Skip to content

Posts from HOMM3 Ratings and Stats

No ratings yet — be the first to rate!
In reply to Heroes13
User Avatar
11 years ago
Auto-translated
Heroes13
10 tiers look pretty good. It's a small division by class. Players with a rating of 1500-1700 can play at the same level; there are Top players - Phoenixes, candidates for Top players - Wyverns, good promising players - Rocs, then mid-range players, beginners, and those who are just clueless. There's a plus to this.
20 tiers would look more impressive, and to avoid losing the division I mentioned above, you could assign 2-3 creatures to each level.
Level 7: Angel, Dragon, Phoenix - indicating top-tier status.
Level 6: Naga, Unicorn, Wyvern - candidates for top tier.
Level 5: Minotaur, Lich, Earth Elemental - good promising players.
And so on. Having 3 creatures per level would look quite good.

Well, judging by the creatures, Bishop is a candidate for the top tier, and Stinger is a promising player :D
In reply to Gomunguls
User Avatar
11 years ago
Auto-translated
Gomunguls
Well, judging by the creatures... Bishop is a candidate for the top players, and Stinger is a promising player :D
:D
We can divide them into hundreds.
1800+, (we can take a wider range here, 1800-1900 Phoenix, 1900-2000 Angel, and 2000+ well, no:eek: and for ourselves)
1799-1700,
1699-1600,
1599-1500,
1499-1400,
1399-1300,
1299- and three creatures for each hundred.
In reply to Gomunguls
User Avatar
11 years ago
Auto-translated
Gomunguls
Well, judging by the creatures... Bishop is a strong contender for the top spots, and Stinger is a promising player :D
Well, I can only ask everyone to report games. It currently takes about a minute.
User Avatar
11 years ago
Auto-translated
thank you! thank you very much),
are reports from tournament matches not taken into account?
11 years ago
Auto-translated
Respect. Perhaps it would be a good idea to make the signatures clickable (clicking would lead to the rating website, and clicking on a line in the rating would be useful for promoting such a great thing)? Once again, respect!
User Avatar
11 years ago
Auto-translated
I just wanted to say thank you for the work you’ve done on the rating system.
User Avatar
10 years ago
Auto-translated
The point was to discuss the topic, but there's something to say...

For those obsessed with rankings, the essence of this formula is that 20-25 wins at the beginning of the season (each win gives +20) will be enough, totaling 2000 rating points. An Archangel, what else? :))))).

What I'm getting at is... isn't it time to change the formula? Because it's at least 5 years behind the current state of affairs.
In reply to Vatya
User Avatar
10 years ago
Auto-translated
Vatya
The point was to stir up the discussion, but there's something to say...

For the main rating grinders, the essence of this formula is that 20-25 wins at the beginning of the season (each worth +20) will give you 2000 rating. Archangel, what for? :))))).

What I'm getting at is... isn't it time to change the formula? Because it's at least 5 years behind the current state of affairs.

1 alexthegreat 53 3 56 1948
yes, 20-25 wins against newbies...:smile49:
In reply to Vatya
User Avatar
10 years ago
Auto-translated
Vatya
The point was to stir up discussion, but I have something to say...

For those obsessed with rankings, the essence of this formula is that 20-25 wins at the beginning of the season (each worth +20) will give you 2000 rating points. An Archangel, for crying out loud! :))))).

What I'm getting at is... isn't it time to change the formula? Because it's at least 5 years behind the current state of affairs.
It won't work that way. It's precisely because of the formula that's being used.
User Avatar
10 years ago
Auto-translated
If the rating difference is more than 400 points, then only 1 point will be awarded for a victory, and 32 points will be lost in case of defeat.
User Avatar
10 years ago
Auto-translated
Let's discuss (and later we can add a poll) the possibility of factoring unconfirmed reports into the rating, after a certain period of time (e.g., a month). There are many very old, unconfirmed reports (including those from active players) at http://heroes3stat.tk/unconfirmed/. But won't this lead to even more unconfirmed reports?
In reply to Nitro
User Avatar
10 years ago
Auto-translated
Nitro
Let's discuss (and later we can add a poll) the possibility of factoring in reports that haven't been confirmed within a certain period (e.g., a month) into the rating. There are a lot of very old, unconfirmed reports (including from active players) http://heroes3stat.tk/unconfirmed/. But won't this lead to even more unconfirmed reports?

I've written and said many times that reports should be automatically confirmed after a month, with a debuff for the player who didn't confirm them, say, 2 points.
Another option is to do it through an honorable system, as it was in Heroes of Might and Magic Online, but that's too complicated.

Added 1 minute ago
Another question: will there be statistics on castles and map templates?
In reply to KobRa_RR
User Avatar
10 years ago
Auto-translated
There are some negative aspects. Incorrect reports will be counted, such as when the wrong opponent is indicated, and the player wasn't even aware of it. Or, one player submits a report as the winner, while the other submits it as the loser. It would be better if everyone confirmed their reports; it's not that difficult. IMHO.
In reply to Dirty_Player
User Avatar
10 years ago
Auto-translated
Do not register players with unconfirmed reports for tournaments. And after the tournament is over, post a separate list of unconfirmed reports as a reminder.
In reply to skd
User Avatar
10 years ago
Auto-translated
skd
Do not register players with unconfirmed reports for tournaments. And after the tournament is over, post a separate list of unconfirmed reports as a reminder.
zloy_romantik, luckyf, falcone, protosarchon, gomunguls, sevensan, mulliyta, chemist_hp, satir, amiloo, piterius, toganash, and many others have unconfirmed reports that are six months old or more...

Statistics

Welcome our newest member: recijeb