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

Why does the conversation always come back to me? Because I'm the one pointing out this flaw in the oscillator? But the rating will be calculated for EVERYONE.

Okay, let's assume that's true. But the rating will be skewed. Are you suggesting I should just ignore the rating altogether? Besides, I'm not a super player. For example, why shouldn't I be wary of cooperative play in the fifth or third game? Even without cooperative play, players can crush each other. And with cooperative play, they can completely dominate. But still, this isn't just about me.

but also about other good players!

Well, that's quite a system. Add a map difficulty coefficient, fine, or some kind of bonus, or party strength – but remove the occupied space from the calculation :)

Note that this method eliminates all contradictions and applies all calculation systems. No to cooperative play and yes to clan-based play.
The problem lies in the mechanism for calculating the clan rating, and it needs to be changed. I would also like to point out that there is no mention of the oscillator; it is not relevant at all. And if you believe that my approach is an attempt to fix a flaw in the oscillator calculation, then I agree with you – flaws are not needed, and that is why we are all thinking about this together. Here is a ready-made solution to all the problems. You asked to remove the flaw from the oscillator (secretly hoping that it was impossible), and I offered you a way. A time-tested method.
What do you say?
I suggested a way to eliminate THIS flaw. Now you have no reason to be so stressed... Are you happy? :)

Here is an example:
1st place - Player 1
2nd place - Player 2 (cooperative)
3rd place - Player 3 (cooperative)
4th place - Player 4 (cooperative)
5th place - Player 5
...
10th place - Player 10
In this example, Player 1 overtakes the cooperative and receives his well-deserved 100 rating points. If there were no cooperative, all three players in the alliance would still be behind... And where are the promised points upward?:confused:
Also, for any position: if a player overtakes the best player in the cooperative, then the cooperative has no effect on his rating. But if he falls behind the leader of the cooperative, then he loses significantly in rating...

But I also agree with Amber – you can't calculate a rating without taking into account the place taken; it seems simply foolish to me...

4. A Clan tournament involves not one map, but several – equal to the number of players nominated by the Clan for the battle. Obviously, not all players participate, and some – the selection principle – is up to the Clan. As a result, only one participant from the Clan plays on each map. And all maps have one save from each Clan, and it is not allowed to play more than one map. The time is limited to prevent cheating, when one player can play several maps and share the Walkthrough with a clan member.

In this example, player 1 bypasses the cooperative and receives his well-deserved 100 rating points. If there were no cooperative, all three players in the alliance would still be left behind... And where are the promised upward points?:confused:

Also, with any occupied position: if a player overtakes the best player in the cooperative, then the cooperative does not affect his rating in any way. But if he falls behind the leader of the cooperative, then he loses significantly in rating...

I generally believe that a clan should only exist so that no one but its members participates in "their" tournament, and playing together in OFAs is the last thing – I agree with that, but I also agree with Amber – it’s impossible to calculate the rating without taking into account the occupied place; it seems simply stupid to me...

Also, for any occupied position: if a player overtakes the best player in the cooperative, it does not affect the cooperative's rating. But if he falls behind the leader of the cooperative, he loses significantly in rating...

WHY? Can you explain this dislike for considering location without referring to its absence in your calculation? Let's move away from what we have at the moment. We've forgotten about oscillators... What bothers you so much about considering the player's location – one of the most significant aspects of the game? After all, secondary parameters lose their meaning – and they are very important because they add interest to the game.

However, I still think that cooperative play is possible in this case during a tournament. Motivation. Neither I nor my friend expect a good result in the tournament. But together, we can improve our results and improve our ranking. Why not discuss the walkthrough during the tournament?

Why is that stupid? It's one thing to talk about the map, and another to talk about the rating. A similar example was already given in the thread: Player 1 took first place with a result of 3 days. Player 2, who took second place, completed the map in 60 days. And if 50 people participated in the tournament, the rating of the two leaders will hardly differ, even though Player 1 played MUCH better than Player 2.

What does it mean to be in an alliance but not in a cooperative? Is it like, not notarized? :)

Exactly, what if all 3 players are left behind? As previously mentioned, you naturally climb higher, which means they get less – that's understandable. But what do you do if one of them is at the top, and the rest are in trouble? You probably won't even know about it...

Are you also going to suggest calculating a rating? At least tell me the main criterion for this action...
And regarding the example, you want the rating and the position to roughly correspond to each other. If you think this is possible, feel free to suggest it – no one will be offended. If you have other ideas, we're listening...

Not so. Two players, having no chance at tournament leadership, will not create a cooperative :) That is a Dragon Utopia. A cooperative is one strong real player who shares their Walkthrough with others... This is what I would like to avoid.

If one person is at the top, and everyone else is in the... well, you know, what kind of cooperative is that?:D
And since it's not a cooperative, everyone gets what they deserve.

Why is that stupid? The location is one thing, the rating is another. A similar example was already given in the thread: Player 1 took first place with a result of 3 days. Player 2, who took second place, completed the map in 60 days. And if there were 50 people participating in the tournament, the rating of the two leaders will hardly differ, even though Player 1 played MUCH better than Player 2.

What is the time limit?
If it's too short, then not all Clans/players from the Clans may be able to participate.
If it's too long, one player may be able to complete all the maps.

The place always corresponds to the rating: the better the rating, the better the place...
But in Iron's system, the rating is the main factor, while in Amber's system, the place is. I'm not going to come up with anything else (or I'll get eaten:D)