Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

The leader completed it in 100 days, while the underdog took 170 days, for example... And in the end, (compared to a virtual playthrough in one day), they both received approximately the same score towards their rating... :D No, the leader will get a point, and the underdog will get half a point... That's how it is!

Wow :) And I didn't know that it would be difficult for such mathematicians as you to calculate such a rating in relation to the result of a virtual player in one day, with an accuracy of, for example, four decimal places, and then multiply these numbers by 100 or 1000. The meaning of the rating will not change. First, you advocate for the idea and philosophy of calculating the rating, and when you are offered it, you start coming up with silly excuses. Although at the same time you claim, give us a point of reference and we will turn the world upside down :) - we will create any formula :)

:D Iron, the rest didn't do you any good... :) Calculate yourself what you are suggesting...

Who told you that I was resting - I was drinking :) But, as can be seen from my last post and your mathematical intricacies, my drinking had more benefit. My philosophy of calculating the rating should be simple and understandable to everyone, or at least to most. The formula by which the calculation should be performed is as simple as possible - the result (if you compare the rating tables for the three systems) is comparable to yours, AND EVEN BETTER. Improving this calculation by introducing a virtual player, relative to whom the strength of each player will be measured, only strengthens this rating calculation system. I can calculate what I propose - can you?

This is not a rating - it is the strength of a player for calculating the tournament's increasing coefficient... These 50 points have nothing to do with the rating. You can give 5 points, you can give 500. The only question is to compare players with each other in terms of strength.

I'm listening further - so, how many will you put - 5, 50, 80, 500 ???
Justify, tell me how you will compare the strength of players with each other? :) I feel like you're going to come up with some nine-story formula :) I'm laughing, these 50 points have nothing to do with the rating?? They do have a relationship for calculating the tournament's increasing coefficient, which WILL STILL have a relationship with the rating one way or another. Otherwise, why do we need this coefficient??? Thus, it turns out that the number you pulled out of thin air will affect the calculation of the rating - you have always been strongly against this :)

I understand that it is difficult to absorb so much information and write your comments in one evening...
Nevertheless, read more carefully about what we are talking about...

I did absorb it, but I realized from Bootik's penultimate post that your formulas annoyed not only me :) But you, apparently, cannot grasp my comments on your disputes with Fireball. Although this is understandable :) My posts do not contain nine-story formulas. And it is difficult for you to understand what is written when there are no such formulas in the post :) But I hope that others will be more understanding of my comments than of your intricate formulas. You need to go to a symposium of mathematicians for a Nobel Prize, not play Heroes. But I think you won't be understood there either :)

PS. Is anyone trying to analyze the rating tables for the Kanighem tournament, which AlexPank maintains??? Look at the first five places in the Amber and Pank systems - the results are one and the same. Differences appear closer to the end of the tables - this is clearly visible - does it matter to anyone? The calculation according to the Axe system - we see that the results of the top five differ from the previous systems. Moreover, as FireBall wished. The distance between the first and second places is still significant, because there are no bonuses in this calculation that gratuitously encourage or punish someone - everyone gets what they earned based on the main criterion for winning in each tournament. However, the results closer to the end of the table in the Axe system are practically the same as the end of the table in the Pank system. The Amber system continues to stomp on the underdogs :) Pank simply pulls the underdogs up to my results with bonuses. But the leaders are slightly affected by these coefficients, so that the gap between the leaders is not greater than what Fireball is unhappy about. Fireball justifies this by saying that a player may not have enough real time and may show a result worse than in the previous game in the same version of Heroes in the second stage. And Pank's bonus will do its dirty work, it will slightly affect this player's rating in the negative. My system does not suffer from this - EVERY PLAYER GETS EXACTLY WHAT HE EARNED IN THIS PARTICULAR TOURNAMENT, RELATIVE TO THE RESULT OF THE LEADER, who always gets a hundred for leadership. There are no bonuses or penalties. Do any of the players need them? Speak up, anyone?

PPS. Fireball, look at our results in Heroes 4 according to all three systems. According to Axe, I got 100, I couldn't get more physically based on the calculation system, you got 27.27 relative to me according to the main criterion for speed. That is, you got what you earned. However, in other systems, I also get 100, and you get 55.30. The extra bonus is approximately 28 points !!!!!! According to the Amber system, this is obtained by a tricky averaging of a non-linear and linear component (you were rewarded purely for 2nd place). There are no rewards for 1st place. But what does this 2nd place mean? There were simply no players like Zveroboy, Under, and many others that I know. Perhaps they would have beaten me, or we would have had the same result, but they would have pushed you out of 2nd place. Accordingly, this reward for a place that is not related to the result you received makes no sense. I am not against rewarding according to the rules. There is a point here - you are not to blame that they did not show up. But to distort the game rating - IS NOT LOGICAL !! And according to the Pank system, you get exactly the same reward bonus, because you have not played 4 before, but took 2nd place on the first try, again due to the absence of higher-level players in the tournament. The absence of players of the proper level in the tournament should NOT GIVE ANY rating bonuses to the player - this introduces a direct distortion of the game rating for the players.
You disagree? Let's assume there was no me there either, then even in my system you would get a hundred. But all the systems that we currently have on our forum suffer from this drawback. And here, the introduction of a virtual player in my system can help, who supposedly always completes the map in one day. Then the leader's result will be brought to the proper value, and the results of all other players will also be. I have mentioned this before, but everyone ignored it and rushed to improve the systems in a different direction and started calculating based on what exists and what they came up with. And since none of the systems have been adopted officially, I also abandoned this idea with a virtual player so as not to burden myself with calculations with an accuracy of N decimal places. Now, if you want to improve something, then think better about this idea, taking into account the above reasoning.