DmitriyAS
Auto-translated
Well, read the thread where rating systems are discussed.
And when you tie it to a specific map, the same thing happens. Radik and Dmitry won't show up for the Tournaments. And then Perpolken takes first place, and IronAxe takes second, and I can still get a decent rating EVEN if, as a result, I'm twice as far behind Perpolken (and it doesn't matter if his result is the maximum or not; if it's not the maximum, then it's completely hopeless :) !!! Because, according to your system, the result and its connection to it are meaningless! But the place taken is everything!
And we both took pretty good places :) I'm already tired of explaining why this flaw with the PLACEMENT is worse than the flaws in a system tied to the leader's result :) We're not at the Olympics here, and there are no qualifying rounds, so even at BestOfBest, the number of players and their quality are unpredictable. In this case, it's still more logical to rely on the leader's result than on the places taken, given that players of, say, the middle tier might not show up. And if players of the highest tier don't show up, then the flaw will be apparent in both systems :) But with a system tied to the leader's result, there's already half as much of a flaw ;)
Let's consider your example with the marathon and the 100-meter dash. On a huge map like BestOfBest, you took 30 days, and I took 60. You get a rating of 100, and I get 50. And it doesn't matter what my place is – we're comparing results relative to the leader. On a small map, you finished in 3 days, and I finished in 6. You get 100, and I again get 50. What's wrong with that??? And what, in your opinion, is wrong here? I might not have fully grasped what Perpolken proposed. But in my system, where results are compared to the leader's result, the data will be exactly as I showed you in the example. Go read the thread about rating discussions – there are probably 1000 posts there :) And they still haven't come to any conclusion :)
PS. Regarding the example. And let's say you don't show up for the Tournaments, and the leader gets a result of 50 days on BestOfBest, then, of course, he will get 100, and I will get more for 60 days. But who will be to blame for that? Exactly. Dmitry AS! He will be to blame in any case IF HE DOESN'T SHOW UP FOR THE TOURNAMENTS ;) Whether it's a system with placement or a system that ties results to the leader's result. And also for starting a biathlon-heroic rating system without reading the thread about rating discussions :) Everyone gets a rifle and goes skiing :)
Why bring up cases of players not showing up? Do you think I'm defending the interests of those who skip Tournaments? Start with something simple. Understand the essence – with the same amount of effort spent on a map, in one case the difference in rating will be one thing, and in another case, it will be something else. I hope I don't need to explain the concept of subjectivism to you.