Skip to content

Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

User Avatar
#93
Auto-translated
AmberSoler;60160

It would be easy to add a multiplier that boosts a player's score based on the number of tournaments they've played, to avoid a situation where one player has played two tournaments well and stops playing, while another has both successes and failures, is active, but has a lower average score than the first... then the activity coefficient would gradually increase his score...
And when should this cool player with two games be removed from the ranking, and on what basis, if his rating doesn't decrease, even though it doesn't increase. Otherwise, he'll just get old, old, and eventually stop playing, freeing up a spot for others.
Also, there won't be a situation where someone sees a formidable opponent in the announcements and, even though they have a decent rating, thinks, "Nah, I'll go play in another tournament where this guy isn't." Or they'll just skip it. But the aging system will, on the contrary, encourage them to play a tournament on this platform and do it quickly, so that their rating doesn't decrease.

Added 4 minutes later
AmberSoler;60164
Don't rush... :)

There's no need to find out anything about him. He plays once - he's constantly in the ranking. If he doesn't play, the game counter stays in place, which means his rating isn't calculated over time, and the player gradually slides to the bottom of the table, even if he played well. For active players, the rating increases depending not only on their result in the tournament, but also on the number of tournaments (we'll make this parameter less significant, of course)... You'll never have to look for anyone. Everything will be calculated automatically and it will be much easier for you - there's no need to "age" anyone... The "empty" players will slide to the bottom of the table on their own... :)

All of this is, of course, just ideas and concepts, but it's too early to dismiss them... we just need to find the golden mean that will satisfy everyone...

I think we discussed such a system and AlexPank rejected it. It's hard to tell who will slide down - the "empty" players or an unlucky player who scores 2 points in 10 tournaments, 20/10=2. And the "empty" player will stay at the top for a long time, 100/1=100 :) So, let's adjust the coefficient so that the guy with two points is happy and overtakes the "empty" player :)