Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

I was talking about the AmberaSolera system (for calculating the GRAIL RATING!), I don't understand why you didn't understand:o. I'm not going to abandon your system, and we will continue to calculate the GAME RATING using it as before.
Best regards, VDV_forever

Kyle correctly pointed out my mistake. Maybe we don't need the oscillator, but just take the linear part of the formula, that is, what AmberSoler added. Then, the last place would simply have 0 grails - that's unfair. But there is a solution. A threshold for the underdogs. That is, we calculate everything using the linear formula, but everyone must receive at least, say, 10 grails, even if the formula gives 0?
This linear part is a normal formula. It takes into account both the number of participants and the places taken.

Added 43 minutes ago

What is the initial mistake? You assume that the current rating indicates the player's strength. But that's not the case. And we've been talking about this for a long time - the current rating has nothing to do with the player's strength. It shows the player's activity, taking into account their strength, which, I think, is not the same thing... Any beginner, as well as any inactive player, has a zero rating. This does not mean that they play poorly, and therefore the bonus should not have such sharp changes...

The current rating is related to the player's strength, for God's sake, who needs to take into account only activity? And I would say the opposite - the current rating shows the player's strength, taking into account their activity. But here you need to understand that a new person with 0 is a dark horse if we haven't seen him anywhere. It's different if a strong player has fallen in the rankings due to missed games - this table won't tell an outside person anything, but interested players and the coordinator know that the player just didn't play. And the current rating shows his activity at the moment. And he will show his strength when the player comes and scores 100 rating points, which will sharply raise him in the rating table from last place to the middle. But with a 10% aging, this will not be so noticeable, well, okay.
The current rating is maintained for those in the know who follow the events. It is especially important to think about publishing not only the latest figures of the current rating for everyone, but on another page, in Excel format, to keep track of its dynamic changes for everyone, so that it is possible to distinguish where activity is shown and where strength is shown at a given point in time for a given player.

Added 1 hour 38 minutes ago

Are you kidding? If you support the oscillator with the same energy with which you disputed it, then there is nothing for me to do there... Feel free to use the formulas and calculate them. :) It's all sophistry... Grails are not an indicator of anything.

Grails are a reward for prize-winning places in tournaments. Well, if not the oscillator, then I would support the linear part with a threshold for the underdogs. VDV decides how to spend the grails.

Added 34 minutes ago
First, logic, then mathematics. Or what I was thinking about.

The current rating is an indicator of the player's strength in Heroes at the end of the current tournament, taking into account the results of several recent tournaments, the number of which depends on the size of the aging of the rating you have before the start of the tournament (the so-called old rating). The current rating of a player takes into account both the strength of active players who participated in the last tournament ON THIS RESOURCE, and the activity of passive players who missed the tournament ON THIS RESOURCE; the rating of the latter is simply reduced by 10%, while active players try to compensate for the aging of the rating with their tournament rating in order to increase their current rating.
Why suddenly reduce the rating of those who missed it? Maybe they were playing in other tournaments on other resources and were no less strong?
1. There is no general rating system between resources. Therefore, as a coordinator of the Current Rating for VDV's Heroes 3 tournaments, I don't care who, where, and how cool plays. The rating is also not interested in knowing why the player missed the tournament on this resource. The penalty for missing a tournament is 10% of the old rating. If this is still unclear to someone, it's not my fault.
2. I can correct the summary table, but I will not reduce the rating in only one case: - at the personal request of VDV. If you personally prove to him that you missed this tournament because you participated in another tournament on this resource, even if it is a tournament not in Heroes 3, or on another resource (for example, you defended the honor of HW on the road). To do this, you probably need to provide VDV with a link in a private message to the results of the tournament where you played. Since my rating is experimental, it is even possible to calculate the rating for a given player in individual cases (for now, this applies only to Heroes 3) and add his result to the summary table of the Current Rating on this resource. To do this, I need to know only three parameters from that tournament - the type and size of the map on which the tournament was held, the result of the leader of that tournament in days, and your result in days. THAT'S IT! This is the first step towards a general rating between resources. If you start trying to take into account the Place Taken and the Number of Players, everything will become very confusing. Given that there is also confusion with ratings on other resources, I do not want to include the coefficient of the strength of the game in the formula.
Otherwise, how will I calculate the rating for a player from our resource who fought in a tournament on the road and does not want to have a 10% reduction for no reason? And again, I repeat - I just need to know three parameters.
Especially if we are going to promote this rating to the status of a General one. I had to consider several examples to understand this. We didn't want to find out the reason for missing players, but it seems that we will have to give players a chance to keep their rating if they wish. I think this idea should be pushed further.
3. If you don't participate in any tournament for several times in a row, and your Current rating is falling, but you still consider yourself a strong player - that's your right. But other players participating in tournaments don't care, and the Current Rating on this resource doesn't care either. How can the Current Rating know - do you still remain a strong player or are you slowly degrading? Come back to the tournaments and prove your strength. The current rating will react to this immediately. Or promptly provide VDV with links to your results on other resources in the glory of HW!
4. In speed tournaments, I will use the permissible limits for completing the map to determine the leader's coefficient. If the tournament is for experience or resources, then I will have to calculate without permissible limits.