Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

Let's start the post-mortem.
You suggest calculating the rating using the formula
R=10000(∑(1/Ni))/(∑Ni)
Welcome to our friendly company of "9th floorers"

Thanks :) No way, forget it. It's easier for me to admit this idea is a dead end and return to my first system; that one doesn't really glitch. It works reliably and clearly :)

This formula distorts the rating in favor of fast maps less than your previous creation, but it still does so very strongly.
Let's consider the same imaginary player who won 4 stages, but showed a 4th place result among the top four (13 days); he will lose to you, even though you didn't even make the prizes anywhere except for the fourth, and in the fifth it's almost a complete... well, you get me. Simply put, in the fifths there are no "outs", no graves, and a whole bunch of other legalized bugs/features specifically for off-map. And creating such gaps while playing not against absolute noobs is simply impossible. In general, a person who won 4 out of 5 tournaments, and took 3rd place in one, should never lose on the total sum, especially to someone who made the prizes only once.

What do you mean by "make the prizes" and provide the nickname of the person from your example; I'll at least look at the tables for comparison, because you're saying something but I don't understand you.

Another example. Let's say there is a person who, like you, plays both 4 and 5. And let's say he didn't have time to engage in timeKilling in 4 by playing out a bunch of battles (since you wrote that you played everything cleanly, didn't "Ares" anywhere—it's scary even to imagine how many hours you spent on this)

And what am I supposed to write according to you? You should have checked if you had the desire and opportunity and knew how. I spent practically that entire month on this map—half a month doing scouting, half a month doing a clean Walkthrough. I reported the battles, provided saves for the end of each day, offered any saves, answered all questions, and wrote a description :) Any complaints? Is the Walkthrough unrealistic?

and polishing unit movement. In most versions, this would likely lead to loss of parameters, but in this case, with a high degree of probability, it led to +1 day.
i.e., let's say the player's result in 4 is 4 days (2nd place), and in 5 it's your same 17 (but with higher parameters). In the first stages—12(1st place), 12, 7(1st place). Total: the player plays better than you in 3 versions (in two they are equal), beat you in 4 out of 5 tournaments, has two 1sts and one 2nd place, but is lower than you in rating.
If you wish, you can check both examples and see the invalidity of your latest idea.

Why are you picking on me and the fifth? I only played really poorly in it because I know absolutely NOTHING about it :) I played there and everywhere else based on what was explained to EVERYONE before the tournament regarding how totals would be calculated. For the general rating, they were supposedly going to sum up ratings by version and this was discussed—where were you smart-asses then? After that, I chose my strategy for the tournament and knew that I couldn't skip a single tournament if I wanted to fight for the general title, which is what I did. And now, halfway through the tournaments, Fireball pops up like a jack-in-the-box and together with AmberSoler they start "refining" something and proving everything is crap because Axe is in first place :) Tell me, what am I guilty of? The fact that I understood it was better for me to get even 5 points for the fifth than ZERO :)

Let me explain. If player A is truly strong in 4, he will win it and get 100 points. Similarly, player B will get 100 points for 3. The results of A in 3 and B in 4 will be heavily influenced by the composition of participants, agreed. It turns out that 2 out of 4 results are distorted. By introducing a virtual with 1 day, all 4 results are distorted, since neither A nor B is responsible for the actual possible minimum of the map.

Well, you could have just come up with some coefficient and strengthened my first version with it, because the virtual fixed a small glitch there which, by the way, exists in all systems (well, I didn't notice that by fixing a small glitch it introduced a larger one, so what? I can admit a mistake—I'm not as stubborn as Amber) instead of trying to improve a formula with an oscillator that is obviously flawed. It's flawed already just because it takes place into account. There's absolutely no protection.

Absolute equivalence of stages will never happen in practice, but the distortion with the virtual is many times greater.

