or not? I would like to hear AmberSoler's opinion on this. My thinking is this: a small, strong clan will have a good average power, but the total might turn out to be less than that of a large clan, if the latter shows corresponding activity. However, a large clan might have a low average power due to the inconsistency of their players. What will the oscillator show? It seems to me that this is exactly where it will work. :) It actually works everywhere, doing what it's supposed to do, BUT it's not logically justified everywhere. I'm curious—in this case—is it justified or not?
--- 3) Clan Activity: ActivityRating = (ActivityTournament *100)/AllTournament Where ActivityRating is the clan activity (measured in percent... --- Let AmberSoler comment on the third formula, I'm lost already :)
That is, the same "Chinese" sum, which depends only on the number of participants. This is not an oscillator because it only takes into account one parameter - the sum of the ratings of all players. An oscillator should have at least two independent parameters. :)
I wouldn't rush into delving into the mathematical intricacies of these calculations just yet. There have been enough battles in calculating the individual rating. We don't need to create another mess here. I've expressed my opinion:
AllRating_new = AllRating_old + (P1 + P2 + P3)/3, where P1-P3 is the tournament rating of the three best players in the Clans in this tournament (not to be confused with the current rating).
Of course, we can discuss the question - why three, and not two or five? I'll say this: given the average number of players in Clans, in my opinion, this is the optimal number of results to be taken into account. If there are ten players in Clans, then it can be increased to 5-7. But for now, more than three is pointless, because not all Clans will be able to field three players in a game...
An oscillator can be tied in. But why? Balancing the Clans rating is more complex than the individual rating - due to the larger number of significant factors... And if the oscillator caused "complaints" in the relatively simple individual rating, then here we will simply get bogged down. I don't need that.
AlexeyPank
19 years ago
Auto-translated
They rejected my formula again because of its apparent complexity :(. Oh well. If we're talking about calculating the clan rating, I think that the results of everyone who played should be taken into account. Otherwise, there really won't be a place for the weak. But if we take everyone into account, we need to abandon both the simple sum (which disadvantages the Chinese) and the average value (which disadvantages the young and inexperienced). Therefore, we need to find a compromise, but not one that gives an advantage to one system or another, but one that takes both into account and is itself a third parameter. Therefore, I propose the following parameters: 1 - The sum of the rating of all players, using any of the three systems, the important thing is that it is the same for everyone. 2 - The sum of points for the PLACE in the tournament. Here, we need to calculate such coefficients so that the few who take the first places do not lose out to the numerous outsiders. (roughly, it should look like this: 1st place - 100 points, 2nd place - 90 points, 3rd place - 70 points... 10th place - 5 points) Something like a linear component of an oscillator, but with a decreasing coefficient. I'm still thinking about it. And then create an oscillator based on these two parameters.
AllRating_new = AllRating_old + (P1 + P2 +P3)/3, where P1-P3 is the tournament rating of the three best players in the clan in this tournament (not to be confused with the current rating).
I don't mind. It's simple and convenient. That's how it should be.
AmberSoler;65753
Of course, we can discuss the question - why three, and not two or five? I'll say this: given the average number of players in clans, in my opinion, this is the optimal number of results to be counted.
No need to discuss why three. Three is enough :) It's the optimal number.
Added 4 minutes ago AlexeyPank;65804
You've dismissed my formula again because of its apparent complexity :(. Well, okay.
Perhaps your formula is correct and gives the correct bonus. But the value of this bonus seems to be so small that is it worth doing such calculations?
Added 11 minutes ago AlexeyPank;65804
If we are talking about calculating the clan rating, I think that the results of everyone who played should be taken into account. Otherwise, there will really be no place for the weak. But if we take everyone into account, we need to abandon both the simple sum (not for the Chinese) and the average value (to give young and inexperienced players an advantage). Therefore, we need to find a compromise, but not one that gives an advantage to one or another system, but one that takes both into account, but is itself a third parameter.
Or maybe we should just calculate two ratings for each clan. One according to AmberSoler's formula - this is the average strength of the clan based on three players. And the total strength of the clan - where we simply use the sum of the results of all players in the clan in the tournament. It will probably be difficult to create a general rating that reflects the real state of affairs. Well, unless you can take everything into account, then that would be good.
Here, it turns out that AmberSoler's formula will not take into account the results of many players, and this reduces their interest. And if we calculate based on everyone, then we get the situations described by AmberSoler.
AlexeyPank
19 years ago
Auto-translated
Damn, does anyone remember how progression is calculated (arithmetic or geometric)? I keep thinking about the decreasing (or conversely, increasing) coefficient for accounting for the player's place. I believe that personal rating is one thing, and the rating a player brings to their clan is something else. If the first parameter consists of the sum of ratings of all clan members, then the second consists of the sum of ratings for places. Then calculate it with an oscillator. But here we must consider that the rating for places should have a decreasing (or increasing, depending on where you count from) coefficient. For example: Last place brings X points = rating by the first parameter. Penultimate place brings X+K points, where K is this coefficient. First place brings X+K, but here K is already different, as it is increasing. All that's left is to understand how it should grow. That's exactly where progression is needed. But can anyone tell me how it's calculated?
Made adjustments based on the survey. That is, the file contains three pages with the titles: "Total #1", "Total #2", and "Total #3" for each option. For option #1, I took into account the wishes of the esteemed Adelaide. For option #2, the ranking was calculated based on the top 3 participants; if there were not enough participants, the ranking was not calculated. Please evaluate!
I've made some changes to the first post: Best regards.
Well, I also looked at the table. And why wasn't I included? I joined the Haven clan as soon as I saw that you started testing the clan rankings. I think it's still possible to include players who joined clans, as you are calculating based on past matches, and it hasn't fully stabilized yet!
