Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession 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.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.Auto-translated
If a Warlock organizes a tournament and enough final saves are gathered to meet the quorum, then for goodness sake, why bother the portal administration and create bureaucracy?
It's very simple... Firstly, I didn't mean specifically a Warlock, but rather someone *like* a Warlock, i.e., I meant not him, but a hypothetical person who organizes a tournament, but the rules and organization of this tournament are not up to par in terms of fair conduct and competent control of the tournament rules!
Кто состоянием своим доволен, тому жить весело. (с)Алекса́ндр Васи́льевич Суво́ров
No, of course, if the organizer of a fan tournament wants to get Grail awards for their tournament, they should contact the administration. And if their rules are "not good," then they simply won't be given any Grail awards.
It's all very simple... First of all, I didn't write specifically Warlock, but rather a-la Warlock, meaning I wasn't referring to him, but to a hypothetical person who organizes a tournament, but the rules and organization of this tournament do not stand up to criticism in terms of: fairness of conduct and competent control of the tournament rules!
I strongly doubt that VDV or anyone from the Manuals will check all the tournament saves. At that point, it's up to the participants themselves; meaning the rules should reflect the possibility of checking the leaders' saves based on their descriptions. Therefore, if no complaints are received from the participants, everything is fine. The Manuals simply need to look at the popularity of this tournament and allocate an acceptable amount of grails for rewards. In principle, I am not against it if the administration finds time for stricter control over this tournament; i.e., I do not object to your remark on this matter.
I highly doubt that VDV or anyone from the management will check all the tournament save files.
No one is saying that the management should be involved in checking the save files! :smile01: But they should be informed about: 1) that a tournament is starting 2) who the organizer is 3) the rules of the tournament
Then the management looks at: 1) whether it is worth trusting this person to organize... 2) checks the presence of rules and their fairness... and decides whether to grant this tournament official status or not!
Sincerely.
Кто состоянием своим доволен, тому жить весело. (с)Алекса́ндр Васи́льевич Суво́ров
-------------------------------- Message from AlexeyPank Clear definitions still need to be made: when a tournament will be considered rated. Therefore, I propose the following numbers: Heroes 1 - 5 people. Heroes 2 - 7 people. Heroes 3 - 10 people. Heroes 4 - 5 people. Heroes 5 - 10 people. -------------------------------
I have made an amendment to the rules for organizing my rating calculation. If a tournament still fails to reach a quorum, I will look at the number of sign-ups; if a sufficient number signed up, but only one player sent the final save, I will count their rating in my system. In this case, the player who sent their save is not at fault and, most importantly, while playing and spending their time and effort, they thought they were playing for a rating. Therefore, I consider the awarding of a rating in this instance to be legitimate and will do so.
The results of the ВК Tournament have been updated: /topic/2131/. As promised, discrepancies in the rating systems have appeared!
It was clear from the start that there would be differences. They are especially noticeable in the second half of the table among the underdogs. Look at OlegRS and Gmir. OlegRS played in both tournaments, while Gmir only participated in one. See what place OlegRS holds in my system and what place he holds in yours based on the sum of both tournaments :) I understand that we won't just marvel at the discrepancies but will try to analyze them somehow. I have a theory explaining why vbn is ranked first in my system based on the total score of two tournaments, even though they were different versions of the game. The simple formula I proposed as a universal one already automatically includes a bonus that you add to your systems for smoothing out the results. Roughly speaking, if we rely on your reasoning about bonuses, then vbn completed the first tournament in 17 days, while Zingel did it in 12. In the second tournament, vbn finished in 7 days, and Zingel in 11. At first glance, vbn (17+7=24) and Zingel (12+11=23). It seems like Zingel has a better result overall, BUT compared to the first tournament, vbn improved his time by 10 days, while Zingel only improved by one day compared to his previous performance. This is reflected in the numerical expressions of their combined ratings for both games. And according to my system, vbn pulls ahead of Zingel by as much as 7 points. According to your bonus-based smoothing systems, which distort the results in terms of days depending on the position taken, Zingel wins, but the difference is less than one point. Moreover, since the games are played for speed, the record remains at 7 days, which even shocked Zingel, who didn't hide it because vbn was two days ahead of his closest competitors. In the first tournament, the results were close; Zingel and Kyle had 12 each, followed by VDV and me with 13. Although vbn performed poorly in the first tournament, he showed an EXCELLENT result in the second, so I personally believe that his first place based on the results of the two tournaments in my system is justified. However, I think Zingel's first place in your systems is somewhat contrived, thanks to the bonus :) Perhaps you could analyze the results of Kyle and RichardI?
