Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

So, the so-called "freebie" happens when, after, say, 3 Tournaments, the player who took 1st, 1st, and 2nd places ends up lower than the player who took 4th, 4th, and 1st places. All thanks to your brainchild. And there are different situations, so I think the case you described is normal.

Well, if that's normal :) then the flaws you described in my system are just child's play compared to such a HUGE flaw :) And about your case, I gave you an example with runners who run five laps, and in the first four laps, one wins by a second each lap, and then in the fifth, the other overtakes him by 20 seconds - WHO WON? You remained silent :) Well, then about boxers :) Player A hammered player B for 9 rounds and was ahead on points in each, but in the tenth, player B knocked him out so hard that he couldn't get up :) WHO WON? But don't tell me about what's normal :)

Unfortunately, I wasted time studying what you came up with.;) I suggest you don't get too carried away with anyone's preference for one or another ranking system. I think we need to take a closer look at this issue - let's come up with something together.

I might not have been so optimistic if I hadn't heard this from the very people I mentioned. And I'm not going to create a ranking system that depends ONLY on the place taken - in my opinion, this is wrong for offline play. I have already stated my position on this. I reluctantly accepted a system that takes into account both parameters (result and place) - and I only agreed with the Kamikaze system, but I am still dissatisfied with the 50x50 ratio.

There was another word that was unclear to you - "exaggerated." And what was meant was that, in comparison with the sport you mentioned, it turns out that only one unit of measurement (a constant) is used there, while in Heroes, there are currently 3. And in all these three cases, the gaps between players can be completely different only because of these very units. And you propose to take such a gap into account.

Well, what's the problem - Sage explained everything to you clearly. Let's compare you and me. In a speed tournament on a large map, you beat me by 30 days. You get 100, and I get points based on the ratio of our results. On a small map, you beat me by 4 days. You get 100, and I get points based on the ratio of the results. In a skeleton gathering competition, you collected 1000 more skeletons than me. You get 100 ranking points - I get points based on the ratio of our results. This ranking, both mine and yours, will reflect the real state of affairs between us in these tournaments, both in each individual tournament and in the sum of all tournaments. And imagine EXAGGERATEDLY (you understand the meaning of this word well) that there were only three of us, and the third is a complete newbie. So, in all these three tournaments, I would have taken SECOND PLACE (so I'm a hero, damn it :) and according to your flawed system, after three tournaments, I would be only slightly behind you in the ranking :) And according to my system, it would be more objective. So, if your proposal regarding the ranking based on place is FLAWED even in an exaggerated example, then what it will do in reality can only be guessed - like you like to say, "time will tell" (by the way, it's already showing). And I don't need to wait or guess - in my system, in this example, everything will be calculated perfectly :)

Some people find it more difficult to communicate with you than I do. I explain much of your communication style by the fact that it's all virtual, and you perceive it as a game. Otherwise, you should weigh at least 100-120 kg, if you express your thoughts in this way in real life.:)

Well, you didn't guess about the weight. I'm lighter. But if you're talking about punching someone in the face, I'm not a sumo wrestler. Things have happened. And with friends, we only communicate like this, especially when we're drinking :) But you're not a simpleton either. Like, if you carefully studied the topics about the ranking and are writing that you wasted time, then you must have seen how it was all discussed and that many people came to the conclusion that both place and result should be taken into account. And then Dmitry AS appears and says that all this is wrong - only the place should be taken into account. Like a hint that we are all idiots here. Maybe you really weigh 150 ;)

Added 2 minutes ago

Absolutely correct! Take VBN's last game - pure luck and nerves. And in general, this concept often "pops up" when discussing one or another online game. But it is not applicable to offline. That's why I haven't joined the ranks of "ON" yet. But to play for adrenaline, for variety (and for other reasons), I definitely want to. I think I will perform better online.

I want to dedicate next year to online games. I simply won't be able to combine them. It's either one or the other - but in all versions of Heroes :) Let's do it together ;)