Choosing the official ranking on HeroesWorld.

First of all, I want to say a HUGE THANK YOU to SS-D, who maintained the official HeroesWorld rating for a long time. I looked at the statistics of his own games: winter 2008 – 17 games, spring and summer 2008 – 3 each, he didn't play anymore. BUT he continued to maintain the rating and a lot of other statistics... Respect and gratitude...

Yes, there really are a lot of indifferent people.

I am absolutely indifferent to the number next to my nickname in some table. So I don't care how that number is obtained. Judging by the vote, there are quite a few like me. But I'll still express some thoughts. So to speak, IMHO from an indifferent person.
I voted for the first option. I didn't delve into the math, but "by eye" it does seem like a more fair scoring system. Probably, some players will find it more interesting this way.
Indifference regarding scoring is NOT EQUAL to indifference regarding the existence of a statistics table.
SS-D's table is very valuable for its statistics. I would like the table to continue to include players' ICQ numbers, win/loss ratios, and as much other info as possible. On HeroesPortal, Dream did it really well – for each player, all games for the season – castle, opponent, date. There's also castle statistics. I understand this is a lot of work. Maybe it can be automated? So that after writing a report, the winner enters the information somewhere, sends a confirmation request to the loser, and the game is automatically added to the rating and statistics tables?

By the way, if the rating system suddenly changes, it would be good to review the tournament points system as well.

+1. It would also be good if tournament organizers specified in the rules whether games count/do not count towards the rating and announced the number of prize points. It is highly desirable that games are added to the rating without duplication in the "Reports" thread. On one hand, it's tedious to discuss with an opponent every time whether a game counts towards the rating, on the other hand, it breeds clones in several threads, and on the third hand, reading those clones.

Anyone who disappears and hasn't played a single game, for example for a year, should simply be removed from the rating list (possibly temporarily).

+1. I looked at last winter. Our newcomers – probably more than half of the nicknames I've never heard of. Many people play a couple of games and disappear. In a year, the table risks stretching to several pages and consisting mostly of "dead souls." This could be regulated with a decay factor. Maybe we could create some kind of archive to retrieve those who return from there.

A table with two final columns: a seasonal rating (which resets at the start of the season) and a game strength rating (naturally, taking decay factors into account) – that would be a nice picture.

+1. A permanent and a seasonal rating in one table is an excellent option.

Otherwise, no one will want to play with low-rated players at all.

True for those who play for the rating. I think this won't apply to everyone.
Obviously, there is no perfect system and as Javdet rightly said recently: the best rating is in our heads.
I don't know how others choose their opponent. For me, it depends on my mood and the availability of offers to play. Moreover, when choosing an opponent, I don't focus on the player's strength, but first and foremost on the comfort of communicating with them.

Playing with low-rated players does not help improve skill.

I'm not sure. Speaking in the language of combat sports, I perceive seasonal games as sparring, training with castles and heroes I don't know how to play, trying out some new ideas, learning new templates... Of course, with the computer it might be faster and easier, like hitting a punching bag, but with a human it's more interesting, and you can discuss the game afterwards. The rating doesn't play a role here. And it seems like both players' skill improves.

I looked at my winter season on HeroesWorld. Played 21 games – 19 wins, 1 loss, 1 draw. Of these, 8 games were for rating, 7 games in inter-portals, 6 tournament games. From the alternative rating table, it's impossible to understand which games I was awarded points for. And it's obvious that the inter-portal games (which are a third of the total), which were the most important to me, were not included in the rating.
Of course, I would like all games reported on the site to be taken into account in the rating.
Maybe we could think about a system for awarding points for wins in inter-portals? It's not about my personal interest. In the winter IP, victories were achieved by Mizrael, Uran over Stinger, Pasha, AlexR, Decontaminator... Don't these guys deserve some points for those incredibly tense games? And no deductions for losses. Some additional incentive and gratitude for a good game for HeroesWorld, you know...