IronAxe
Auto-translated
Simply, if your proposal is suitable for calculating grails, then why not use it? Ideally, these two concepts could be combined, BUT grails are spent, while the rating should remain.
Maybe we will arrive at such a solution?
Added after 4 minutes
Your "silly" example is quite appropriate, however, a third participant must be introduced to complete the picture.
Hence the question: if a third participant completes the map in 500 days, then the outsider with their Walkthrough in 1000 days will be third out of three, not second out of two.
And if the newly introduced third participant completes the map in 1200 days, then the one who completed it in 1000 days becomes second out of three, not third... Moreover, their result remains unchanged, but the rating will depend on the play of ALL participants, not just the leader... This is not the same thing.
And the oscillator is designed to take into account all tournament participants (not only their number, but also their relative positions). The second parameter, which you have complaints about, is responsible for this point. The second (linear) parameter is not applicable on its own, but in combination with the first, it gains meaning... Don't rush, just experiment with the numbers...
Added after 11 minutes
Your "silly" example is quite appropriate, however, a third participant must be introduced to complete the picture.
Hence the question: if a third participant completes the map in 500 days, then the outsider with their Walkthrough in 1000 days will already be third out of three, not second out of two.
And if the newly introduced third participant completes the map in 1200 days, then the one who completed it in 1000 days becomes second out of three, not third... Moreover, their result remains unchanged, but the rating will depend on the play of ALL participants, not just the leader... This is not the same thing.
And the oscillator is designed to take into account all tournament participants (not only their number, but also their relative positions). The second parameter, which you have complaints about, is responsible for this point. The second (linear) parameter is not applicable on its own, but in combination with the first, it gains meaning... Don't rush, just experiment with the numbers...
The concept of an oscillator, as a parametric index reacting equally to changes in several unrelated parameters, was not invented by me. This mechanism has been tested and adopted by all methodologies researching the behavior of randomly changing digital sequences (tournament results are exactly that). So, in the first approximation, everything here is correct, do not doubt it. And to justify this to you, I would have to go beyond the scope of the topic :) Maybe it's not worth complicating things?
And for calculating grails, this mechanism is certainly applicable.
Yes, I understand that, however, why do you deny that the second parameter can practically completely swallow the first - it's clearly visible in the example, and we are trying to obtain a GENERAL CURRENT gaming rating for all participants of the resource playing in tournaments :)
In my case, the situation becomes dire if the leader of some stage completes the map in, say, 1000 days, and the others do even worse; then, because of the link to the leader, the results will still be incorrect. In this case, in my defense, I can only say (and the leader would say the same): "Why don't you try it yourself, maybe you'll complete this map even worse :)"
And this can happen until the Current rating is fully operational, involving players of various strengths in different versions of the games. The more, the better. And that's why it needs to be aged more actively :)