If we analyze the results of vbn and Zingel, we can come to a different conclusion. In the first tournament, it was impossible to complete it in less than 12 days. And this completion was found by two players. In the second tournament, it was possible to complete it in 7 days. One player found this. He deserves praise for that, but Zingel is not to blame for Kyle finding the same completion in the first tournament. And it would be incorrect to penalize his result for that. Therefore, it is more appropriate to consider not only the completion time (which cannot be compared on different maps), but also the place in the tournament. And here the results become different. Your option "punishes" Zingel for the fact that there is a player of the same level.
If you analyze the results of vbn and Zingel, you could come to a different conclusion. In the first tournament, it was impossible to complete it faster than 12 days. And this Walkthrough was found by two players. In the second tournament, it could be completed in 7 days. One player found this. Honor and praise to him for that, but in the first tournament, Zingel is not to blame that Kyle was able to find the same Walkthrough.
In this case, Zingel is at fault for not finding a 9-day option himself in the second tournament. In the first tournament, vbn failed. But if you set aside all the smoothing and the places taken, which roughly depend on the number of participants and the lineup (who is to blame that the lineup and contingent in one tournament are different from another), it turns out that the PURE FORMULA ACCOUNTING ONLY FOR SPEED showed the ratios and result on DIFFERENT maps for these two players. The accounting of their places and the lineup and contingent of OTHER players, who may directly or indirectly affect the places of Zingel and vbn, are not involved here. Only their (Zingel and vbn) pure speed results. Imagine if there were no "nine-dayers" in the second tournament. Then Zingel would have placed three spots higher, and vbn would have dropped to second by a larger margin than now under your system, although the "nine-dayers" have NO direct relation to the speed Walkthrough results of Zingel and vbn.AlexeyPank;81133
And it would be incorrect to lower his result for that.
He did not get close enough to the leader in the second tournament by result. While vbn got close enough in the first. Although at first glance, the difference is 5 places in the first tournament and 4 in the second. That's how it seems. But here, the LEADER'S RESULT ITSELF also matters (7 days versus 12). You say that these were the limits of different maps and Zingel could not improve the result beyond 12 on that map, and vbn could not improve the result beyond 7 on the map of the second tournament. Agreed. But vbn could have improved HIS result in the first tournament, and Zingel could have improved HIS result in the second? However, in your systems, if he had finished in 9 days but lost on skills or oil and still took a lower place due to the presence of three players with the same results. But what do these players have to do with the dispute between Zingel and vbn, especially since some of the players in the second tournament were not in the first at all.AlexeyPank;81133
Therefore, I believe it is more appropriate to consider not only the completion time (which cannot be compared across different maps), but also the place in the tournament. And
That's a fairy tale made up by AmberSoler; by the way, where did he go? And we are not comparing "only the completion time" as you say. Let's not distort the facts, alright? We are comparing the ratio of a player's completion to the leader on the 1st map with the ratio of a player's completion to the leader on the 2nd map. And that, you know, is not at all what you wrote :)AlexeyPank;81133
this is where the results become different. Your version "punishes" Zingel for the fact that there is a player of the same level. This is not correct.
My version punishes no one — everyone gets exactly what they earned through their personal result relative to the leader's completion. And the DISTRIBUTION OF PLACES, WHICH IS AFFECTED BY OTHER PLAYERS, DOES NOT AFFECT THIS. But in your version, it does. AlexeyPank;81133
The oscillator "punishes" vbn for a relative failure in the first tournament.
Now the oscillator REALLY punishes, and not in quotes as you wrote. IT punishes vbn because there were players in the first tournament who pushed him back simply by place. If they weren't there, everything would be different even with the same results for Zingel and vbn. And especially who it punishes are the players from the second half of the table (the outsiders, whom you probably don't even look at). Look at OlegRS's results under my system and yours. And please give a comment on who punished whom and for what :)AlexeyPank;81133
Therefore, I believe it is inappropriate to compare the rating systems yet, let's wait until the end of the first round...
I already said that we compared everything a long time ago. Now, in the course of calculations, I am personally trying to analyze the RESULTS according to these systems, not the systems themselves, although of course they are indirectly affected. Well, that's why you calculate using three systems at once.
I look at everyone, I don't exclude anyone.
As for OlegRS, yes, he played in two tournaments. But in the first, he only beat those who didn't play in the second. And in the second, he came in last. And the gap from the leader was significant each time. According to your system, he is in 17th place, ahead of players like Pash and Romanuel, who played twice as well in the second tournament. I think this is not entirely fair. According to the oscillator, he is behind both of them, plus also behind Gmir, who also played only one stage, but not much better. This is also not entirely fair. According to my system (for now, it works the same as the oscillator, but with one exception - I have a minimum score of 5 points, and the oscillator has 0), he is behind the first two, but ahead of the third, which is more objective, because the gap was about one and a half times, but OlegRS still played one more game.
Let's take the example of Lexx and Maximix. The first played both stages, but never rose above 13th place, lagging behind the leader by 1.5 - 2.5 times. The second played one stage, but immediately took second place, which should be encouraged, especially since he overtook the leaders of the first round. Therefore, it would be more objective if he was higher.
