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

That’s exactly the point – I know the theory much better than you. And I can confidently say that your statement is false. When a problem cannot be solved precisely, more data is always taken, and certainly not just one parameter. And almost always, more complex calculations are used to obtain more accurate results.

Well, you gave him quite a bit of publicity in two days... :) So much criticism directed at him means you're afraid... And you're right to be!

What do you mean by "getting prizes," and can you provide the username of someone from your example? I'd like to compare it to the tables and see how it works, because you're saying something, but I don't understand.

What should I write, in your opinion? I should have checked if I wanted to and had the ability and skills. I spent almost the entire month on this map – half a month on reconnaissance, half a month on a clean playthrough. I reported on the battles, provided saves from the end of each day, offered any saves, answered all questions, and created a description. Do you have any complaints? Is the playthrough unrealistic?

Why are you picking on me and on the fifth place? I just played very badly in it because I don't know ANYTHING there. I played there and everywhere else based on the fact that before the tournament, it was explained to EVERYONE how the results would be approximately calculated.

to refine and prove that everything is bad because Axe is in first place.

Well, I would have come up with some kind of coefficient and added it to my first version, because the virtual one eliminated a small flaw that, by the way, exists in all systems (I just didn't notice that by eliminating a small flaw, it introduces a bigger one, and so what? I can admit a mistake – I'm not as stubborn as Amber).

It's already flawed just because the place is taken into account.

You said, give me an idea, and I'll come up with a formula.

And you don't want to admit that in a system where the place is taken into account, there is an unresolvable specific flaw. In a tournament, if there are five identical results, you cannot determine whether there was an out-of-game discussion between the players during the game or not – nevertheless, the rating of the players following them WILL BE LOWERED. IS THAT FAIR? WHAT DO YOU PERSONALLY THINK?

P.S. I agree that if a group collectively completes it, they might beat me. But in my system, they won't push me down in the ranking as much as in yours. Study the material and take a bath.

In no way – just like your system. I clearly showed that my protection works when a clan discusses the playthrough together, and yours does not. And the player's rating in my system is protected, but not in yours.

Your demagoguery about valor and honor does not interest me, but the protection of the rating does.

Even if the cheating is not massive and hardcore, but isolated, I still don't want someone's rating to suffer because of it, especially mine.

They might even push it back, and even further than in the oscillator. You seem to have forgotten that a cooperative team can achieve better results in terms of days on the tournament, and therefore significantly reduce your days ratio. So, you need to study the theory and take a bath.

It's not about valor and honor, of which there is very little anyway. It's about laziness and the fear of being exposed; the risk and effort are not worth it if there is no mercenary interest. You still don't understand me.

If someone from the outsiders cheats, it probably won't affect you. But if someone from the top players cheats, you might suffer, and so will your system.

What should I be afraid of, a messed-up rating with an oscillator? :)
How is a player's rating protected from being lowered if a group of like-minded players interferes, and the player is moved down 3-4 positions from their current ranking? :) Where's the answer, smart guy.

Elementary, my dear Watson! I suggest abandoning the idea of calculating the clan rating, or modifying it slightly: only the single best result of a player from that clan should be counted.

But if the cooperative mode doesn't become a leader, then they won't harm me with their days. However, according to your system, they will continue to push me down in the ranking. What's wrong with that? It's clear which system is more stable and better protected. Mine is less flawed. And again, because it doesn't care about the ranking.

This is only if the cooperative mode becomes a leader. In that case, I will compare my results in DAYS specifically with them.

Ah, he made a big move :) But the impact was minimal :) He's willing to sacrifice the Clans rating for the sake of his oscillator.

Where does this self-confidence come from? If you're the leader in the General rating across all parts, who says you'll remain "him" after a certain stage in that rating calculation system, let's say OFA? Who will you compete with if you're at the bottom of the table?

Now it seems to me that you completely missed the point of the oscillator... If the "cooperative" doesn't become a leader, i.e., falls behind your result, then the oscillator will add points to you, not take them away. Which is quite fair, because it's a reward for outperforming everyone else... This is more appealing than just a dependence on the number of days, because it adds variability.

This is only if the cooperative strategy becomes a leader. Only in this case will I compare DAYS specifically with them. But according to your system, in addition to the days, I will also be moved down 3-4 positions, which will increase the gap. And if the cooperative strategy does not become a leader, then they won't harm me with their days. However, according to your system, they will continue to move me down in the ranking. What's wrong with that? It's clear which system is more stable and better protected. Mine is less flawed. And again, because it doesn't care about the ranking.

According to my system, I will suffer much less than according to yours. I showed this in the example above - read it slowly again.

The issue with the "cooperative mode" is ruining the Clans rating, and the oscillator has nothing to do with it. As always, you are trying to get away with substituting concepts and hoping that no one will delve into the essence of your reasoning. It won't work.

And what do you think is the reason he defends his calculation method? The reason is one: he is afraid that more agile experts will outpace him, and he won't even have time to understand why... Although now he will say that he has nothing to fear... :)

Where does this self-confidence come from? If you are the leader in the General rating of all parts, who says that you will remain "ahead of them" after a certain stage in that rating calculation system, let's say OFA? Who will you compete with if you are in... at the bottom of the table?

Now, your arguments just don't add up anymore :smile19: [Content removed] :smile19:

Don't jump to conclusions. If you overtake the same cooperative, it will give you EXACTLY THE SAME number of points! The goal is to strive for the best result, right? That's the essence of the oscillator – it's flexible and reacts not only to the result in days but also to the number of opponents you've overtaken. Why are you only considering half of the scheme when you need to consider the whole thing? Obviously, because the second part doesn't give you any advantages? What will you say next?

I'm showing you an example that you're wrong again.
Let's say there's a tournament where, with fair play, AmberSoler should take 1st place, Fireball 2nd, and IronAxe 3rd, with each having a result of 10 days. But Amber and I were still afraid of you and decided to play as a cooperative to be on the safe side. And together we came up with a walkthrough in 9 days. As a result of this collusion, according to your system, you will lose 10 points, and according to the oscillator – 5.