Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

What do you mean by "getting prizes," and can you provide the username of someone from your example? I'd like to compare it to the tables and see how it works, because you're saying something, but I don't understand.

Getting prizes means finishing in the top three. And the person from the example doesn't exist, although they could. The results were chosen from real tournaments in such a way as to most clearly demonstrate the flaws in the system. But since you're rejecting it yourself, we can consider the topic closed.

What should I write, in your opinion? I should have checked if I wanted to and had the ability and skills. I spent almost the entire month on this map – half a month on reconnaissance, half a month on a clean playthrough. I reported on the battles, provided saves from the end of each day, offered any saves, answered all questions, and created a description. Do you have any complaints? Is the playthrough unrealistic?

No, the playthrough is real and great. The explanations are also sufficient, for example, for me to be able to reproduce everything clearly. I was saying that on that map, if you don't spend so much time (which is usually a few days), you probably wouldn't make it into the top three, and you'd be in fourth place. But that's just my opinion.

Why are you picking on me and on the fifth place? I just played very badly in it because I don't know ANYTHING there. I played there and everywhere else based on the fact that before the tournament, it was explained to EVERYONE how the results would be approximately calculated.

I used the fifth place as an example of a part that is difficult to separate by days due to its specifics.

to refine and prove that everything is bad because Axe is in first place.

To avoid misunderstandings: I didn't consider anyone's place in the ranking when creating the system. My system has two parameters that are not fully defined, and I don't know what their values will be, and who will be in first place in total.

Well, I would have come up with some kind of coefficient and added it to my first version, because the virtual one eliminated a small flaw that, by the way, exists in all systems (I just didn't notice that by eliminating a small flaw, it introduces a bigger one, and so what? I can admit a mistake – I'm not as stubborn as Amber).

I tried to modify the idea with the absolute value, but it didn't work, and it probably won't. Everything is too tied to the real minimum of the map.

It's already flawed just because the place is taken into account.

Maybe this is my stereotype, as a person who has participated in a large number of competitions (both sports and intellectual), but the place matters. In fact, the thinking in them is as follows: what place, did you get into the top three, did you pass the selection for a more prestigious competition. You know your real seconds, meters, and kilograms anyway. Therefore, the place matters.

You said, give me an idea, and I'll come up with a formula.

I said that I would write a formula based on the finished curve and parameters. That's not the same thing.

And you don't want to admit that in a system where the place is taken into account, there is an unresolvable specific flaw. In a tournament, if there are five identical results, you cannot determine whether there was an out-of-game discussion between the players during the game or not – nevertheless, the rating of the players following them WILL BE LOWERED. IS THAT FAIR? WHAT DO YOU PERSONALLY THINK?

There is a flaw, and it is unfair. But I believe that this is a lesser evil than abandoning the consideration of the place altogether.

P.S. I agree that if a group collectively completes it, they might beat me. But in my system, they won't push me down in the ranking as much as in yours. Study the material and take a bath.

They might push you down, and even more than in the oscillator. You seem to have forgotten that a cooperative can show a better result per day in the tournament, and therefore significantly reduce your ratio of days. So, you need to study the material and take a bath.

In no way – just like your system. I clearly showed that my protection works when a clan discusses the playthrough together, and yours does not. And the player's rating in my system is protected, but not in yours.

I hope you now realize the absurdity of this quote. Any system with places will suffer from discussion, but yours will too.

Your demagoguery about valor and honor does not interest me, but the protection of the rating does.

It's not about valor and honor, which are already very rare. It's about laziness and the fear of exposure; the risk and effort are not worth it if there is no mercenary interest. You don't understand me again.

Even if the cheating is not massive and hardcore, but isolated, I still don't want someone's rating to suffer because of it, especially mine.

If someone from the outsiders cheats, it probably won't affect you. But if someone from the top players cheats, you might suffer, and so will your system.