Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.
...all participants who make it into the top 20 receive points (1st place - 20 points, 2nd place - 19 points... 20th place - 1 point). We have many people who can show good results, and to avoid offending anyone, it is quite acceptable to award points to the top 20.
:) If you had been following the thread about rankings, you would probably understand now that we started with a similar system, and VDV_forever suggested it. But after much discussion, we decided that the result a participant achieved in the tournament is more important than the place they took (see the examples I give - a player completes a map in 100 days but somehow takes 2nd place, while the leader completed the map in ONE day - the example is exaggerated, but if you don't understand it, what else can I say?). On what basis, according to your systems, would a player get a rating corresponding to 2nd place for such a poor result? :) There is no merit in that. The absence of players of the appropriate level in the tournament artificially boosts this player's rating. :)
Added 5 minutes later Ley;112681
That is, 50/50. But Iron said that "equally" is not suitable... - see his post just above. Who should we "believe"? :)
Whether it is suitable or not is a purely personal opinion. I would not even take the component for PLACE into account. But many insist on taking PLACE into account as well. I agreed that the component for place should not be overwhelming compared to the component for the result. Ley;112681
In general, maybe we should calculate the rating depending on the tournament, i.e., directly from the task itself (speed, experience, skeletons)? Maybe it would be more convenient to do the calculations separately for each tournament; in my humble opinion, it would be easier to calculate "such things" in total.
But that's how it's done, it seems :) The formula is suitable for calculating both this and that, and the third. The leader's result is taken as the basis - this is the main thing, and what he collected, days, skeletons, or experience - it doesn't matter :)