Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

The most foolish thing, more foolish than suggesting to set the minimum to 1 day, has not yet been said in this thread.

Are you stuck on deriving formulas? :) Most players don't understand your incredibly clever calculations and don't need them.

:smile19: Deleted :smile19:

It will only make things worse.

That's not a fact – I'll give you an example with a virtual player and one day. Either you and Amber didn't understand the idea, or you didn't try to calculate it.

:smile19: Deleted :smile19:

Where did you see 9-story formulas? Does the sum symbol and 2 multipliers confuse you? Poor thing, you must have had a hard time finishing school...

I've also seen posts from some players, probably just like me, who don't care about your formulas. Because there are many mistakes in them. And the more complex the formula, the harder it is to identify them.

And the meaning of your comments is absolutely clear: your system is the best because it's yours and doesn't involve mathematics.

I've never hidden that. On the contrary, I've proven that this formula of mine is one of the important components in both Amber's and Panka's systems.

:smile19: Deleted :smile19:

Did you even read my posts? I wanted the difference in rating for the tournament for the top places with the same number of days to be greater than for the bottom places.

I don't know what you wanted. But I showed you that in Amber's and Panka's systems, you got 28 free points in the Kanigam tournament. In my system, you won't get any free points. ;)

Yes, we analyzed it, unlike you, who wrote nonsense on a page and a half. When calculating the rating in the VK, Alexei uses only the oscillator, without a bonus. And you didn't even notice that.

Yeah, of course, it's nonsense, especially when I showed your 28 free points. But what if they choose the winner based on one of these systems? Wouldn't that be unpleasant for someone? But I'm not going to please anyone here. :)

:smile19: Deleted :smile19:

Only your system suffers from such a big flaw. The appearance of...

Rest up. My system – once again – is for the deaf; it's one of the components of both Amber's and Panka's systems, so these systems also suffer from this flaw, and they also suffer from other flaws that my system doesn't have, which I described earlier in those 500 posts that you carefully read and should know.

The problem isn't in the number of digits after the decimal point, and if you understand that, then you need to go back to 5th or 6th grade. The idea itself is meaningless.

Well, that's obvious. You and AmberSoler should already be in the Academy of Sciences. But for some reason, you're not going there. :)

Added after 25 minutes

As soon as you multiply the resulting values by some number so that the leader has 100 points, you will immediately come to the initial option, when we give the leader 100, and the rest depend on him. Iron, your extremism is well-known, and I'm not saying I missed it, but still, take another look at what you're suggesting.

I'll have to cure another mathematician. :)
Let's assume we have the results of a tournament:
player1 - 3 days
player2 - 6 days
player3 - 15 days
player4 - 20 days
player5 - 100 days (a difficult case)

Let's assume the virtual player = 1 day
Calculate the rating:
Virtual - 100
player1 - 33.3333333
player2 - 16.6666666
player3 - 6.6666666
player4 - 5.0000000
player5 - 1.0000000

Now, let's get rid of the virtual player – we don't need him anymore. Multiply all the ratings by 100.
player1 - 3333
player2 - 1666
player3 - 666
player4 - 500
player5 - 100

This really reflects who played how well in relation to the SUPER result. If you say now that the underdogs will have a tiny score, then look at the real tables of our systems now. At the top, we have a rating of 300, at the bottom, 2 (150 times less). In my example (33 times less, the lower result compared to the top). IMHO, it's all realistic, without any bonuses, damn formulas, squares, and sines. And you don't even need to graduate from an institute to understand what's what.

Introducing a virtual player to calculate from his result and then multiplying by some number will lead us in circles – two extra mathematical operations... Recalculate any tournament, assuming that the leader should have 100 points, and see for yourself – in the end, you will get the same known numbers. Why a virtual player? Just please, if you decide to comment again, first recalculate, and then write your opinion.

:smile19: Deleted :smile19:
recalculate and reread my posts. I don't even understand what you wrote here. I didn't have the condition that the real leader would have 100. Now, the VIRTUAL player takes his 100. Did you get it or not?

We can introduce any scale to calculate the relative strength of the players – in the end, the coefficient will be around one – and it doesn't matter if we calculate from 5 points or from 500 for each player. These points will only show the mutual position of the players on the "strength scale" and that's it. When calculating, one value is divided by another, and only the quotient is considered. So, for example, it's the same to divide 700 by 500 or 7 by 5 – in the end, we get 1.4, which is the desired coefficient. And the strength points are just a tool for comparison...

:smile19: Oh my god, if Botinki now explain to me what you wrote here and say that they now understand everything, then Amber, I will agree with any system of rating calculation that you propose. :)

We are discussing the rating issue in the topic only so that everyone who wants to (and understands the essence) can join.

Let's just get the mathematicians to go to another section. In any case, few people understand what you are calculating here. :)

:smile19: Deleted :smile19:
Kyle: spam!