Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

2AlexeyPank

4. Ultimately, a bonus that takes into account the strength of the tournament is necessary. And so far, no one has put forward arguments against the refined version of it. I would like to hear constructive criticism.

Your bonus has one serious problem – its scale. Its idea is taken from tennis, where, if I'm not mistaken, it serves as a nice addition for a player who has gone through a more challenging bracket. The main points are determined by the rank of the tournament and the round in which the athlete reached (i.e., their placement). Major tournaments are assigned a rank in advance, and players know what they are playing for, and the prize money is accordingly high. In our case, we cannot know the rank of the tournament in advance, because there is a strong element of randomness in the participants. That is why I proposed introducing a coefficient for tournaments, which was actively discussed with AmberSoler. Yes, there were shortcomings, but still, the coefficient would quite well indicate the strength of the tournament and differentiate it accordingly. The difference in the final rating of the winners of different tournaments could be several times greater. It all depended on the composition. But your bonus so far does not exceed 10 points. It is completely unsuitable for separating tournaments by strength. But as a stimulus to progress – yes, that's true. But even in this version, it should be adjusted: negative bonuses should not be awarded (being responsible for one's own previous success is too much), and the winner should still have the maximum rating. But is it worth the effort?..