Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

Why will they bypass the activists? After all, their total rating will be much lower than the activists'...

Well, then it turns out you agree that Total Rating is higher in status than Average ???

I don't understand why the activists' profile entry would be worse? :confused:
Total rating is much higher! Number of games is too! Well, the average rating is lower, of course...
but let's say we compare two entries:
1) Rating for year 200x = 100, number of games played 1, average rating for the year = 100
2) Rating for year 200x = 729, number of games played 9, average rating for the year = 81
which one would you want to see in your profile?

Well, I might want a lot of things :) I'd want a total rating of 1000 games 10, average 100 :D
1) Rating for year 200x = 100, number of games played 1, average rating for the year = 100
2) Rating for year 200x = 300, number of games played 10, average rating for the year = 30
3) Rating for year 200x = 500, number of games played 5, average rating for the year = 100
Now compare 1) and 3) - the Average rating doesn't say much. Nothing at all. The 1st played 1 tournament, the 3rd played 5 - the average rating is equal. And the 2nd will say he's better than the 1st - like, "try slogging through 10 tournaments and I'll see how you do" :)

I would dream of seeing the second entry in my profile... :D
But, of course, all people are different, and their tastes vary...

Well, then I want to see my alternative rating in my profile too :)

Now for a bit of philosophy:
Under this system, past achievements aren't "forgotten"... i.e., even if someone won one tournament, that's already HISTORY! And that must be remembered.

Well, if you've seen my rating, I keep all the tables for every tournament there. After a year, they can be moved to an archive (which is basically a Hall of Fame) and everyone's current rating can be left.

In the case of aging, I don't argue, one-day wonders won't stay on the pedestal for long... but they will "hang around" the player list for quite a while. Because the lower their rating becomes, the slower it will drop... And until when? Probably until the rating falls below 1... right?
Calculate how long a one-day leader will hang around the list with 10% aging? I got 46 times... tell me, do you really need this?

Well, kind people insisted on 10% :) And throughout the Kanigem tournament, I actually promised not to age the rating until the tournament ends. By the way, how many rounds will there be? I thought there would be 5. Anyway, after the Kanigem tournament, I'll halve everyone's :) I'll age it by 50% immediately. Then those who played few tournaments will drop in the ratings.

From tournament to tournament, this player will slowly die... causing you trouble and introducing confusion into the rating..

And they'll be hanging around for you too. Then someone will return after a year and say, "Wait, why am I starting from zero? I had a rating." And that will also cause you technical trouble. And in the case of a bonus system based on previous results—it'll be a total disaster. I don't envy AlexPank if he doesn't come to his senses in time.

By "confusion in the rating," I mean it will be completely unclear who is an active player (but not very successful) and who is a one-day wonder, since both will have completely identical numbers...

Well, I think I can easily add the number of games opposite each person, I have all the data stored in tables—I can just copy that data from you later. Only I won't calculate the average rating. And let everyone think analytically and compare players' results just as they do with your average rating.

Summary: Under one system, everyone will be assigned their real rating and it will remain in history; under the other, we will only be able to see the leader, and regarding the rest, it will be unclear who is an active player (but not very successful) and who is a one-day wonder.

Well, I'll add the number of games played by each. And the situation will already be different. My rating will show both the current rating and activity. Then I have a bunch of tables and everything will be shown dynamically over the year. Plus, I have a filter in every column, and you can sort by each conducted tournament to see how the places changed. Anyone who downloaded my excel sheets probably noticed this. Naturally, the open table drawn on the forum only reflects the last few tournaments in static form. Moreover, this table is a summary of all tournaments on the forum. If anyone needs more detailed data, they can download the attached files for the version they are interested in, or the FULL summary table. At the moment, I decided not to detail tournaments before January 30, 2007; I simply summed up all ratings and put them in the first column, BUT all subsequent tournaments will be reflected there.
PS. In the unified summary table, it's already clear who played which tournament and who didn't. I just didn't create a column that explicitly reflects the number of games. And actually, I still don't understand—should I do this or not? You include this column because it's hard to track rating changes from tournament to tournament in your tables. It's not intuitive. That's why you show the final rating result and the number of games.