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

So? Don't you like the first option?
In my opinion, everything is correct. :smile01:
Two sixes and one twelve – roughly equal to one one.
IMHO.

And you are wrong again. Let's say we have players A and B, and they participated in 9 Tournaments together. In the first eight, player A consistently showed a result of 31 days, and player B just as consistently showed 32 days. The winner always had 30 days—basically, BB-type maps.
But in the ninth tournament, B showed the same result as the winner (the organizers decided to change the heroes version for variety, for example, to Heroes 4) with a result of 3 days and took second place. Player A took third place with 4 days.
Who was closer to the winner more often? Correct, player A (8 out of 9 times).
And who gets a higher rating? Correct, player B.
A - 849.19
B - 850.00

This is not a flaw, but a virtue.

You know, I'm ready to forgive a 0.1 rating point margin of error in any system.

Conclusion: beat strong players and you'll get your rating. Especially if we count separately by versions, then everything is fine.

and? you don't like the first option?
In my opinion, everything is correct. :smile01:
Two sixths and one twelfth is roughly equal to one first place.
IMHO.

The problem is exactly that everyone sees it differently. You see that the placement/days ratio should be 3 to 7, while Alexei sees it as roughly 1 to 2
(including the bonus). Kyle and I believe it should be 1 to 1, and Topor considers placement an evil and wants to ignore it entirely. If the vast majority (or the administration) spoke out specifically for one ratio, then the question could be closed.

You're really manipulating the numbers. The part highlighted in black shows that in your post, it "showed the same result as the winner." And since my system doesn't take placement into account at all, player B, unlike player A, did manage to match the leader's result once, while player A couldn't do it at all, which is why B overtook him by 0.81. And what's so great about your example?

that the player with a higher rating showed results closer to the leader in terms of days in tournaments.

And in your case, it's completely messed up. If someone considers your bonus in the fourth stage (out of 55 earned points, you received 28 purely for the placement) to be a good advantage for themselves, then let them vote for systems that take placement into account.

Players are not obliged to be responsible for the attendance or non-attendance of other players in the tournament with their rating!!

You're good at drawing conclusions. So, answer, who of the strong players did YOU personally beat in the fourth stage?

Even three twelfth places are better than one first place and nothing else. Where is the guarantee that if Prophet played as well as Alexei in the next two tournaments, he wouldn't have grabbed two twentieth places there. But he didn't play and that's it.

However, if it comes to a vote, and systems that take placement into account gain the upper hand (i.e., I see that a system without placement is losing), then I will cast my vote for the one that will have a greater ratio in favor of the result rather than the placement (for example, 3 to 7, as Kamikaze suggests).

Based on my system, in the 4th stage of the competition, I would have received 50.37, which is 23.1 more than what you would have received. You, as a big expert on the fourth stage, claim that this is unfair. Let's assume that's true, but let's consider the 6th stage of the competition.
According to my system, for an average performance and a place closer to the end of the tournament table, you would have received 45.33, which is 24.67 fewer points.

First place should be worth more than a few tenths of a point.

It's your right, but I hope there won't be a general vote, and the administration will sort it out themselves.

but, as you can see, these appeals didn't work...

where is the system or table?

I said this back in post #600... back then, IronAxe and AmberSoler had a serious disagreement...
but, as you can see, these appeals have not been successful.

I stopped participating in this completely useless chatter a long time ago. But it hasn't subsided...
So, it wasn't my fault!

...this completely fails to provide an equivalent measure of player skill if ratings are calculated based on ONLY ONE parameter; the calculation should be based on combined parameters.

First, we need to figure out exactly what your rating should take into account. If it's skill, then none of the proposed options do that. Undoubtedly, if tournaments last for days, the shorter the time, the better, but this still doesn't provide an equivalent measure of player skill if ratings are calculated based on ONLY ONE parameter.

According to my system, in stage 4 of the competition, I would have received 50.37 points, which is 23.1 more than you. You, as a great expert on stage 4, claim that this is unfair. Let's say it is, but let's consider stage 6. Due to the ease and speed of the map, you confidently give yourself 70 rating points for completing it, which is easier and faster than even 11 days on stage 4. According to my system, for an average completion and a place closer to the end of the tournament table, you would have received 45.33 points, which is 24.67 fewer "free" points. And who else has such a system where it's so easy to get points?!

I wasn't participating in the discussion back then, so it's not about me.
The million-dollar question: "Then who is it about?" :D

Should they be responsible for the map's features???

Who did you beat among the strong players in stage 4? If we introduce a coefficient for him, almost everyone would be left without a rating.

and you clicked on my iron beak twice more.

First place should be better than several hundredths

It's your right, but I hope there won't be a general vote, and the administration will decide for itself.

You are 11-3=7 days behind the leader. There were many strong players in this version on stage 6. I am 10-7=3 days behind the leader. What else do you need to prove?

There were many strong players in this version on stage 6.

But I was unlucky that they were there on stage 6.

But new figures appeared in the form of new system developers. And now they all say in unison that it's not their fault.

Kyle wrote here that I was resorting to personal attacks. However, he gave you a pass for this post. This is clearly a biased attitude of the moderator towards a forum member (me).

that's why I'm afraid that even though the Prophet is gone, what if someone else comes along and gives me another smackdown?

Let them sort it out, what's the harm?

The problem of finding the optimal rating can be solved in two mutually exclusive ways.

The first, which takes the form of an argument and is what we have here—consists of searching for flaws and errors in the opponent's method in order to show one's own advantages against that backdrop... Moreover, in most cases, the advantage is only visible against the flaws of the opponent's system, but is not actually such in reality. Everyone understands this, they just pretend otherwise... :)

The second option consists of searching for the advantages of the opponent's method and linking them to one's own... And vice versa. This is teamwork. Until we adopt this method of finding a solution, there will be no point...

I've been trying to explain to you for a long time that the same difference in skill level on different maps will result in different gaps.

Meaning I should now be considered a strong player in the 1s ??? Mda, and I, naive as I am, thought I was playing it for the second time in my life.

What can I say about AmberSoler's withdrawal: "The poet's soul could not take it"

There was no personal attack on my part, since I practically quoted your own opinion, namely
(see discussion of the 1st VK stage, post 314). But to be completely correct, I will add that I believe if the Prophet had played, I would have also been beaten, after first removing the tiara.

That's it, let's discuss Kamikaze's rating instead.

So, go ahead and start. What ratio of days to locations did you settle on? :)