IronAxe
Auto-translated
Yeah, and there are plenty of observers... I'm still waiting for real tables so that it's faster and easier to understand how each system works... for example, the bonuses from AlexeyPank.
B - 20 days (total skills 16, oil 11)
Tournament 2 results:
C - 5 days (total skills 15, oil 16)
D - 6 days
E - 20 days (total skills 20, oil 25)
I specifically chose an exaggerated example where there are no previous games relative to which bonuses should be given, and there is no data to calculate the strength of the tournament. Here, only DAYS and a subjective placement can be taken into account. The developers who take placement into account in their systems will hardly be able to reasonably explain in this example why player E should receive a lower rating than player B, especially if the secondary parameters are changed, as I did now. If they could remove the PLACEMENT from their systems but include the accounting of secondary parameters, that would be fine, but it's difficult, as AmberSoler is still silent about this, although he promised to think about it. So, what conclusion can be drawn? Since it is impossible or very difficult, it is easier to get rid of these parameters altogether. The result based on the main criterion for determining the winner is quite sufficient in itself, and this can already be seen in real tables.
But based on previous discussions, I support AlexPank and Kamikadze more. Because, although I don't really understand what the catch is, they are trying to reduce the flaws that are introduced into their formulas due to taking PLACEMENT into account with their bonuses and coefficients. Wouldn't it be easier for you to remove it from the formula and simplify your life? Or go ahead and calculate your ratings based on this example and explain the legitimacy of the results