But IMHO, I repeat, it is still too early to discuss and analyze, there is clearly not enough material.
I consider everyone, I don't exclude anyone. As for OlegRS, yes, he played in two tournaments. But in the first, he only beat those who didn't play in the second. And in the second, he came in last place. And the gap from the leader was significant each time. According to your system, he is in 17th place, ahead of players like Pash and Romanuel, who played twice as well in the second tournament. I think this is not entirely fair. According to the oscillator, he is behind both of them, plus also behind Gmir, who also played only one stage, but not as well. This is also not entirely fair. According to my system (which currently works the same as the oscillator, but with one exception - I have a minimum score of 5 points, while the oscillator has 0), he is behind the first two, but ahead of the third, which is more objective, because the gap was about one and a half times, but OlegRS still played one more game.
Yes, but you still don't take into account the fact that Gmir didn't show up for the second tournament at all. If he had shown up and taken last place, where would he be and where would OlegRS be (if Gmir took last place, OlegRS would already be second to last, and we know that the oscillator hits the last place the hardest). Maybe the situation wouldn't have changed much, but nevertheless.AlexeyPank;81410
But IMHO, I repeat, it's still too early to discuss and analyze, there is clearly not enough material.
The material is coming in portions, so we need to discuss it in portions. Let's wait for the next portion - the end of the 3rd Kanighem tournament.
Let's not speculate about who would have taken which place if... Instead, let's stick to facts.
I think that at the end of the year, we should simply present all the rating systems with our comments for a general vote. This way, we can determine which one the forum members prefer. The rest can remain as alternatives. Or maybe we can keep all three, and have several federations, like in chess.
Let's not speculate about who would have taken what place if... Let's stick to the facts. I think at the end of the year, we should simply present all the rating systems with our comments for a general vote. That way, we can determine which one the forum members prefer. The rest can remain as alternative options. Or maybe we can keep all three, and have several federations, like in chess.
That's a good idea. I don't even claim that my rating should be the leading one – it's too much responsibility. I'm happy with the alternative option. After all, my part of the formula is present in your systems. So, if I happen to disappear from the forum, you won't lose much from the disappearance of the alternative rating system
... According to my system (it currently works like an oscillator, but with one exception - I have set a minimum of 5 points, while the oscillator has 0) ....
By the way, where did the number 5 come from? Is it to give a bonus to the outsider? But perhaps it would be better then not to use a random figure like "5", but exactly as much as the outsider earned in the first column... in my opinion, this would achieve an optimal balance...
i.e., for the first heroes, 12.77 is given for 22nd place instead of 5.... and for the second ones, consequently, 23.33...
Awaiting your "devastating" criticism... :D
Respectfully.
Кто состоянием своим доволен, тому жить весело. (с)Алекса́ндр Васи́льевич Суво́ров
By the way, where did the number 5 come from? If you want to give a bonus to the underdog? But maybe it would be better to give not an arbitrary number "5", but exactly the amount that the underdog earned in the first column... in this case, in my opinion, the optimal balance would be achieved... that is, for the first heroes, 22nd place would not receive 5, but 12.77.... and for the second, accordingly, 23.33... I'm waiting for your "devastating" criticism... :D Sincerely.
No, there won't be devastating criticism - it will be constructive :) And if a player in 21st place scored 13 or 14 in the first column, won't there be a situation where, due to the fact that the second part of the formula will not be 0, but a clearly reduced number due to the bonus or the place taken, and the oscillator will halve it so that the player in the second to last place has a lower rating than 12.77, which the player in last place has. As a result, a really absurd situation may arise where the player in last place has a higher rating for the game than the player in the second to last place :) And with the number five, they are just trying to work around this :) It works like this - no matter what happens to the underdogs, no matter what anyone gets, whether it's 0 or 4.9, this number is brought up to the level that is equal to 5.00 :) First, this avoids offending the last place - he will receive 5 points in any case. And also, it avoids an absurd situation if, due to the oscillator, a player who is not in last place gets a number less than 5, it will immediately be raised to exactly 5 points. So that this player does not have a rating lower than the player in last place (with such calculations, you already forget about days and the speed of completion :) - they are no longer mentioned here, here are the words bonus, oscillator, lower limit, place taken ;) And why is it really 5, and not 10 or 20? The number five was apparently suggested by AmberSoler, although this person is a staunch opponent of taking numbers out of thin air :)
to IronAxe: You clearly didn't understand me... I meant that this number will be the minimum in the second column... i.e., in the second column, the numbers will be from 100 (leader) > X (n-th player) > the number of the outsider from the first column... In short, to make it clear, I will create a table and post it in this thread... and we'll see what happens next... :D
Sincerely.
Кто состоянием своим доволен, тому жить весело. (с)Алекса́ндр Васи́льевич Суво́ров
Kyle
