Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

The real strength of a player is still reflected in the number of days. Parameters, mercury – all of this certainly reflects the player's strength. But! This only reflects their skills in logistics and attention to detail. This is, of course, important, but not decisive.

Logistics and attention to detail are absolutely crucial in a tournament, very often accounting for about 90 percent. The rest is luck and a couple of tricks in battles. How many difficult battles did you have in stage 6? I had 0.

If a player can complete a map within 1-2 days of the leader, it's not significant that they forgot to pick up a mercury vial. Therefore, the player's strength rating should be determined primarily by the time taken.

On different maps, the same difference in skill will result in a different difference in days and their ratio. AlexR's walkthrough is 2-3 times better than a 10-day one, but the ratio in days is only 0.7. Here, 2-3 days is quite a lot.

For example, in this tournament, I was using a tactic that could have given me 8 days. But due to lack of time, I couldn't adjust it so that the computers wouldn't get too far ahead. After all, on the eighth day, I took all the castles. It turns out that if the determining parameter is the place, then I get a penalty for not having enough time to play. Is this a flaw?

No, it's not a flaw, although it's frustrating, and I understand you. I had less time in the evening for stage 5. And I already wrote about how many days were added to my score simply because I didn't have enough time to generate the hero. But these were my problems, and the result is the result. And stage 6, by the way, didn't require much time. I played for no more than 5-6 hours.

As I said, the system is taken from tennis. A person with a lower average rating, i.e., a potential underdog, receives a greater bonus precisely for playing better than expected. In terms of their place in the tournament, they are behind the leader, who was supposed to win. But for exceeding their own expectations, they receive a higher rating.

Have you wondered what percentage of the total points in a tournament this bonus in tennis actually represents? It's a small thing.

See the attached file.

I looked at it.
In the rating for stage 1, the winner is in 2nd place, and in stage 6, AlexR is only slightly ahead of Romanuel, although his walkthrough should be much better. But Romanuel is far ahead of me and vbn, even though our walkthroughs are almost the same. And only because he didn't play in stage 1. It's all the same.

This option is specifically for those who are not happy with the "penalty" for previous performances. In essence, it is created specifically to give bonuses for the strength of the tournament (if players play worse than they could, they will receive a smaller bonus).

Look carefully at the value of this coefficient in different tournaments and you will see that it is almost a constant and is approximately equal to 1 (and the further, the closer it will be), and therefore this is not a bonus, but a change in the ratio of points for the place and days.

The oscillator does not reflect:
1 - The strength of the tournament.

If it's for the Warlords of Ka'Rooj, then all stages should be equal and without bonuses. And if it's for the overall rating, then you can add a multiplier to the oscillator, as I suggested. In this case, there will be no penalty for previous participation, and the ratings for tournaments will differ by a factor, and not a bonus for the winners of about 30 and that's it.

2 - The strength of the players based on their previous games.

It should only affect the strength of the tournament. See again the multiplier and coefficient that I suggested.