Kyle
Auto-translated
Well then, it turns out you agree that the Overall Rating is higher in status than the Average Rating???
I'll repeat once more (repetition is the mother of learning... :D):
"The Overall rating combined with the average rating shows who is who..."
Well, I would have liked something else :) I would like an overall rating of 1000 games at level 10, and an average of 100 :D
1) Rating for the year 200x = 100, number of games played = 1, average rating for the year = 100
2) Rating for the year 200x = 300, number of games played = 10, average rating for the year = 30
3) Rating for the year 200x = 500, number of games played = 5, average rating for the year = 100
Now compare 1) and 3) - The average rating says nothing. Nothing at all. Player 1 played 1 tournament, player 3 played 5 - the average rating is the same. And player 2 will say that he is better than player 1 - as if he had tried playing 10 tournaments, I would be watching him :)
It is impossible to compare and determine a winner without fulfilling three conditions, which I described in the same post #295.
That is, we currently have an informational rating.
But, of course, it is possible to introduce a non-informational, but rather, let's say, a qualifying rating.
For this, only a cumulative rating and a time limit are needed! That is, whoever scores the maximum number of points by the end of the year wins. And that's it.
But this rating, in my opinion, is not interesting because it shows little about the player..
Well, then I want to see my alternative rating in my profile too :)
So, we decide what we will see in the profile later...
They insisted on 10% :). During the Kanigema tournament, I even promised not to age the rating until the tournament was over. By the way, how many rounds will there be? I thought there would be 5. In general, after the Kanigema tournament, I will reduce everyone's rating by half :) Immediately by 50%. Then those who played few tournaments will drop in the ranking.
This approach is unacceptable. There should be clear rules that must be followed... and less improvisation...
By the way, how are tournaments aged that take place during the Grand Tournament? Specifically, "The Second Skeleton Gathering Tournament"?
Are they not aged? That's wrong. They should be aged according to your method... only the Grand Tournament itself should not be aged!
But they will also hang around with you. Then someone will return a year later and say, but why am I starting from scratch? My rating remained. And this will cause you a lot of trouble too.
So, I don't see any problems here...
Well, I think I can easily add the number of games next to each one, all my data is stored in tables - then I can copy these data to you. Only I won't calculate the average rating. And let everyone analytically think and compare players' results as they do with the average rating.
That is, we are on the right track...
After all, we initially wanted to manage with just one digit... but it seems that it doesn't work out..
Sincerely.
Кто состоянием своим доволен, тому жить весело. (с)Алекса́ндр Васи́льевич Суво́ров