Posts from Tournaments and player rating. Auto-translated

An interesting question has arisen. In recent tournaments, players have started posting reports that are not included in the ranking. At first, this annoyed me, but it turns out there are many supporters of this.

If the tournament is a fan tournament and for fun, then the report should be optional for players.

I would like to hear the opinions of players on this matter. Should we allow players to play matches without them being counted towards the ranking?

Only if both players are in favor, then let them go to the fan forum.

Only if both players agree, then let them go to the fan forum.

If, by mutual agreement, reports are removed from the ranking, then it loses its objectivity, which is why I was against this approach.

If, by mutual agreement, reports are removed from the ranking, it loses its objectivity, which is why I was against this approach.

Let me clarify my position:
Firstly, if the tournament is official, then all reports should automatically be included in the seasonal and final rankings. No one disputes this.
Secondly, there are now many fun tournaments: with experimental rules, on different versions, and on maps like "Christmas Tree/Panic/M200" or with a 4-minute timer. In such a tournament, pure randomness comes to the fore, and the winner, in my opinion, is the one who is more lucky, not more knowledgeable.)) According to Kostya, this is objectivity. But I believe that it is not. And in this case, if I am forced to report fun games, it is easier for me to skip such a tournament. I can even justify it mathematically.
Thirdly, I don't see a problem here; each organizer of a fun tournament has the right to set their own rules, as they see fit, which is why it is unofficial. The problem is that organizers of new tournaments should plan them in advance and add them to the schedule so that there is no chaos in the organization! (ambiguous phrase)))
In general, I am in favor of a reasonable choice and the possibility of agreeing with the participant before the game!

It would be better if the organizers of new Tournaments planned them in advance and added them to the schedule so that there wouldn't be chaos in the organization!

Ideally, yes, but this doesn't always work out. Sometimes ideas come suddenly, and sometimes it seems like you have planned everything, but when the specified date arrives, it turns out that something just isn't working.

For example, from this post, "King of the Hill" and "Winter is Coming" (November 2015) were not implemented; it is unclear what happened with "Champions League-2" (January 2016) – either it was canceled or postponed to a later date.

But unscheduled events such as "Wizard OH," "Blitz Jebus Cross," and "Second Snow" emerged.

The tournament rules should clearly state whether reports are required or not, and not in any other way. Any decision of this kind, i.e., not to post reports, should be made by the admins. Mutual agreement is complete nonsense, which will only give some players more freedom and lead to more disputes in general!

P.S.
By the way, since Cobra has started justifying himself here, maybe he can tell everyone why he doesn't confirm reports? :) I really need PTS.

The tournament rules should clearly state whether match reports are required or not, and how they should be submitted. The tournament administrators should make decisions regarding whether or not to post results. Mutual agreement is nonsense, as it will only give some players an advantage and lead to more disputes.

That's how it should be interpreted. For example, in the rules for "Lyubimchikov," "One for All," or "War of Mages," it is stated that all matches count towards the seasonal ranking.

If this is not specified in the rules, then at the request of any participant, the match result may not be included in the ranking.

That's exactly how it should be interpreted. For example, in the regulations for "Favorites," "One for All," or "War of Mages," it's stated that all games count towards the seasonal ranking.

And if it's not specified in the regulations, the result can be excluded from the ranking at the request of any participant.

In reality, it would be good if it were established that the tournament organizers are obliged to coordinate this issue, and it must be clearly stated in the regulations whether the games count towards the ranking or not – it's essential!

My opinion is that the results of all games from all tournaments should be included in the rating. If you don't want to affect the rating "because of experimental rules," then don't participate. P.S. The main tournament of the year, "CIS," should also be created on the forum as an official tournament with reports submitted through a button. Then the games of the tournament will attract more attention and remain in memory for a long time.

The game should only include a ranking system with the mutual consent of the players. What is the point of making it mandatory?

The game should only be ranked with the mutual consent of the players. What's the point of making it mandatory?

The point is to increase the prestige of the ranking. But if it's only achieved in a certain type of game (which is convenient and familiar), then it doesn't reflect anything and, accordingly, its prestige decreases.

The rating system is a very useful tool for drawing lots in tournaments, so some adjustments need to be made to it.

1) In season games, the rating should award fewer points than in tournaments.

2) Other tournaments should be divided into official and unofficial ones.
I am very pleased that, starting this year, Only-HL has become an official tournament on HW.

3) In unofficial tournaments, the regulations should state that the organizer must indicate whether games count towards the rating or not, or whether rating reports are only submitted by agreement. In this case, the rating points in unofficial tournaments are calculated in the same way as in season games.

4) In official tournaments, rating reports for games are mandatory. Points in the rating for games in such tournaments are added and reduced in an increased amount.

5) This year, Pit refused to implement this in Warlords.
In this case, I believe that this should be implemented in all official tournaments, and in unofficial tournaments, with the agreement of the AC.
Bonus points are awarded for prize-winning places in the tournament (their number is specified in advance in the regulations). Nitro confirmed that this is feasible.

6) And the most important point: after the tournament, the organizer creates a list of players who withdrew, scored, or disappeared during the tournament.
He submits it to the AC. And the rating of such players is reduced, depending on the minimum number of games that the player would have 100% played in the tournament.

* For example, in a group of favorites with 7 people, this is 6 games. A player withdraws after 2 defeats, and he has 4 games left. He is penalized for these games. If he withdraws in the playoffs in a best-of-3 match after 1 defeat, then he is penalized for 1 game.
How many points are deducted for 1 game is decided by the AC.

Based on the above, the main question is: is it possible to automatically assign the status of "official tournament" and for reports in this tournament to add or reduce more points in the rating?

And on what basis should the rating change coefficient be increased in official tournaments? This will make it even less accurate; at the very least, the distance required for a more or less adequate representation of the rating will increase.

The point is to increase the prestige of the rating. And if it is only earned in a certain type of game (which is convenient and familiar), then it doesn't reflect anything at all, and, accordingly, its prestige decreases.

I completely agree. :smile01:
For many years, the concept of a rating has been discredited; many were convinced that it does not reflect any real picture. Phrases like "Yes, what is a rating? Player X plays only against noobs, and Player Y has won a lot of Tournaments, but doesn't submit reports" were common. By giving players the option to choose whether reports go into the rating or not, you can greatly distort the real statistics, and a "gaming" of the system will begin in the form of "convenient" and "inconvenient" reports. Also, you can always persuade a player who is not interested in the rating to not submit a rating report in case of defeat. Tournaments are for proving your strength and confirming your rating against random players of different levels. IMHO.

I agree that there may always be exceptions in tournaments of experimental formats, such as the first (test) Heroes of Might and Magic tournament, etc. But it is simply impossible to introduce this everywhere.

I am also willing to allow for separate tournaments where NONE of the games go into the rating. But I am categorically against gaming and "agreements."

in experimental tournaments (or unofficial ones – call them whatever you want), if the regulations allow, let the players choose themselves. However, if the tournament is already the 2nd or 3rd, everything should be taken into account in the ranking; that’s my opinion.