Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

I'm already starting to get confused about what we're discussing here. Whether it's the rating system or the Grail system.

The topic is about the rating. Points and Grails are irrelevant.

Still, these two questions should have been divided into 2 topics.

It's one question.

To be honest, I don't see any flaws in IronAxe's game rating system, if we remove the aging mechanic.

I completely agree, just remove a few starting saves and leave only one. :)

P.S. 284 views and 16 votes. Voter turnout is a little over 5% - they wouldn't even recognize it as a valid election :D. Is it really that hard for them to vote?

Voting is actually the easiest part. But have they thought about what the result will be? ;)

1. Regarding IronAxe's rating, I expressed my opinion in a previous post. There's nothing more to add for now. We should focus on that...

2. VDV_forever's rating has one very significant drawback - the minimum number of points should be meaningful, because even the last place in the table should bring a tangible (moral) result... Let's say 50 people played in the tournament. 2/3 of them will get a rating of 1. And those who didn't play will get a rating of 0. Is that a big difference? And was it worth the effort? :)

Of course, we're not talking about playing "for fun"... We're discussing the rating. Those who play "for fun" won't need the rating at all.

My suggestion is: set a minimum rating of 20 (or 10). Everything above that is a progressive scale, increasing from last place to first. The calculation mechanism is secondary. The main thing is that the essence is not distorted - such a rating will guarantee a minimum number of points even just for participation, which is important, and also reflect the number of participants in the tournament on the winner's result.