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
Exactly, the idea of using points is perfect! Just award points and then sum them up.
But I'd like to suggest that the final results of the blitz tournament should still be converted into a rating. That is, after five stages of the tournament, the winner will finally receive their 100 points.
Exactly, the idea of using points is perfect! Just award points and then sum them up. But I'd like to suggest that the final results of the blitz tournament should still be converted into a rating. That is, after five stages of the tournament, the winner will finally receive their 100 points.
If that's the case, and five rounds are equated to one tournament, and the rating for five rounds of blitz has to be calculated only once, then I'll probably agree to include it in my rating; why not, actually.
IMHO: the in-game rating shouldn’t be counted for blitz matches because:
firstly: it’s very short, even if calculated over five stages.
secondly: it’s mostly a training tournament.
and finally, I think that Grail rewards are sufficient.
It would be a different matter to introduce an internal rating for blitz matches... and I don’t think it’s worth reinventing the wheel here. I can definitely handle the blitz rating.
Best regards.
Кто состоянием своим доволен, тому жить весело. (с)Алекса́ндр Васи́льевич Суво́ров
Why not combine the two rankings? Five stages of a blitz tournament are roughly equivalent to one standard tournament. Besides, solving puzzles is also a form of gameplay.
However, if the majority are against it, I will remain silent.
Five stages of a blitz tournament are roughly equal to one standard tournament.
That's a very debatable statement... :D Let's wait until the blitz tournament is over and see what happens...
Sincerely.
Added after 5 hours 33 minutes IronAxe
You just want to equalize their ratings at the beginning of the year, according to your own whim.
Hmm, you're accusing me of doing something based on my own whim, but you're also saying:IronAxe
And the fact that I'll be adjusting the ratings according to my own judgment is my right.
You know, that sounds a bit unfair...
IronAxe
But in reality, their ratings aren't equal right now. You just want to equalize their ratings at the beginning of the year, according to your own whim. I agree that they're on equal footing in terms of further rating gains. But equalizing everyone's current rating? Why? It's as if all players have the same level of skill at this point.
They don't have the same level of skill... and no rating, neither mine nor yours, will show that... because it's simply impossible... it's like comparing runners in the 100m and 400m races... And they were equalized so that everyone has an equal chance to take a leading position by the end of the year. At the same time, the achievements of veterans are not erased, because there will be a record of what rating a player scored in a particular year. IronAxe
Everything is written in the rules. For this Kanigema tournament (DURING ITS PROGRESS, I promised not to adjust the ratings), five stages - 10% each. So, at the end, everyone's rating will be reduced by 50%. TO EVERYONE, EQUALLY? WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
Think about what you're suggesting... first (five months) the rating accumulates... then it's halved, then (again, five months) the rating accumulates... then it's halved again, then two months of rating adjustment after each tournament... then everything cycles... And is that, in your opinion, a normal system? You can't figure it out without a "cheat sheet"... it needs to be simpler...
Sincerely.
Кто состоянием своим доволен, тому жить весело. (с)Алекса́ндр Васи́льевич Суво́ров
Hmm, you are blaming me for doing something on a whim, but at the same time you say: ... You know, that sounds a bit ugly...
You took it out of context. It was said very nicely there, but you distorted it here :) I'm saying that I will adjust the ratings based on time and magnitude at my discretion. At the same time, everyone's rating will be adjusted by the SAME percentage. And everyone will retain a portion of their honestly earned rating. And you say that at the beginning of the year, you decide to level everyone out and give everyone ZERO. Well, I don't know who has a better result here :)Kyle;89604
They don't have the same level of skill... and no rating will show that... neither mine nor yours, because it is simply impossible... it's like comparing runners in the 100 and 400 meters...
The current rating will show it. Perhaps not absolutely, but at least relatively. Everything in the world is relative.Kyle;89604
And they leveled them out so that everyone would have equal chances to take a leading position by the end of the year.
I'm not interested in what chances everyone will have at the end of the year. I said right away that I would try to calculate the CURRENT RATING, and not a cyclic one (that's why I won't reset anyone's rating) and not a cumulative one (that's why the ratings will be adjusted from time to time).Kyle;89604
At the same time, the merits of veterans are not erased, because there will be a record that a player scored such and such a rating in a certain year.
If you've noticed, I've already opened the Hall of Fame in my rating :) There, after each Kanigam tournament, the best players are announced, both in terms of the overall rating and in each version separately. So, those who lose all their rating due to aging, if they don't play for a long time, their merits are already recorded in my system :)Kyle;89604
Think about what you are suggesting... first (five months) the rating accumulates... then it is halved, then (again five months) the rating accumulates... then it is halved again, then two months the ratings are adjusted after each tournament... then everything cycles... And is this a normal system in your opinion? You can't figure it out without a "table"... it needs to be simpler...