Аделаида
19 years ago
Auto-translated
After carefully analyzing the rankings, I came to the conclusion that the second option is more objective (the option that takes into account the results of the 3 best players). Here are the obvious advantages of this option:
1. Relatively weak players will not be afraid to participate in the tournament and lower the clan's rating. (i.e., this option will not affect clan activity in any way)
2. Weak players will have an incentive to learn in order to be among the top three.
3. Clans that do not have 3 representatives for a particular version will have an incentive to invite strong players, or (preferably) to develop their own champions (which, in my opinion, is the most important task for all clans).
AlexeyPank
19 years ago
Auto-translated
Well, I don't know. The idea of counting only if there are three participants, in my opinion, isn't very good. There would be too few people to consider then. Developing champions is good, but not everyone will want to play certain versions. And inviting people just to boost the rating seems a bit mercenary. Clans are also for communication among like-minded people. IMHO.
Well, I looked at the table too. And why wasn't I counted? I joined the Haven clan as soon as I saw that they started trial calculations for clan ratings. I think it is still possible to include players who have joined clans, since you are calculating based on past games and things haven't fully settled yet!
When you played the tournaments used for the calculation, you were not a member of a clan. If you complete the first stage of the VK tournament, your result (for this specific tournament) will be credited to the clan's assets.
Respectfully.
Added after 2 hours 48 minutes Аделаида;66102
Having carefully analyzed the ratings, I have come to the conclusion that the second option is still more objective (the option taking into account the results of the 3 best players).....
i.e., you are casting your vote for the second point. Ok. We will take it into account.
After carefully analyzing the ratings, I came to the conclusion that the second option is still more objective (the option that takes into account the results of the 3 best players). I will list the obvious advantages of this option: 1. Relatively weak players will not be afraid to participate in the tournament, as they may lower the clan's rating. (i.e., this option will not affect clan activity in any way) 2. Weak players will have an incentive to learn in order to be among the "best" three. 3. Clans that do not have 3 representatives in a particular version will have an incentive to invite strong players, or (preferably) to develop their own champions (which, in my opinion, is the most important task for all clans).
I wrote about these positive aspects a little earlier. But there is one negative aspect. If desired, it is possible to create a fake player for the clan.
Added 3 minutes ago AlexeyPank;66103
Well, I don't know. The option of counting only if there are three participants, in my opinion, is not very good. There will be too few people to count then. Developing champions is good, but not everyone will want to play in any of the versions. And inviting people to bring in ratings is somehow mercenary. Clans are also for communicating with like-minded people. IMHO.
This is another drawback. But still, there is no better option yet. Either we need to count several ratings per clan (average of three, count all, average of participants) or wait for your formula.
Added 20 minutes ago Kyle;66118
When you played in the tournaments for which the calculation was made, you were not a member of a clan. If you pass the first stage of the ВК tournament, your result (for this tournament) will be counted towards the clan's score.
This is not even funny :) --------------- List of registered clans on HeroesWorld: Name Leader Date of creation Date of registration "Dark Templars" - "Dark Templars" Supreme 16.09.06 17.09.06 "Soulkeepers" - "Soulkeepers" ***JOKER*** 21.09.06 23.09.06 "E pluribus unum" – "From many, one" CTPAHHuK 17.09.06 27.09.06 "Haven" - "Alliance of light" Inquisitor 23.08.06 24.10.06 Clan "Order of the Phoenix" - "Order of the Phoenix" Qwerty 07.11.06 07.11.06 Clan "Announcers of fate" - "Announcers of fate" Джомалунга 07.11.06 14.11.06 Clan "League of Tournament Soldiers" - "League of Tournament Soldiers" Prorock 15.11.06 19.11.06 Clan "Homo homini" - "Homo homini" AlexeyPank 05.01.07 15.01.07 -------------------------------------------------
Look at the date of clan registration! The tournament for the fifth version ended on 10.08.2006. There were no clans at all at that time. Nevertheless, the players' rating is counted in the clan result, and me and the Haven clan are being ignored. Dear Kyle, can you provide a report on who and when joined the clan and compare this with the dates of the corresponding tournaments?! The work you did is unlikely to have been carried out, but you figured out how to brush me off :) Since the rating is calculated preliminarily, and by the time of the second recalculation, I managed to join the clan, I believe that my rating should also be included. You should make a SEPARATE announcement about when old players will no longer be taken into account for the rating recalculation. Then there will be no questions. But I did join. And I ask you to recalculate the rating for the Haven clan.
Dear Kyle, please add IronAxe to the Alliance of Light clan ranking. Otherwise, you need to remove everyone from the ranking who participated in competitions outside of the clan.
Kyle
19 years ago
Auto-translated
to IronAxe and Inquisitor: I can fulfill your request, of course, but I don't want to. Why? Here is my answer: This rating is preliminary. That is, I just wanted to show and discuss how the rating will be calculated in order to choose the best calculation method. This version cannot be called a "Real Clan Rating" because you can find a thousand and one inaccuracies here! Let's say I add IronAxe's data! Then the leader of the clan "XXX" will ask me to add the data of a new member, etc., and what's the point of all this? I want to start keeping track of the clan rating starting next year! Only one doubles tournament has taken place this year! I do not want to include the skeletons gathering triples tournament for obvious reasons (I think Alan and the participants will understand me). I also don’t think that the four-player tournament should be included, as it is not an official, but a training tournament (I hope ZveroBoy and the participants will also understand me). The first stage of the VK tournament is currently underway - it will be counted towards the ranking! So I invite everyone to participate in it!
