Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

His rating "drops" relative to other players due to a smaller increase in absolute terms. That is, let's say I received +10, and you received +20 points. Both of our ratings are increasing, but mine is decreasing relative to yours. The relative component of the rating is important, not the absolute one...

Correct. Let's say I got +5, and you got -5. It's all the same. Therefore, the rating does not necessarily have to constantly increase. And even less so that someone else linearly increases or decreases it.

What difference does it make if my rating has fallen or risen compared to the previous value of my rating? It is important how my rating has changed compared to other players.
That's it. Everything else is irrelevant. How can you not understand this? We've repeated this so many times.

All players' ratings will change proportionally to their results for completing the map and relative to the leader's results. That's why I don't understand why you don't understand that there are no games with linearity - it's just a sport :)

Added 4 minutes ago

Its goal is to compensate the player for lagging behind the leader if the player took a high place, and vice versa.

Why is there any compensation for lagging behind? You play, and you get what you deserve.

Added 11 minutes ago

We are talking about how to calculate the rating for ALL parts of Heroes. The VDV Tournament has a convenient property that it includes all versions, so it is often discussed.
I am also against aging, because a player who has played one tournament may be pushed down from his position in the second, because his rating has not increased, but the ratings of those who played have increased.

I explained to you how the rating will be calculated in the VDV tournaments. I provided you with additional information about the introduction of permissible limits, which I came to after a discussion with AmberSoler, although he says that I did not understand him correctly, but that is not important, the main thing is that the flaw was identified and, if possible, smoothed out. Regarding the aging of the rating, we will have a flexible system. VDV also does not want to age by 33%. However, I think that we will come to the conclusion that we will age current regular tournaments by 10%, and super tournaments by 33%. Players with a high rating should be afraid of aging by 33%, as it affects the average and weak players less, and the leaders must prove that they have not lost their strength and can still compensate for the aging and get an increase. And where else to do this if not in super tournaments?

Added 34 minutes ago

Added 14 minutes ago
[/U]I have long ago expressed my conclusion that you do not understand the meaning of the oscillator... Its goal is to partially compensate the player for lagging behind the leader if the player took a high place, and vice versa.

Well, I guess I don't. Imagine, I don't understand. The leader worked hard to show a great result. And instead of slightly pushing away his rivals, or at least leaving them with what they have earned themselves, they are also given compensation (and think about it, for what - partially compensate the player for lagging behind the leader) - cool :) The player with 1000 days of completion gets half the rating of the leader for second place (50 versus 100), even if the leader completed it in one day. I wish I lived like that :)