Player rating for offline Heroes 3 tournaments!

A small amount of resources… How should I put this… In my opinion, it's actually quite a lot. Normal is easier by definition, which is why the coefficient is lower! Everything is perfectly balanced! As for the future, less experienced players can transition to a harder level with a higher coefficient over time.
THE COEFFICIENTS, AS WELL AS THE FORMULA PROPOSED BY IRONAXE, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REVISION!:cool:

AmberSoler is simply considering a situation where one of the strong players decides to play on Normal in a tournament for some reason. Accordingly, he would receive a rating that doesn't match his status, since the advantages of Normal over Hard may be minimal, while the coefficient pushes down with constant force regardless of the quantitative value of those advantages, because determining them with some other coefficient is very difficult, if possible at all. But I have a question: Why would he go there? Or rather—why would he go there if he knows about the assigned coefficients?

That's exactly the point—this is your opinion and understanding, but users are all different and everyone has different opinions. Some play strongly, some weakly!
If we follow your logic, then users who play on Normal should not be considered players at all! Do I understand you correctly?
:confused:

I already said that the organizers will reserve the right to maneuver with difficulty levels. I see nothing wrong with that. Freedom of choice with fixed assigned coefficients :)
I am simply confident that players will gradually migrate to Impossible on their own, provided that we continue to calculate the rating.

It's simple: on Normal, all rewards remain exactly the same as on Impossible, except for the RATING (GRAIL), which will be reduced by 2 times. i.e.
25 Grails for first place, 23 for second (rounded), 20 for third, and so on. Skills, resources, and descriptions remain UNCHANGED!

Accepted—that works.

I absolutely agree with everything, dear IronAxe, but I'll make one correction. I use and will continue to use that system, but exclusively for awarding Grails.

That's not even a correction but a clarification, because I already said that you calculated the rating using your system and continue to do so; I just didn't mention that you calculate it for awarding Grails. Because awarding Grails based on the rating from my system is not very good. Firstly, the distribution could be very non-linear. Secondly, we promised that the rating based on the system I proposed would not be linked to Grails in any way.

I can say one thing for sure: Normal is Normal, Impossible is Impossible, and this coefficient clearly reflects this essence, since a player's rating on Impossible will be higher than a player's rating on Normal given equal placement! And distortions have absolutely nothing to do with this!

You probably meant given equal days. Because my system is ONLY indirectly linked to the placement in the tournament, while we directly use the number of days in the calculations.

I will try to comment on the Grail calculation system proposed by the respected AlexeyPankom.

Your conclusions are correct. But I approved the idea of AlexPan itself, not the specific calculation methodology/formula. The formula still needs work. This may be useful in the future when Grails are awarded for your tournaments not only by you, but also by other organizers and for other versions of Heroes as well. In short, you need to resolve a situation where players, in order to earn more Grails, look for a tournament with fewer announced participants to take a higher place and consequently get more Grails. It should be the opposite—everyone should flock to large tournaments in search of Grails. In that case, AlexPan's idea is correct.
As for your example regarding Tournament 1 with 50 participants and Tournament 2 with 4 participants: if an equal number of Grails is given for 1st place in both—then where is the logic? Although the logic here might be different. The whole crowd, seeing Tournament 2, will rush there as well :) But whether they manage to send their saves in time or not is another story.