Posts from Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

It's like each player has an initial capital, for example, 1000 rating points, and it changes depending on their performance in Tournaments. Moreover, the more skilled players you defeat, the more points you gain, and they lose.

In my opinion, it's right that newcomers will find it difficult to catch up with the leader – but this is called TOTAL RATING.

I don't really like the idea of aging.
In my opinion, it would be much better to organize a cyclical rating, i.e., once a year (for example, on January 1st), there will be a complete reset of the rating. And at the end of the year, you can determine the best player based on the year's results.
In my opinion, this would be the most correct approach because at the beginning of the year, everyone will start from the same position.

In my opinion, the game will calculate the score in such a way that it will be quite a challenge. Sometimes, player A completes a map in fewer days, while player B takes more days, but the game gives player B more points. I'm not making this up; this is a real case. It was taken from the 4th game while playing in a trading tournament on HotA. Therefore, at the beginning of the tournament, it is agreed upon – what are we playing for, speed or points?

I suggested using a formula with 3 heroes and, in addition to that, modernizing it. This is done to take into account the player's skill, and not just to understand something. When modernizing the formula, it will be necessary to take into account the fact that you described.

Newcomers will have an additional incentive to improve their skills, and they may even be able to top the rating if circumstances are favorable next year:D
So I am against the rating aging.

Dear IronAxe, Alex_R, AmberSoler and many others who are discussing this topic...
Please provide a link(s) to the posts where the following system is discussed in detail: let's take Formula 1. One stage (one tournament) - some number of points... These points are summed up... This results in a leaderboard... It's not a bicycle, but still...
P.S. I don't have much free time at the moment, so I can't search the topic... Thank you in advance to those who respond...

I had a thought regarding: the rating (starting next year)
Whoever takes first place gets 100%, everyone else gets (%) depending on the tournament task and the result of the 1st place.
Example:
A timed tournament. If the 1st player finished in 200 days—received a rating of 100%, then the 2nd player finishing in 201 days will receive 99.5% because (1%=2 days, and 1 day=0.5%)
Experience and skill-gathering tournament: If the 1st player gained 20000—received 100%, then the 2nd player who gained 17000 will receive 85% because (1%=200).
Under this formula, players who show a poor result might not receive a rating at all (in principle, they don't need it anyway)! On the other hand, those who do receive it will realistically see the ratio of their result compared to the results of others.

But no matter how you look at the table, you wonder why people are being awarded rating—for participation, maybe? And sometimes it turns out that the 1st and 10th place results are roughly equal, but the ratings are not equal at all; the same goes from 10th to 20th place.

I also have an idea for a replacement: Skill sums for the amount of experience. Experience more accurately reflects a player's strength. There will be no handouts from the computer. Replace mercury with gold, as it is more accurate. In these 2 cases, identical results are very rare.

In my humble opinion, your approach will only complicate the real picture, simply because Tournament maps differ greatly from each other. What guarantee is there that the winner's result is a benchmark that should be used as a basis?

And therefore, there will be a lot of subjectivity.

I like the system used as a basis in biathlon. That's where absolutely everything is taken into account.

By the way, the existing rating systems also do not suit me, just like they don't suit you.

P.S. Tournament maps provide different potential opportunities for creating a gap between one player and another. In essence, there is an unbalanced rating system that ties this very rating to the winner's result.
That is, theoretically, there is a very real possibility of creating such a gap for the winner in just one map that he will be unattainable for others, even with mediocre results in subsequent Tournaments, where the emphasis is not on the place taken, but on the gap from the winner.
You will agree that this is wrong. Therefore, it is necessary to tie the rating to the final place taken. I have proposed my version.
For clarity, you can compare Tournament maps with Besta and current Tournaments - they are completely different things...

