Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

Iron, be so kind! come up with a more realistic example... for example, at least 8 participants!!! 3 participants is nonsense IMHO!!!

:) Good people. I already said the example was exaggerated, to make it easier for anyone to calculate using all systems and see what the flaw would be and understand it. If you don't want to understand it with such an example, who on earth is going to deal with an example where I whip up a couple of tables with a hundred people in each? :) I already provided a real example too (the 4th stage of Kanigem).

Added after 13 minutes

This is impossible, since the participants' ratings are unknown. And it makes no sense, since the example is not real.

The example examines how a newly devised system will behave when, conventionally speaking, no one has ratings yet :)

2Kyle
I see that you are also no stranger to the competitive spirit. I understand you, and that's why I cannot conceive of a rating without a place. Results are important in training, but in Competitive events, almost everything is decided by your place in the final protocol.

All your patriotic examples about Competitive events and the importance of placing are applicable when talking about competitions where players go through a bunch of qualifying stages to get in. In other words, there are practically no weak players in such competitions; they've been filtered out. In our case, everyone is lumped together, the tournament lineups are inconsistent and random in nature.
Maximix was in the "double" — he dragged everyone's rating down a bit and then he's gone. I suffered too, even though I was the one who invited him back then :) And for the "four," no one came to push others down by place. All the factors I mentioned are evident: the randomness of the lineup from tournament to tournament and version to version, the inconsistency of strength in the lineup, i.e., the rating flaw heavily depends on the random factor due to the place occupied. Moreover, I see no competitive element here. This is a clear substitution of the real result with the occupied place, and consequently, a distortion in the rating.

Added after 11 minutes

Exactly, and at that point it's no longer important by how much you lagged behind the leader! Only the place matters. Because many ratings for competitions (with a large number of stages) are calculated by points which directly depend on the occupied place, and do not depend on the result as such.

Alright, stop exaggerating. It's not ratings being calculated at the stages, but POINTS, to tally up the money for the entire tournament based on points. And ratings are calculated later :) And one rating is not like another. Some ratings can, for example, take into account even broken knees of your runners :) and the results shown by a player at tournaments. The place may be of a supporting nature. If the rating simply depended on the place — then what would bookmakers live on? The unpredictability of results in matches ultimately affects the places. Therefore, the rating should to a greater extent take into account specifically the results obtained by the player, and not the occupied place. And if we take your example with runners, one finished in 10 minutes, and the whole crowd caught up a couple of hours later, then it's unlikely that the second place would get a good rating from bookmakers, despite their silver medal :)
PS. Basically, I'm tired of this again, look, Amber is smarter, she doesn't interfere now. You are developing some thing to calculate a rating with which you can then determine the finalists for the Kanigem tournament. But that is not a rating, it's a system for counting some points to determine winners in a multi-stage tournament. My idea was different from the start. It's already clear who took which places when we arrange the players according to their result. And now, taking the first place as 100 rating points, we calculate the rating for all players based on the result in DAYS. I don't get why the place is needed there? :) My rating was not, roughly speaking, tasked with identifying winners of multi-stage tournaments :)

Added after 8 minutes

You mean it should be simplified to the impossible, and important components should be ignored. :rolleyes:
Moreover, I showed you that my rating turns out the same :D
PS. There won't be three participants in official tournaments

That means you've picked the coefficients well, which remove the flaws for the occupied place :)

Added after 7 minutes

to IronAxe
May I ask the reason for the suspension of the rating calculation according to your system since April... and this also concerns the nomination of the 13 best warriors!!!:confused:

There are several reasons:
1. I'm waiting for the most optimal formula to be developed
2. Lack of time due to a tight schedule of tournaments and discussions of the most optimal formula.
3. It's not hard to recalculate all tournaments using my formula, but updating the page on this forum is very difficult for me.
4. Checking the need for an alternative rating shows that besides you and me, nobody needs it, so is it worth continuing?

Added after 2 minutes

Why did Iron keep quiet... he seemed to participate in the discussion of that system!!!:smile10:

I didn't keep anything quiet, I expressed in that same thread that it's unlikely to be suitable for the official side. At that time, I suggested the NON-LINEAR part of the formula for the rating, taking into account only the result in DAYS, to which they've now added god-knows-what :)