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.
Sure. There will be a lot of tables this year. We'll probably have to divide the work. I'll try to calculate the ratings for all heroes using my system. AlexPank promised to check the oscillator and bonus coefficients. And you will calculate the clan rating in three variations based on these results. Okay. :)
Added 45 minutes ago AmberSoler;66425
Hey, is anyone home? :) Because I don't see the point in the dialogue when you don't read what I'm writing...
Do you think I don't understand your digs? :) I see, hear, and comment on everything perfectly, as I have repeatedly shown you :)AmberSoler;66425
At that specific moment, the results of six players were considered against each other. All other results - for example, yours - were extraneous and interfered. We were playing against each other. 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.
At the same time, no one prevented you from throwing out the unnecessary ones that did not participate in your duel and numbering the six players from 1st to 6th. But you didn't like it because it would create an imbalance. You said it yourself. But this situation with the places is considered a specific case, which can quite possibly occur when calculating the personal rating for each player, especially after several tournaments in a row, when someone was in one and absent in another. Accounting for places will also create an imbalance, just like the case you cited as an example!AmberSoler;66425
You, however, refer to a rating that takes into account the results of ALL players who participated in the tournament... In this case, the imbalance will be not taking into account the results of the others...
But not all players can (meaning all in one tournament). And in another, some of the strong players may not show up, and players with inappropriate results in days will also take higher places, which does not correspond to their strength in terms of days. Do you want me to pull another example from that same topic for you?AmberSoler;66425
Therefore, there is a substitution of concepts, caused by your misunderstanding of the situation that developed at that moment and discussed between the participants of the clan confrontation. Moreover, this was a private decision within the framework of one private tournament. And this does not mean that such an approach should be applied to all in a row...
The substitution of concepts is not on my part. I have always said and will say that taking the place into account MAY create an imbalance when calculating the rating in the game, whatever it may be, for clans or players. And you said in one topic that places will create an imbalance, and in another topic you say something else, which is not logical :)AmberSoler;66425
What I noticed. A considerable amount of time has passed since the end of our polemic. I deliberately refrain from commenting on the calculation of the rating, except in cases when you ask me questions, publishing excerpts from my posts on another case.
Are you telling me that? :) I remember someone pulled excerpts from my posts when you weren't even involved, I was already arguing with AlexPanko. I answered you in the same way. Moreover, the excerpt is relevant to the topic.AmberSoler;66425
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!
The fact is that I am not looking for any justifications for my method, and I have not looked for them. You have already accepted it. The non-linear part is present in all your formulas :) I just said it directly and I will repeat it, that the oscillator introduces distortions, explicitly or implicitly, and makes mistakes when taking into account a parameter such as PLACE. Even AlexPanko's coefficient, refined, does not create as much imbalance as the linear component :)AmberSoler;66425
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! Everything is getting worse and worse...
Oh, were you convinced? :). You tried to provoke me with these statements. And when I answered you adequately, you start... alas, everything is getting worse and worse... You yourself need to be at your best, then there will be no "alas".AmberSoler;66425
P.s. Dear IronAxe, I ask you in the future not to comment on my words, pulling them out of context of any conversations in the past, due to the inability (confirmation - above) to understand their meaning.
Again, a hint about my stupidity when there are no other arguments. I understand more than you can handle :)AmberSoler;66425
(This is not a personal attack! - I anticipate the statement - I am simply stating a fact). I have no time and, moreover, no desire to explain again what exactly I wanted to convey with my words in one situation or another.
Okay, it's not an attack. I also stated the fact that you say one thing and then another. And don't start saying that something completely different was being discussed there. Yeah, life on Mars was being discussed, or what? :) Keep in mind, this is not a personal attack, but facts!AmberSoler;66425
Those who participated in that conversation understood everything. You did not participate - what is the point of getting involved? It was a private conversation between the participants of the clan duel, and my words did not apply to you... Right?;)
Well, yes :) I'm not saying that your words were personally about me there. They were about Days and Place. And you expressed yourself clearly enough there. And I understood everything no worse than others.AmberSoler;66425
If you are going to write an answer, read it several times.
I will also advise you to read my posts three times, and slowly.AmberSoler;66425
Because now 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 showed you"... And so on. You are too predictable.
I am predictable because you are predictable too :)AmberSoler;66425
P.p.s. If you do not answer this post of mine, I will be grateful to you... I'm tired of the chatter.