Occupied slots and their inclusion in the ranking introduce even more subjectivity, and also encourage the development of cooperative strategies, where several players from a clan can share ideas and push down the rest of the players following them. With your biathlon-like system, some players might not even receive a rating for a match during this process. :) ;)

No system is immune to this. It seems more like you're just engaging in conversation for the sake of it.
And you haven't provided a solid argument in favor of your system. Nor have I seen any drawbacks in mine.

I repeat, the maps are fundamentally different, and it's not entirely correct to tie the results to the leader. It's like considering the gap between competitors in a marathon and a 100-meter sprint. It's absurd.

Well, read the thread where rating systems are discussed.

And when you tie it to a specific map, the same thing happens. Radik and Dmitry won't show up for the Tournaments. And then Perpolken takes first place, and IronAxe takes second, and I can still get a decent rating EVEN if, as a result, I'm twice as far behind Perpolken (and it doesn't matter if his result is the maximum or not; if it's not the maximum, then it's completely hopeless :) !!! Because, according to your system, the result and its connection to it are meaningless! But the place taken is everything!
And we both took pretty good places :) I'm already tired of explaining why this flaw with the PLACEMENT is worse than the flaws in a system tied to the leader's result :) We're not at the Olympics here, and there are no qualifying rounds, so even at BestOfBest, the number of players and their quality are unpredictable. In this case, it's still more logical to rely on the leader's result than on the places taken, given that players of, say, the middle tier might not show up. And if players of the highest tier don't show up, then the flaw will be apparent in both systems :) But with a system tied to the leader's result, there's already half as much of a flaw ;)
Let's consider your example with the marathon and the 100-meter dash. On a huge map like BestOfBest, you took 30 days, and I took 60. You get a rating of 100, and I get 50. And it doesn't matter what my place is – we're comparing results relative to the leader. On a small map, you finished in 3 days, and I finished in 6. You get 100, and I again get 50. What's wrong with that??? And what, in your opinion, is wrong here? I might not have fully grasped what Perpolken proposed. But in my system, where results are compared to the leader's result, the data will be exactly as I showed you in the example. Go read the thread about rating discussions – there are probably 1000 posts there :) And they still haven't come to any conclusion :)
PS. Regarding the example. And let's say you don't show up for the Tournaments, and the leader gets a result of 50 days on BestOfBest, then, of course, he will get 100, and I will get more for 60 days. But who will be to blame for that? Exactly. Dmitry AS! He will be to blame in any case IF HE DOESN'T SHOW UP FOR THE TOURNAMENTS ;) Whether it's a system with placement or a system that ties results to the leader's result. And also for starting a biathlon-heroic rating system without reading the thread about rating discussions :) Everyone gets a rifle and goes skiing :)

Why bring up cases of no-shows? Do you think I'm defending the interests of those who skip Tournaments? Start with something simple. Understand the core idea: with the same amount of effort put into a map, the rating difference will be one thing in one case and another in another. I hope I don't need to explain the concept of subjectivism to you.

Why bring up cases of no-shows?

Message from Dmitry_A_S
I like the system used as a basis in biathlon. It takes absolutely everything into account.


Yeah, but they probably don't skip tournaments there. And in our case, using this system, it might turn out that whoever played more times wins.
:)

The imperfection of the system can affect absolutely any sector of the players.

Thirdly, I think that the possibility of discarding 1-2 of the worst results at the end of the year looks quite attractive.

That’s why a two-component scheme was proposed: place and result. They decided, as far as I understand, to equalize their importance – which I fully agree with, having analyzed different Tournaments.
In such a system, the components depending on the result (the leader's result – as a standard) and on the place are taken into account: according to a curvilinear function (more concave than in biathlon).
In my opinion, this is the most balanced and simple system!

That’s exactly what Iron and I were trying to organize!
But it should only be applicable to a specific period (a Tournament consisting of several stages, or a seasonal cycle). And the overall rating should remain overall – without any exclusions.

You may be right, but I expressed my opinion. Ultimately, the goal in a tournament remains the same – to demonstrate how high a score can be achieved.