I remember you saying "give me an idea and I'll come up with a formula" :) Well, come up with one so that the distortion from the virtual is minimized. But that's impossible. Because you can't determine—was it a complex map or were there no strong players—because everything here is subjective. I admit this and return to my previous formula—I have somewhere to retreat :). But you don't want to admit that in a system where place is taken into account, there is a specific unfixable glitch. In a tournament with five identical results, you cannot determine whether there was out-of-game discussion between players during the game or not—nevertheless, the rating of the players following them WILL BE LOWERED. IS THIS FAIR? WHAT DO YOU PERSONALLY THINK?

Now about creating clones in tournaments.
If you had bothered to look at the dependencies more closely, you would have noticed that such actions with 12-15 participants only slightly push back those behind the cheater and have almost no effect on those ahead. And it takes quite a lot of time to create a clone that doesn't get caught. Who needs that? There haven't been any such cases yet. But discussion of tactics among several people distorts any system, as they can together achieve a better result in terms of days.

I specifically showed with an example how in my system the PUSHED-BACK player remains with a rating corresponding to 3rd place, and how in this same situation he is pushed down to 7th under the oscillator system. If you don't see the difference and don't understand this, then the conversation is over :)
OR ARE YOU GOING TO CLAIM THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 7th AND 3rd PLACE?

The point is that I know the math much better than you. And I can state with full confidence that your assertion is false. When a problem cannot be solved exactly, more data is always taken, and certainly not just one parameter. And almost always, more complex calculations are used to obtain more accurate results.

:smile19: Removed :smile19:
or show how in your system a player won't lose rating if several "clever" comrades wedge themselves in front of him.

PS. I agree that if a crowd completes it collectively, they might beat me. But in my system, they won't push me back in the rating as they would in yours. :smile19: Removed :smile19:


Added after 3 minutes

The problem of finding the optimal balance has been reduced to a question of proving the invalidity of the ideas of the great combinator IronAxe.
Voting for the calculation system, if one is found, will be conducted among the people who discussed it. The voice of one participant, no matter how loud, cannot create an advantage toward a system if it is not worthy of attention.
Therefore, I suggest not wasting time on uselessness...

:smile19: Removed :smile19:
It's clear that if you take me, you, and Fire for the commission, then I will lose :) Therefore, I support the people who expressed a desire that EVERYONE should vote, not just the chosen few-:smile19: Removed :smile19:


Added after 7 minutes

Your idea has already been considered and its absurdity was clearly (and quickly) demonstrated. You've had another "brilliant thought," but read post 671.
There, similarly to the previous case, it is shown that it's not much better than the first one.

You simply have nothing to answer. And as for my idea with the virtual failing—well, obviously—it was flawed just like the oscillator.

Are you talking about rating security again? Read that same post 671.

Shove it where the sun don't shine :)

Your system is protected against clones (which make no sense to create anyway, except in 4, but because of the ability to view moves, this must be done very carefully, i.e., slowly), but it suffers from everything else just as much. And I'll add another question: how does your system intend to cut off fraud by a player (someone asks a monster acquaintance to help them) or neutralize the effect on 4 tournaments of one lovely guide, etc.

It doesn't—just like your system. I clearly showed that my protection works when a clan discusses the Walkthrough together, while yours does not. And the player's rating in my system is protected, whereas in yours it isn't.

Tournaments are played for fun and one should not assume mass hardcore cheating.

Your demagoguery about valor and honor doesn't interest me; I am interested in the security of the rating.

Added after 7 minutes
I just thought that the idea with the virtual would improve the system. I was wrong. Now you've picked on this and are trying to bully me specifically for the virtual idea. At the same time, you don't want to admit the glitch in the oscillator system, and you can no longer object with anything smart :) The familiar talk about honor and valor has started. To the bathhouse (forget it)! :)

Added after 21 minutes

Tournaments are played for fun and one should not assume mass hardcore cheating.

Even if the cheating isn't mass hardcore but just a single instance, I still don't want someone's rating to suffer from it, especially mine :)