I don't think it will be possible to achieve complete objectivity, as it's unrealistic. An average player can play against weaker opponents and artificially inflate their ranking, thereby increasing their coefficient. But how can we accurately determine, in numbers, who is a strong player, who is an average player, and who is a weak player, while maintaining 100% objectivity and accuracy in the results?

Exactly! And this is where the introduced coefficients will help, to reduce the potential imbalance, which will be even greater the more often "an average player plays against weaker opponents and artificially inflates their ranking." Do you understand?

When an average player plays 100 games with the Swamp faction, inflating its statistics by 100 points, that's an imbalance.
Statistics based on coefficients, let's say, will show 80 (or maybe even 100, or 120), which will be a more realistic figure.

P.S. And also, players don't play to provide statistics for the Castles, but to climb the rankings :)
P.P.S. I guess I didn't explain it very well.


Here, I think I've figured out how to convey my idea!
Give me the statistics for truly strong Castles, that is, those in which
weaker players have defeated stronger players.
Give me the statistics for truly weak Castles, that is, those in which stronger players have lost to weaker players.

Do you understand? Because the strength of a Castle is not a player-dependent phenomenon. That's why it was suggested to introduce a correction coefficient. Because when a strong player wins against a weaker player with a particular Castle, it doesn't necessarily mean (but it doesn't exclude!) that this Castle is stronger.