I think you should be doubly grateful to me for not ignoring your post :)
AlexeyPank
19 years ago
Auto-translated
I still believe that individual ratings and clan ratings are two very different things. In the individual rating, the walkthrough time is certainly the most important factor. But in the clan rating, teamwork is more important! That is to say, placement already plays a significant role here. If a clan is well-coordinated, its members will take close placements, helping each other. I calculated the clan ratings using my first system (with geometric progression), and then decided to recalculate them using another system. Here it is: 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 person for their placement in the tournament. M(n) is calculated as follows: M(n)=100/n, where n is the place in the clan standings. And then the arithmetic mean. The results turned out to be different.
Yes, that's right... a geometric progression is not suitable for calculating the rating, because if a clan has one super-strong player, that clan will not only not overtake, but won't even come close to catching up... not even close... this is an example from the 3rd game... i.e., the more people participate in the tournament, the more unattainable the leader's rating becomes!
Added after 3 hours 37 minutes It's like the puzzle about the inventor of chess:
The inventor of chess comes to the king and shows him his creation (chess):smile41. The king, after examining this device and understanding its purpose, was overjoyed:smile54 and said, "Ask for whatever you want! I will pay for everything!" To which the inventor replied: "I live in poverty:smile39. I need grain. Put one grain on the first square, twice as much on the second, and so on." At first, the king was surprised by the insignificance of the request:smile40, but after calculating, he shed tears...:smile05. The question is, how much did the king owe the inventor? There are 64 squares in chess.
You have the same situation...
Sincerely.
AlexeyPank
19 years ago
Auto-translated
What about the second rating option? It seems to me that it is more objective. And the figures there are noticeably smaller, there are no such large discrepancies. Although strong players should earn more points than many weak ones.
What about the second rating option? It seems more objective to me. And the figures there are noticeably smaller, with less variation. Although strong players should earn more points than many weak ones.
Well, how can I put it, it would be much easier to calculate the clan rating using a linear system (i.e., based on the position occupied in the tournament). Because the linear part (tournament position) has twice the weight compared to the non-linear part (days played), as the position is taken into account twice, while the days played only once...
However, in my opinion, it's simpler to base it on the tournament rating (regardless of the system used)
Well, how can I put it, it would be much easier to calculate the Clan rating using a linear system (i.e., based on the position in the Tournaments). Since the linear part (position in the Tournament) has twice the weight compared to the non-linear part (days played), because the position is taken into account twice, while the days played only once...
That's the idea behind AlexPanka's suggestion – to calculate the Clan rating based on all players from the Tournament, and, if possible, increase the influence of the POSITION parameter so that a large Clan would find it difficult to overtake a small Clan, whose players play better and take higher positions.Kyle;66599
Still, in my opinion, it's easier to base it on the Tournament rating (regardless of the system) and not invent, for now, additional
I agree that it can be done this way, but I don't agree that the Tournament rating can be based on any system. We need to use the system that introduces the least distortion when considering the individual rating for each player. Otherwise, distorted player ratings will lead to distorted Clan ratings!Kyle;66599
formulas. We need to launch the system and look at the results at the end of the year. Sincerely.
So, AlexPanka will have to calculate the Clan ratings using his own system. So that at the end of the year, there will be something to compare the results with; otherwise, what's the point of looking at the results without having an alternative? Is that correct?
...but I disagree with the idea that it doesn't matter which system is used for the tournament rating. We need to use the system that introduces the least amount of distortion when considering the individual rating for each player. Otherwise, distorted player ratings will lead to distorted clan ratings!
Each to their own... :smile40: :smile52: Carthage must be destroyed... :smile40: :smile52:
Please forgive me... I was just very amused by that part of your post.
Everyone talks about what they know... :smile40: :smile52: Carthage must be destroyed... :smile40: :smile52: Please excuse me... I was just very amused by that part of your post. Sincerely.
You probably just need to show them the finger – they'll be laughing for two days :) I don't find anything funny in my post. The topics of clan and personal player rankings are interconnected, as I said. I don't understand how you three actively supported each other, and now you've left AlexPanka alone with his bonus coefficient. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have the feeling that neither you nor AmberSoler need this coefficient. The only conclusion to be drawn is: whoever comes up with something, they should test it themselves :) I will try to open a separate thread by the end of the first stage of the Kanigema Tournament to publish the player rankings for all versions of Heroes. My ranking will include all significant tournaments, starting with the tournament for the 5th Heroes, which was organized by VDV.
