Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.
Well, we have different approaches to ranking... :)
A person who is at the top of the ranking, which can change drastically in just one tournament, doesn't inspire respect as a player... The ranking should be such that it takes a long time and consistent effort to reach the top, and luck shouldn't knock a player down...
And if you're suggesting organizing a "King of the Hill" or "Caliph for an Hour" type of game, then I'm out... :) I'm not interested, to be honest. I advocate for creating motivation for long-term tournament competition... You're suggesting playing here and now... :) I'm willing to work towards the top for a year, proving my strength and significance as a player... But what's the point of putting in effort all year if a ranking system allows someone like Vasya Pupkin to jump to the top because someone else had a flat tire (i.e., a random setback)?
And no one will be able to stay at the top for long with such a system – again, due to the law of averages and the theory of probability... No matter how hard you try, everyone will have setbacks. And the player's skill has nothing to do with it – it's all decided by blind chance... It seems to me that you're trying to model a ranking system that captivated you in space racing games :) But is it worth it? Here, everything is different, I think...
The calculation mechanism is the same in both cases, but the coefficient of randomness (determined by the magnitude and speed of decay) can be different. I agree that decay should gradually remove weak players from the ranking. But as I see it, you're striving to create an opportunity for random players to get into the TOP of the ranking... why? I think a random player shouldn't be among the best, no matter how lucky they are, and the best player shouldn't lose their position significantly due to a series of bad luck... But if they stop playing or simply don't try to play... then they'll fall down, and a more persistent and hardworking player will take their place... Then – yes!
Just my opinion, as always... :)