Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

According to my system, the leader's rating is being negatively affected because he can't get more than 100, and his bonus will constantly decrease due to aging...

In my opinion, this is the most incorrect and unbalanced aspect of the system, and I was (and still am) primarily focused on addressing it. I've always told you this. So, I don't understand what new things you wanted to see in the calculation? Two days ago, I pointed out this problem created by your calculation method :) Now you agree that you are intentionally creating this problem with the calculation mechanics :) What's the point of fighting for 2 rating points in BB-level tournaments?

In other words, for you, the rating is like your space races, which you admired somewhere and now want to see everywhere...

So, I consider this discussion finished :) We initially had different goals, and both of us achieved them in a fairly correct way. Congratulations to both of us! :) And five pages of chatter – that's the price we paid...

So, we have two balanced systems, but they pursue opposite tactical and strategic goals.

1. (IronAxe) The rating is not elastic and instantly reflects all the changes that occur in tournaments, correctly showing the current short-term situation. However, it depends to a much greater extent on the results of the most recent completed tournament than on the results of previous tournaments... A win by an average player in the latest tournament will almost always put him in first place, but only until the next tournament, if he doesn't win it again. Because even second place doesn't guarantee him a high result.

A large gap between the leader averages out the results of all players - although proportionally to the results achieved by these players, the entire scale can fit from zero to 20 points for everyone, while the leader reserves the right to get 100 points in any case... However, it should be noted that the rating aging always occurs at a rate of 10% of the nominal value, and therefore it is often observed that, as a result of a tournament, a player who achieved a good result will receive a decrease in the rating in absolute terms.

2. (AmberSoler) The rating is elastic and distributes the result more evenly among the players. That is, it provides a bonus to the player who showed a high position in the tournament (even with a large gap from the leader), but the price for this is a reduction in the tournament rating if the player took one of the last places. Last place in a tournament results in the player losing 50% of his tournament (but not current) rating. However, as a rule, this amounts to no more than 10 points in nominal terms.

A feature of this calculation method is the fact that in order to significantly change the position of the current leader, it is not enough to win one or two tournaments. This process will not be easy, unlike the previous calculation method, but on the other hand, it should be noted that the current leader also spent a lot of effort at one time to achieve a high result. So, it can be considered that his relative stability is a well-deserved reward.

***

There is no bad or good rating. There is only a different way of transferring tournament results to the overall balance. Both ratings use the results shown by the players to calculate the coefficients, and there is not a single unjustified number. So, you can accept any of the proposed options as the main one. The second will remain in reserve and will be tracked in parallel in the background - for statistics. And, possibly, in the end, it will replace the main rating.

Decide. Time will tell the rest.
Thank you to everyone who participated in this conversation.

P.s. IronAxe. Add everything you think is necessary.