Yes... I don't think we'll be able to come to an agreement. Why write in such a categorical way, stating something that is clearly false: IronAxe;66729
I don't understand how you three actively supported each other, and now you've left AlexPanka alone with his bonus coefficient. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like neither you nor AmberSoler need this coefficient. The only conclusion to be drawn is: whoever came up with what, they should check it themselves :)
Because just a few posts ago, I wrote:
The Clan rating will be calculated based on the Tournament rating. And as far as I know, there are currently three different calculation methods, so 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 version is the most accurate.
And you agreed with me:IronAxe;66430
Sure. There will be a lot of tables this year. We'll probably have to divide the work. I'll try to calculate the ratings for all heroes using my system. AlexPank promised to check the oscillator and bonus coefficients. And you will calculate the Clan rating in three variations based on these results. Ok. :)
And now what are you saying? I don't understand, are you trying to make us argue? Okay, let's move on... I suggest we discuss the Clan rating here, and not waste time on personal issues.
P.S. If you want to argue about this post, please create a special topic for it in the CHAT section.
Yes... I don't think we'll be able to come to an agreement... Why write in such a categorical way, stating something that is demonstrably false:
You misunderstood me. As far as I know, AlexPank worked on coefficients in two areas - for the individual player rating and for calculating the Clans rating (he mentioned a different formula for the latter). And now you are denying him, why? I'm not claiming, but only suggesting, that this is because this calculation method implies the third option in the announced vote, and not the second option from AmberSolera. You know that I personally also voted for the second option and supported it. Therefore, you can't accuse me of bias. That's why I wrote in my last post that AlexPank will have to calculate the Clans rating using a geometric progression or whatever he called it, himself? Is this true or not? Answer this question briefly so as not to engage in pointless chatter - YES or NO?Kyle;66735
Which you agreed with:
I'm not backing down from what you commented on in your post. You just got confused about which of AlexPank's coefficients I was talking about.Kyle;66735
And now what are you saying? I don't understand, are you trying to make us argue? Okay, let's move on... I suggest we discuss the Clans rating here, and not waste time on personal issues.
That's all I said. What do I gain from your argument? I am discussing the Clans rating, and I am interested in a simple question - how will it be calculated in the final version, specifically after the first round of the Canighem Tournaments! The third option won in the vote in this thread, which requires taking into account the ratings of all players in the Clan! Then the Chinese option works! AlexPank proposes some addition to the calculation of the Clans rating to try to fix this situation - and according to your answers, it seems that you are dismissing this update. Therefore, I ask - will you calculate the Clans rating using AlexPank's system? Will you calculate the Clans rating based on the results of the vote in this thread? Or how - according to all options? But for each option, there will be three more options, taking into account different systems for calculating tournament ratings for players? You can calmly and clearly explain this point, because the tournament is already underway, and everyone is playing for the rating. But how it will be calculated (I mean the Clans rating) is still unclear to me.
You misunderstood me. As far as I know, AlexPank worked on coefficients in two directions – for the personal rating of players and for calculating the Clans ranking (here he was talking about a different formula).
I apologize. I misunderstood you.
IronAxe;66740
And here you are already denying him, why? I'm not stating, but only suggesting that this is because this calculation method implies the third option in the announced vote here, and not the second option from AmberSolera.
Either you don’t understand what we’re talking about, or I don’t: There are three options for calculating the Clans ranking: First – the option proposed by Natasha long ago. It is described here. This option, I think, will not suit us, since it requires a complete revision of the Tournament ranking calculation. Second – my option, which is described at the very beginning. And it is precisely based on it that voting takes place in the neighboring topic. And AmberSolera's proposal is a private amendment to this system. By the way, I am also leaning towards counting only a fixed number of participants. Third – AlexeyPank's option. He proposes a completely different system. This is clearly seen in what he published here. And it was exactly this one that I considered several posts above. And I did not say at all that this system is bad; on the contrary, I consider it as an alternative. But it has disadvantages. Which I pointed out. IronAxe;66740
That's why I wrote in the last post that the Clans ranking using geometric progression or whatever else AlexPank called it, he will have to calculate himself? Is this true or not? Answer briefly to this question so as not to create unnecessary chatter - YES or NO?
The system is currently under discussion, and when we fully finalize it with him, we will include it as an alternative to my system.
Either you don't understand what I'm talking about, or I don't: There are three ways to calculate the Clan rating.
That's better :) Kyle;66751
Where: The first is the option that Natasha suggested a long time ago. It is described here. This option, as I think, will not suit us because it requires a complete revision of the Tournament rating calculation.
