AmberSoler
Auto-translated
2 IronAxe
Well, I'll do the calculation myself, because I quite possibly think you're trying to come up with a new interpretation of your words right now.
Introducing a virtual player in my example will give the following picture:
player1 - 89 days - 112 points
player2 - 130 days - 77 points
player3 - 170 days - 58 points
player4 - 211 days - 47 points
player5 - 400 days - 25 points
Comparing the two tournaments shows the absurdity of your proposal. I think there is no need to show exactly what this absurdity consists of - the results differ by an order of magnitude, and your tournament map may be very primitive compared to my version. How to get out of this situation? It's elementary! Bring the two tournaments to a common denominator by evaluating the leader's result at 100 points, and the rest - relative to it, according to the shown result.
In this case, your tournament option needs to be multiplied by 0.03, mine - by 0.893, and as a result, we will get two tournaments:
Yours:
player1 - 100
player2 - 50
player3 - 20
player4 - 15
player5 - 3
Mine:
player1 - 89 days - 100 points
player2 - 130 days - 69 points
player3 - 170 days - 51 points
player4 - 211 days - 42 points
player5 - 400 days - 22 points
What do we see? We ended up with the same ranking, which can be calculated without involving a virtual player. Your proposal was initially unreasonable, and you are trying to cling to it instead of admitting a logical error.
Well, I'll do the calculation myself, because I quite possibly think you're trying to come up with a new interpretation of your words right now.
Introducing a virtual player in my example will give the following picture:
player1 - 89 days - 112 points
player2 - 130 days - 77 points
player3 - 170 days - 58 points
player4 - 211 days - 47 points
player5 - 400 days - 25 points
Comparing the two tournaments shows the absurdity of your proposal. I think there is no need to show exactly what this absurdity consists of - the results differ by an order of magnitude, and your tournament map may be very primitive compared to my version. How to get out of this situation? It's elementary! Bring the two tournaments to a common denominator by evaluating the leader's result at 100 points, and the rest - relative to it, according to the shown result.
In this case, your tournament option needs to be multiplied by 0.03, mine - by 0.893, and as a result, we will get two tournaments:
Yours:
player1 - 100
player2 - 50
player3 - 20
player4 - 15
player5 - 3
Mine:
player1 - 89 days - 100 points
player2 - 130 days - 69 points
player3 - 170 days - 51 points
player4 - 211 days - 42 points
player5 - 400 days - 22 points
What do we see? We ended up with the same ranking, which can be calculated without involving a virtual player. Your proposal was initially unreasonable, and you are trying to cling to it instead of admitting a logical error.
