Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

Here's a statement I found by AmberSoler :) --- The only question is whether the ideology behind the ranking will become a victim of its own illusions... --- In a way, AmberSoler doesn't realize that he himself has become the first victim of his own illusions :) as one of the ideologists of the ranking with the oscillator. Do you think that the formula I presented as the final one was the first thing that came to my mind? Of course, initially I wanted to take many things into account there, such as the location, the strength of the Tournament, the number of participants, the difficulty of the map, and the permissible limits. But as I thought about one thing or another, I came up with many situations where the system failed, and I gradually discarded parameters one by one. In the end, there was NOT A SINGLE ONE left :) For some time, I was stumped because there were no more parameters left. And only then did it occur to me that I should only take into account the pure result based on the main condition for winning the Tournament (days or experience or skeletons or resources) relative to the leader's result.

Added 23 minutes ago

In your first system, the maximum rating was 100, regardless of the leader's result. As a result, all Tournaments using this ranking system were equivalent, and, for example, for an easy map where there were no worthy opponents, the leader receives the same rating as for a Tournament held on a difficult map with a large number of contenders for first place. In the system with the "Virtual Player," another flaw arises: now, the leader for a map that can be easily completed in 3 days will receive a higher rating than for a map where the minimum completion time is, for example, 100 days.

Just say that the same flaw or a similar one does not exist in the system of Amber and Pank, and I will laugh. I agree with what you wrote. But let's talk about the situation where these two Tournaments are held on the same version of the game, and both leaders participate in both Tournaments. The flaw disappears for them. They both competed on both an easy and a difficult map against each other and received corresponding ratings that no one and nothing can influence because only their results in days are taken into account, which depended solely on their ability to play the game under any time constraints, since there is no need to focus on secondary parameters. And in your example, you say that Player A played in Tournament 1 and did not play in Tournament 2, and Player B played in Tournament 2 and did not play in Tournament 1. Here, nothing will help ANY SYSTEM without a map difficulty coefficient. Because we assume that there is also Tournament 3, where neither A nor B played, but a newbie played and with a result of 1000 days on a super-easy map receives 100 points according to my first system, just like players A and B in their Tournaments 1 and 2. And if we take the system with the Virtual Player, then in this case, only Player B will suffer a little. And why? Because he missed Tournament N1. I think you can draw your own conclusions if you are capable. Well, Player B will now have to chase Player A and wait for him to miss a Tournament with an easy map and get his revenge. Although, in reality, look at the Tournaments that have actually taken place on the forum. The leaders' results on the maps do not exceed a two-week period.