The point is that it's simpler with a table. And who said that I don't understand it :) You look at the numbers in my rating and SPECIFICALLY say where there is some inconsistency or what you personally don't like about it at the moment? The ratings have only been adjusted once. Don't you understand? Not everyone plays all versions, and I adjust the ratings for ALL players on the forum at the same time. Therefore, after five Kanigam tournaments, everyone could play at least one game if they wanted to. Therefore, after five months, after five tournaments, I adjust the ratings for each game version by 10%. And I adjust the overall rating for ALL by 50%, regardless of how many games someone has played. No one prevents anyone from playing all the games and gaining some rating in each tournament. I don't understand what is not clear. It's all clear to me :) Just pour me a drink... and you too :)
In my opinion: Blitz tournaments shouldn't count towards the overall ranking because: Firstly: they are very short, even if calculated over five stages. Secondly: This is mostly a training tournament. And finally, I believe that Grail rewards are sufficient as an incentive.
I believe that Blitz tournaments should be given ranking status:
1. This is a rather debatable statement, especially since we don't have all five tournament maps in front of us. Therefore, it's more logical to talk about the simplicity or complexity of the tournament after it's finished. I think that the five stages of a Blitz tournament are comparable in complexity to a regular tournament. Essentially, a Blitz is just several parts of a single, larger tournament. 2. For many, even a regular tournament is a training exercise, especially since labeling tournaments in this way is subjective. Essentially, what distinguishes a regular tournament from a so-called "training" tournament, besides the speed (and even then, it's debatable who will finish faster overall)? But overall, combining the five stages creates a fairly complete picture. 3. I believe that we should encourage participants in the marathon in every way possible by giving Blitz tournaments ranking status. This will also attract additional players. That would be a good thing.
I still think that the rating for blitz games should be counted. Even though it's a blitz tournament, it's still a tournament, and everyone competes in it: beginners – for educational purposes, and professionals – to determine the best. However, how many rating points to award and how many grail points – that's a separate question.
I still think the blitz rating should be counted. Even though it's a blitz tournament, it's still a tournament, and everyone competes in it: beginners – for educational purposes, professionals – to identify the best. The question of how many rating points to award and how many grail points is a separate issue.
Then, as AlexPank suggested, we calculate based on the points for each round, then sum them up. The leader gets 100 rating points. The rest get points relative to the leader, depending on how many points they scored. And we calculate using the formulas of the current active ratings.
However, the number of rating points and grail rewards is a separate issue.
Equate 5 stages of a blitz to one. Regarding the perceived simplicity of the tournament – these are just assumptions, and announcing the results of the first stage, along with a description of the winner's gameplay, will dispel them. Furthermore, the rating system will make the tournament competition more intense – it will provide some motivation, however small.
P.S. I specifically expressed my opinion on this matter before the results are announced, so that some people don't think I'm "looking out" for myself. The announcement of the results will provide an answer to this question.
Equate 5 stages of a blitz to one. Regarding the perceived simplicity of the Tournament – this is speculation, and announcing the results of the first stage, along with a description of the winner's Walkthrough, will dispel these notions. Furthermore, the rating will make the Tournament competition more intense – it will provide some motivation, however small. P.S. I specifically expressed my opinion on this matter before the results are announced so that some people don't think I'm "looking out" for myself. And the announcement of the results will answer this question.
It's not about the simplicity, but rather that players spend less time on it anyway. And if they come up with even more rating-based Tournaments. In my opinion, it would be logical to calculate the rating based on five rounds of a single blitz once, at the end of this blitz Tournament. And throughout the blitz, there would be a competition to see who gets rating 100 at the end, and who gets a little less. To determine the overall winner of the blitz, points will be awarded for each stage to each participant in each round. Personally, I simply won't be able to update and calculate the rating so often.
I believe that the map from the third stage of "Galthran" deserves a separate mention in the ranking as the most challenging and time-consuming. The other three maps are united by common principles (emphasis on logistics + logical tasks related to conducting relatively simple battles), which allows combining these tasks into a single overall rating...
The fifth stage will again have a combat focus, which will allow combining the rating of the fifth and third stages.
In total, I believe it is possible to make two independent assessments, which will be taken into account in the main ranking:
Overall rating? I suggest calculating the average rating, that is (1+2+4)/3 and (3+5)/2. And even better (1+2+3+4+5):2.5 P.S. I sent the save.
The term "overall" in my post had nothing to do with the word "sum," but rather meant a "combining" rating. Your post is mathematically incorrect, but please do not discuss the rating calculation method in this thread. Everything has already been discussed in the relevant threads.
AlexeyPank
