Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

This is difficult for you, as you have repeatedly said. Those who understand mathematics will see no difficulty in the calculations whatsoever. As for the "heaps of tournaments," you were probably joking, right?

Apparently, you didn't understand what I was talking about. I was saying that my system can be used more flexibly. How will you calculate a rating for a player visiting another league if no rating is kept there? In any case, using AlexPanka's coefficient there is problematic. We already know why using the place and the number of participants in the calculation in the form you proposed is undesirable.

I have no desire to delve into the rest because your outlook on things is too narrow, unfortunately...

Perhaps. But with such a simple formula of three variables as the one I proposed, it has greater possibilities than formulas proposed by people with wide views and horizons. Perhaps the problem of rating calculation should have been looked at more simply. Which is exactly what VDV did in his system. Well, that one is far too simple and isn't linked to anything except Place. Note that although the voting in this thread may not reflect reality, these two systems, for some reason, are still slightly leading. People understand how their results will be evaluated through them, and if they wish, they can check for themselves whether they've been accidentally cheated :).

You didn't even understand the point of the argument I made in the previous post:

One must operate with terms more carefully, especially since everyone understands them in their own way.

The argument was against using a specific player's current rating as a criterion for calculating the bonus. The reason is — see above.

I agree with that. I disagreed that the current rating does not reflect a player's strength in Heroes.

Everything is laid out in great detail there using an example. And you've grabbed onto your rating again... You are ready to "punish" a player for skipping a tournament (absurd), while at the same time you cannot accept the fact of "punishment" for last place. :) And the second is a purely gaming moment, unlike the first...

I am not punishing the player. If he hasn't played, the rating cannot assess his current strength, so it begins to assess his activity. And punishment for last place, according to your own theory, is not good. Why did the person try? Well, they can't play well yet, so why further torment them by cutting their already smallest tournament rating in half using an oscillator or a small bonus coefficient :)

I haven't even touched your calculations... And you imagine an accusation of the insolvency of your theory everywhere... It's not even interesting anymore.

Then touch them. There is a calculation example for two 2-player tournaments. Kyle and Alex calculated and provided tables from real tournaments. I don't imagine accusations — they simply don't exist and cannot exist. And I am not accusing anyone, but showing why my system is better, and as long as the discussion continues, I will keep doing so — because you avoid examples and answers that are unfavorable to you and start attacking personally, which I do not do, unlike you.

Read my post once more and maybe you'll understand why I gave the example... To be honest, I'm already having "déjà vu." I gave up trying to have a conversation with you long ago, because all your comments on any topic end practically the same way.

Judging by this post, you haven't :)

I don't know how to put it more simply... You yourself are unable to see the obvious flaws in your system, and I won't be able to show them to you because there is no argument in the world that would convince you — you've

Show them not to me, but to others. When I write my posts, I don't expect only you to read them, because it's also useless to prove anything to you. You nowhere explicitly acknowledge the flaws in the calculation when considering place. At the same time, I have commented on the flaws in my system that you pointed out and have taken some into account.

decided for yourself. What else is there to say? The ability to critically evaluate one's own work is a big plus. You don't have it.

And do you? Come on, show me where you critically evaluated the non-linearity of the linear component??

There was one character in history — the Roman consul Marcus Porcius Cato the Elder, who became famous only for the fact that every one of his speeches in the senate on any topic ended with the words "And therefore I believe Carthage must be destroyed" (Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam!). And he didn't care if the senate had gathered to discuss the upcoming New Year's celebrations or, for example, to pass an election law... In my opinion, you are his follower... ;)

:) I liked that!
A person who won't read all 1000 messages :) exaggerating might drop by this thread. They will only read the last page, so I don't mind repeating the main conclusions regarding the systems under discussion. I wouldn't say that Marcus Porcius Cato the Elder was a fool :)
And therefore, since in your post I once again saw and heard a lot of new and interesting things about myself and the Roman consul, but did not hear an evaluation of the real rating calculations provided in the tables by Kyle and AlexPanka, then ....
"And therefore I believe Carthage must be destroyed" :D