Connection ErrorBad RequestSession 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.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Yes, it's possible. It's also correct to round to, say, hundredths. But since this is an online Heroes tournament, we also need to add Gw and Gl. That's the question. And if we don't add them, then we can consider the formula complete.
We can add them, but I don't know how. But we can also do without it, although I think it wouldn't hurt to add it, so that this parameter doesn't overly suppress the parameter for PLACE. If you need help, ask FireBall, AmberSoler - maybe they can come up with something, or Sage or Vbn. Maybe after calculating it using the formula, we can then divide by 10, which would give us a rating of several HUNDREDS for the leaders. Then, to the resulting number, already with aging (reduced by 1/3), we can simply add (Gw-Gl)*10. This addition will be approximately equal to about a hundred for the leader in a tournament with 10-11 participants. And for the underdog, this part of the formula will also pull them into the negatives, by about a hundred, if they don't have a single victory in the tournament. I don't think there's anything offensive about this - it's fair. It just increases the gap between the leader and the underdog. But no one prevents the underdog from improving their game and trying to win and take a high place in the next tournament. The gap can be made less significant if, instead of adding (Gw-Gl)*10 to the result, we simply add (Gw-Gl). Then, to the rating of several hundred for the leader, there will be a bonus for victories (plus 1 for each), and for the underdogs, where the rating will be around ten, there will be a "-1" for each defeat. Although the addition for the leaders is not large, it prevents us from pushing the underdogs into the hundreds of negatives. So, think for yourself - is this necessary or not? OptiMAL;115167
P.S. The old rating is not 1/3, but 2/3;) This is significant.
I didn't say that the old rating is 1/3 :) I said that the aging of the rating occurs at 1/3, that is, the rating is reduced by 1/3. Because, as you rightly pointed out, only 2/3 of the old rating is taken.
