Posts from Rating system for online games in Heroes of Might and Magic IV.

2. A new player should have a real chance to catch up to the leader in the ranking within a year of diligent and successful games and victories in Tournaments, considering that the leader has already been on the forum for about three years. If the new player wins Tournaments (takes first places).

I disagree with that. Why should a newbie, say, catch up to someone who has been playing for 3 years in half a year? It's impossible.
And if it is possible, then the player has played a sufficient number of games, worked hard, and put in the effort, and then a fresh player comes along and somehow overtakes the other player in a week.
In my opinion, this is not entirely correct.

After thinking about the rating system, I decided to create this method:
Rnew=2*(Ga\P + (N+(Gw-Gl)) + 2\3Rold)
Ga - the number of players; P - the place occupied by the player; N = the number of games played; Gw - the number of won games; Gl - the number of lost games; R - the rating.
It seems that everything is taken into account here.
Please, criticize)
Sincerely.

Optimal, the question immediately arises: can a newcomer ever catch up to someone who has reached the top in 3 game years? Is it impossible, or are you saying that it will take much more than 0.5 years? How much? - 3 years? - but then that player will already have a rating of 6 years!

hold on, where do you get Rold? - just the old rating?

Then, explain one thing to me: What should we do? Should we remove the old player and promote the new one? There are certainly chances, and not few, not everyone is perfect, so there won't be a huge gap.
And that player who has a high rating but doesn't participate in tournaments will simply look ridiculous, like in VGAplanat in the archive. That is, his result will not be canceled, but it won't be in the table of active players. But if he wants to continue playing, his result goes into the table of active participants and continues to play.

And here's something else:
Iron and Bass were talking about calculating the rating in ONE tournament:

It’s more like points within a tournament, used to determine player rankings. Each tournament can have a different system; it doesn’t necessarily have to be a round-robin format (like the Olympic system used in the previous tournament), and even in a round-robin format, the scoring can vary.

Okay, let's call them points. But shouldn't they also be tracked, so that non-participation in a tournament is taken into account, roughly as I suggested?

Not participating simply means missing a tournament, and their rating won't be counted.
After a certain number of missed games, the player's rating is archived, as I mentioned above.
P.S. Maybe I misunderstood something?:)

Or does the last place have its own rating, even if it's small in size? But does it exist?

I don't quite agree with that. Why should a newbie, let's say, catch up to someone who has been playing for 3 years in half a year? This is impossible.
And if it is possible, then, let's say, a player has played a sufficient number of games, put in the effort, and then a fresh player comes along and somehow overtakes the other player in a week.
In my opinion, this is not entirely correct.

Added after 19 hours and 3 minutes
After thinking about the rating calculation system, I decided to use the following method:
Rnew=2*(Ga\P + (N+(Gw-Gl)) + 2\3Rold)
Ga - the number of players; P - the place occupied by the player; N = the number of games played; Gw - the number of won games; Gl - the number of lost games; R - rating.
It seems that everything is taken into account here.
Please, criticize)
Sincerely

This formula actually works quite well. I advise against reinventing the wheel and suggest starting to calculate the rating. Otherwise, it becomes not very interesting: there is no information, only conversations and formulas....

I don't quite agree with that.

Why should a newbie, say, catch up with someone who has been playing for 3 years in half a year? This is impossible. And if it is possible, then, let's say, a player has played a sufficient number of games, put in a lot of effort, and then a fresh player comes along and somehow overtakes the other player in a week. In my opinion, this is not entirely correct.

After thinking about the rating system, I decided to use this method:
Rnew=2*(Ga\P + (N+(Gw-Gl)) + 2\3Rold)
Ga - the number of players; P - the place occupied by the player; N = the number of games played; Gw - the number of won games; Gl - the number of lost games; R - the rating. It seems that everything is taken into account here.

Let's say a newbie comes along who is actually 100 times better than any of us. What then? According to your system, it will take him three years to catch up, but he'll just tell us to go away with this rating and go to another resource, and we'll lose a great player. Ley was right about all of this.

N - the number of games played. Is this for this specific tournament for which the rating is currently being calculated, or for ALL games during the entire period that this player has been on this forum? I think it's only for this tournament, for which the rating is being calculated. Then it might work. Without mathematicians who could analyze the formula, we can't say anything definitive here. Take this formula and calculate the rating for some past online tournament, and then we'll see what emerges and what problems might arise.

Okay, let's call them points. But they still need to be calculated, taking into account non-participation in the Tournaments, roughly as I suggested, right?

You have to play for fun :) And rating is just twice the fun :)
N - the number of matches played in this Tournament.
It can be checked... I'll take a Tournament for the 3rd game that has ended and calculate everything. Should I send the data to you in a private message or post it here:confused:

You have to play for fun :) And rating is just twice the fun :)

That's what I'm saying, a great newcomer, with an incorrect rating system, will leave for another place with double the satisfaction :) Such scenarios should not be ruled out, so the systemic formula needs to be carefully checked, both in terms of how it works for calculating ratings from a single tournament, and by considering various major events involving multiple tournaments.