Recently, when there were discussions about ratings, I didn't see this player. I agree with you that we should reject this option. Instead, let's take option N2 proposed by AmberSolero; you yourself say that you are currently leaning towards it too, but I still think that option 3 will win in the vote. Therefore, instead of Natasha's option, we will take this calculation proposed by AmberSolero. And this will be option 1. Kyle;66751
The second is my option, which is described at the very beginning. And it is based on this that the voting takes place in the neighboring topic. And AmberSolera's proposal is a private amendment to this system. By the way, I am also now inclined to calculate only a fixed number of participants.
I assume that option 3 will win the vote. Accordingly, we should use it for calculations. Then, for us, it will be option 2. Kyle;66751
The third is AlexeyPank's option. He proposes a completely different system. This is clearly seen from what he published here. And this is exactly what I was considering several posts above. And I didn't say at all that this system is bad; on the contrary, I consider it as an alternative. But it has disadvantages. Which I pointed out. The system is currently under discussion, and when we fully finalize it with him, we will include it as an alternative to my system.
And this turns out to be option 3. Is that right? So, we need to discuss it faster before the first round of the Kanighem Tournament ends!
Furthermore, there are three types of calculation for the Tournament rating (non-linear, oscillator, oscillator + bonus coefficient). Accordingly, we get 3 types of personal ratings and 9 tables (3*3) of Clan ratings. Will it be like this? Or how?
AlexeyPank
19 years ago
Auto-translated
I can definitely keep track of the clan rating using my own system. And I can do it for both systems. Let everyone calculate it their own way, and then we'll simply put the results up for a general vote. The winning rating will become the main one, and the rest will be alternative (we'll have several rating federations, just like in chess). Otherwise, while we don't have enough initial data, we can argue endlessly and get nowhere. As I already mentioned, my rating calculation system, as the respected Iron Axe correctly pointed out, should prioritize placement rather than the result, because the clan rating is not individual; teamwork, team spirit, and other factors are more important here. That's why the linear component in my version partially absorbs the non-linear one.
I can definitely keep track of the clan Player Rating using my system, and for both systems. Let everyone calculate it their own way, and then we'll just suggest the results for a general vote. The winning rating will become the main one, and the rest will be alternative (we'll have several rating federations, just like in chess). Right now, while we don't have enough initial data, we can argue endlessly, but it won't lead to anything.
I agree. I will calculate it using my system, but it will still undergo some changes regarding the aging process. The thing is, if I'm going to calculate the rating for all versions now, I can't find a starting point for when to age the rating for everyone, due to the lack of a specific tournament schedule. Here's what I'm planning for now. I will calculate the ratings for all tournaments starting with the fifth one. There will be a separate table for each version. There will be an additional table where all players from all versions will be combined, and if a player plays in several versions, their rating will be summed up. Only the data from this table will be aged (the aging rate will be chosen individually each time, but it will be the same for everyone). The first aging will be done in this table based on the available results BEFORE the Kanigem tournament, at 33% (because there will already be results from 5 tournaments or so). During the Kanigem tournament, no aging will be performed. After the Kanigem tournament, the rating in this table will be aged again by 33% (because, as I understand it, there will be many stages). And in the other tables, there will be a purely cumulative rating. However, if a player disappears from the General Table, which I call the Consolidated Current Player Rating for Heroes, due to aging, they will be removed from the tables with the cumulative rating for each individual version of Heroes, or the aging will be carried out in each individual table synchronously with the aging in the general one. The aging percentage may differ, but it will be the same for all versions. I'm still thinking about this. I wrote all this just for your information. I don't want to discuss it. Especially since my rating is an alternative one.AlexeyPank;67041
I've already said that my rating calculation system, as the respected Iron Axe rightly pointed out, should prioritize placement, not results, because the clan rating is not individual; teamwork, team spirit, and so on are more important here. That's why the linear component in my version partially absorbs the non-linear one.
And this also smooths out the Chinese version, where there are many players in the clan, but they can't take high places. However, if they have a couple of strong players, then it is possible that they will eventually take the lead, but I don't see anything wrong with that. That is, there remains an intrigue, and it is not obvious who will be in the lead in the end.
AlexeyPank
19 years ago
Auto-translated
It’s easier to handle aging with clans. After all, clan members participate in tournaments across all versions. To what extent – that’s another question. So, aging can simply be applied after each tournament. Also, two tables could be used: a cumulative one that resets each year (results can be stored in an archive or Hall of Fame) and a current one that ages after each tournament. I suggest aging by 10%, as the scores are higher here than in individual play (generally). Although, I haven’t looked into this issue in detail.
