Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

I think it's not worth overcomplicating things.

No, no, we still need to talk a bit more :)

All possible calculation options that do not take place (or similar parameters) into account turn out to be quite cumbersome, difficult to understand intuitively, and inconvenient to work with. Essentially, Iron's option is the optimum in terms of simplicity, clarity, and relative accuracy. If we assume that an average tournament does not have huge gaps created by the leader, then provided we abandon the place ranking, this method can remain as a working one...

Well, finally it's been put into proper professional words—exactly what I was trying to explain so clumsily :)

No "simple" modifications can be attached to this calculation option, because we immediately drift back toward the same problems we want to get rid of.

But we were saying that it could be slightly improved if something was introduced into the formula so that a VERY small bonus could be given for secondary parameters, even just to separate players with identical results in the primary parameter within one tournament. You promised you'd think about this question, didn't you??

But when a leader pulls ahead, a tilt occurs toward an unjustified lowering of the rating for all participants except first place. Moreover, those players who are higher in the tournament table suffer the most.

That's not quite true!!! Or rather, it's completely untrue!!! You write that if there is a strong gap between the leader and the bulk of the players, what does that mean? It can only mean one thing: that in this particular tournament for this version, there were no more high-tier or mid-tier players. Consequently, it's not an unjustified lowering of all participants' ratings, but rather an UNJUSTIFIED INCREASE in their rating is being ELIMINATED! At least relative to other players of the same level for this version who DID NOT PARTICIPATE in this tournament. This is what needs to be understood in order to abandon taking place into account when calculating the off-rating.

A simple example:

1 day - 100 points
10 days - 10 points
100 days - 1 point.

The gap between first and second place is equal to the gap between second and third (tenfold). But in this case, an unjustifiably small amount of rating points is awarded for second place... From the perspective of total rating, the results of the second and third players are practically leveled, which is not actually the case... Moreover, regardless of the number of players in the tournament, all other results will fall between 1 and 10 points. And the reason is chance—specifically, the appearance of a strong player at the tournament.

It's not about the appearance of a strong player, but the absence of other strong and mid-tier players. In your example, the gap between second place and the leader is 10 times, but in real numerous tournaments where players of all tiers are represented (strong, medium, weak), we see how close the results are for the primary parameter; however, there are major moments when many strong and mid-tier players for a given version fail to show up (example with stage 4). And there, the gap between first and second place was only 3.5 times, contrary to your example where it's 10 times. But it's possible that the player in second place belongs to the same mid-tier group of 4, but he was unlucky and made a mistake (didn't use space or graves, even though it was allowed by the rules, and consequently fell far behind the leader in days). Should a bonus be given for that? After all, he himself said that toward the end of the game he understood and saw how to get a result of 6-7 days. Now, if he had achieved that, then his rating under my simple system would have been normal, which numerically would be about 50 points. But since the second place result was submitted as 11 days, the rating is 27. What conclusion can be drawn? Either a weak player in this version took second place due to the absence of strong players, OR he is also a strong player but made a gross error on this map (just unlucky). In these cases, NO bonus should be given. But with the oscillator, it turned out that a bonus was given in these cases, and a decent one too!!!

If he hadn't played, the result would be different:

10 days - 100 points
100 days - 10 points.

As we see, for an underdog, no significant changes occur; at the same time, a relatively strong player is highly dependent on a random combination. Moreover, this effect always exists, simply

WHAT RANDOM COMBINATION DOES A STRONG PLAYER DEPEND ON???!!!
I don't understand how you are comparing them. One strong player showed a result of 1 day (see your first example), and another strong player showed a result of 10 days ON THE SAME MAP from the same starting save. How can you call him a strong player (or say he was very unlucky)? Theoretically, there should be results of 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 between 1 and 10. That's why the question arises regarding example 1. Why do you assume that a player with a result of 10 is strong? Well, sure, if he had a good rating and showed good results for this version BEFORE, then yes. But then the simple explanation is—he had little real time and didn't play the map to his full potential or MADE A MISTAKE. I repeat, NO bonus is DUE for that! even though he took second place—it just happened spontaneously in this tournament due to the chance absence of players of a certain level, and including the same place in the formula will only unjustifiably boost such a player's rating.

it manifests to a lesser extent in the absence of a gap in results.

Everything is fine with gaps in results. Everyone gets what they played for. But here's the snag: if the leader is DEFINITELY a weak player (see your example 2), that remains in my system too (this flaw exists in yours as well). All players of this tournament will receive an actually inflated rating due to the complete absence of mid and high-tier players. But let everyone ask themselves—what is the probability of such a situation in official tournaments, even on our forum??

If we ignore this point, we can stop talking about ratings until better times.

That's clear, and let AlexPank calculate using all three systems if he wants, but what concerns me most right now is the question—by which system will the nominees for all versions and the universal be determined? And how will it be done?
I suggest again: let's aggregate results for the universal only for those players who played 5 or more stages. Moreover, each player should choose their best results from only five stages. The places in the universal nomination will be determined by the sum of ratings from one of the systems. Why is everyone silent about this proposal—is it bad again?

Added after 9 minutes

well, since you've looked at the table, please take the trouble to find the thread with the tournament regulations; everything is clearly explained there in the first post. And get something soft to lie on, because I fit all of this into 1 POST on 1 PAGE, and I'm not Yandex... I gave one link and that's enough, otherwise you'll actually get spoiled!

What do I have to be spoiled for—I looked around the online section and understood and found nothing. What am I supposed to do—plow through every single post? I believe that if there is a rating calculation system, its description should be in a visible place, as well as the Player Rating table. Didn't find it. :smile19: Removed :smile19:
Kyle: no one is to blame that you cannot find the right one among three threads! This is entirely your problem. And "attacking" other people over this is simply not nice!
Respectfully.


Added after 29 minutes
PS. And I also forgot to remind you about the co-ops. They can actually artificially create the presence of players of a certain level at a tournament, even if not all of them have that skill level. And thereby, when taking place into account, the rating of those they push down will be unjustifiably lowered. Some might object that those players will still receive an unjustifiably higher rating anyway—well, to hell with them; the main thing is that the rating of those following them in a system without places WILL NOT DECREASE relative to their real result, and that's what matters. The same applies to the presence of a cheater at the tournament. In a system with place ranking, he will push honest players down and LOWER their rating. In a system without place ranking, he might get a better rating if he isn't caught, but the ratings of those following him won't suffer due to an unjustified lowering of their rank.