Choosing the official ranking on HeroesWorld. Auto-translated

Due to numerous requests from forum members, I am creating this poll.
Which rating system should be made the official one?
The official rating will be maintained by vbn.
The voting is open. If you have your own suggestion, please share it quickly so as not to lose potential votes. Once 35 votes are collected, we will count the votes and determine the winning rating system.

For reference: discussions about alternative rating systems can be found here_1 and here_2.

Can I ask a question? What is the difference between the alternative rating and the chess rating?

I noticed only one difference: in the chess rating, winning strong players against weak players (in other words, when there is a large difference in rating points) yields 2-3 times more points than in mine. That's why I voted for my own system, so there wouldn't be a temptation to inflate the rating by playing against newbies. What else I would like to add: the alternative rating is not yet fully objective. The process of clearly distinguishing between strong and weak players, as well as the "middle class," has only recently begun. In my opinion, it will become objective by the beginning of summer, when more games have been played. And the more games are played, the more objective this rating will be. Therefore, in my opinion, it should never be reset.

honestly, I haven't been following the development of the alternative ranking at all; vbn, as always, gets mega-respect for maintaining the ranking :)
is there a link to the chess ranking?:smile50:

I believe that the skill level of newcomers in chess and newcomers in Heroes of Might and Magic is completely incomparable when compared to experienced players. Based on this, I vote not for the chess rating, but for the Alternative rating (without resetting).

I haven't looked into the rating system, so I won't vote.

In my opinion, the rating should be permanent, without resets, and should include all games for which reports are available on the site. With a time-decaying coefficient. It should also be automatic (not dependent on the free time of a specific person). And before a productive start, all games should be entered into it, at least for a year, to ensure initial representativeness.

I don't see the point in seasonal ratings, as they are more about gaming activity than skill. Therefore, with sufficient desire, many people can easily get to the top in them.

That's correct, but accounting for all reports (retroactively) is a huge undertaking. Although I used to keep my own statistics on reports, they should all be saved somewhere, but not everyone did that! :(

I think an alternative, more objective approach would be best, and we shouldn't reset everything. It would be great to have more comprehensive statistics and a nice table, like in the current season. But ultimately, it's up to our esteemed host's discretion, desire, ability, and initiative. Thank you so much for all your hard work and dedication!

That's why I voted for my own option )) so there wouldn't be a temptation to inflate the rating by playing against newbies..

+1! Our old rating system is the most lenient when it comes to inflating the rating by playing against beginners and weaker players. It's more profitable to play three games with a newbie than one with a strong player; the risk is minimal, and the reward is good! And it's practically free! You can just sit back and click.

That's why I'm in favor of the Alternative rating! If luck happens to be on your side and you win against a strong player, it's much more enjoyable to feel the satisfaction not only in your soul but also to see your nickname rise in the table. In the old rating system, this is practically
impossible; it doesn't really matter who you won against: +50 points and a small percentage.

I think the Alternative rating is unique in its own way. And I'm voting for it!

And it definitely shouldn't be reset. Anyone who wants to climb and prove something from scratch won't look for easy ways.

I also voted for the alternative – there’s no need to exploit newbies. But with a reset based on date… let it happen at least once a year. Otherwise, take the Heroes portal as an example; there were such skilled players who played so well that they should have very high ratings. But then a newbie comes along, wants to climb the ranks… and what? It’s unlikely that they’ll be able to surpass a player (for example, LeBron) in just three years, especially when LeBron and other “veterans” will have long since retired, even after a whole year of victories.

I played on a chess portal with a chess rating system, but I didn't encounter anything like awarding more points for beating beginners.

I played on a chess portal with a chess rating system, but there wasn't a system where newbies were given more points.

+1! Everything is proportional there!

I also voted for the alternative – no need to exploit newbies ;)

but with a reset based on date... at least once a year.
Otherwise, take the Heroes portal as an example; there were such pros, they played so well that they should have very high ratings... but a newbie comes along, wants to climb the ranks... and what? To surpass a player (for example, LeBron after 3 years), who has been fighting him for three years, is unlikely to happen even within a year of victories, when LeBron and other "veterans" will already be retired.

A correct rating system is structured so that a person can take their place on the ladder in a relatively small number of games. In chess, people spend decades on their careers, but young players can reach a comparable rating in a couple of years, if they have the corresponding talent.

That's one thing. Two – the principle of decaying coefficients is proposed, so a player who becomes inactive will gradually lose rating.

The idea is to implement a system of diminishing coefficients, so that players who become inactive will gradually lose their ranking.

But in my opinion, diminishing coefficients are not necessary; let people remember the heroes of World of Xeen.