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

So, the so-called "freebie" happens when, after, say, 3 Tournaments, the player who took 1st, 1st, and 2nd places ends up lower than the player who took 4th, 4th, and 1st places. All thanks to your brainchild. And there are different situations, so I think the case you described is normal.

Unfortunately, I wasted time studying what you came up with.;) I suggest you don't get too carried away with anyone's preference for one or another ranking system. I think we need to take a closer look at this issue - let's come up with something together.

There was another word that was unclear to you - "exaggerated." And what was meant was that, in comparison with the sport you mentioned, it turns out that only one unit of measurement (a constant) is used there, while in Heroes, there are currently 3. And in all these three cases, the gaps between players can be completely different only because of these very units. And you propose to take such a gap into account.

Some people find it more difficult to communicate with you than I do. I explain much of your communication style by the fact that it's all virtual, and you perceive it as a game. Otherwise, you should weigh at least 100-120 kg, if you express your thoughts in this way in real life.:)

Absolutely correct! Take VBN's last game - pure luck and nerves. And in general, this concept often "pops up" when discussing one or another online game. But it is not applicable to offline. That's why I haven't joined the ranks of "ON" yet. But to play for adrenaline, for variety (and for other reasons), I definitely want to. I think I will perform better online.

Well, if this is the norm :) Then the glitches you described in my system are just child's play compared to such a GLITCH :) And as for your case, I gave you an example with runners who run five laps; in the first four laps, one wins by a second on each lap, but then on the fifth, another overtakes him by 20 seconds — WHO WON? You've gone quiet on that :) Well, then about boxers :) Player A beat player B for 9 rounds and won on points in every single one, but in the tenth, he took a hit to the jaw from player B and didn't get up :) WHO WON? Just don't tell me about the norm :)

I might not have been talking if I hadn't heard this specifically from the people I named. And I don't intend to come up with a rating system that depends ONLY on the place taken — imho, that's wrong for off-season.

So what's the problem — I think Sage explained everything to you politely. Well, let's compare you and me. In a speed tournament on a large map, you beat me by 30 days. You get 100, I calculate based on the ratio of our results. On a small map, you beat me by 4 days. You get 100, I get it depending on the ratio of results. In the skeleton gather, you collected 1000 more skeletons than me. You get 100 rating — I get it depending on the ratio of our results. This rating, both yours and mine, will reflect the real state of affairs between us in these Tournaments, both in each individual one and in the sum of all Tournaments. Now imagine HYPERBOLICALLY (you understand the meaning of this word well) that there were only three of us, and the third one is a complete newbie. Well, in all three of these Tournaments, I would have taken SECOND PLACE (look at me, I'm a hero, for goodness sake :)) and under your glitched system, based on the results of three Tournaments, I would be trailing you in rating by very little :) But under my system, it would be more objective. So, if your proposal regarding rating by place GLITCHES even in a hyperbolic example, then it remains only to guess what it will do in reality — like "time will tell," as you love to say here (by the way, it's already telling). And I don't need to wait for anything or guess — under my system, in this example, everything will be calculated tip-top :)

Well, you didn't guess right about the weight. I'm lighter. But as for hitting someone in the face. Well, I'm not a pacifist. All sorts of things have happened. And with my buddies, that's the only way we settle things, especially when we're drinking :) But you're not exactly naive either. Like, if you've carefully studied the threads about the rating and even write that you've almost wasted your time, then you must have seen how it was all discussed and that a bunch of people came to the opinion that both place and result need to be taken into account. And then Dmitry AS shows up and says all this is wrong — only the place should be taken into account. Like a hint that we're all complete fools here. You probably weigh exactly 150 ;)

It would be good if you didn't get involved in this childish squabble. The others have led you far away from the topic. Regarding boxing: here, you need to consider not just one match, but, say, 3 matches, two of which your knockout artist lost, and in the last one, whatever happened, happened. Based on the results of three matches, the first one won. They only give 1 point for a victory, regardless of how it was achieved.

I am not on the list of the "large group" urging you to do this, and I don't plan to be.

Actually, I am not your "buddy," as you put it, and I don't allow myself to write posts while "intoxicated."

Sorry, but I was an uninvited guest at this "party" (the topic about the rating), which doesn't prevent me from expressing my opinion, which, unfortunately, doesn't coincide with yours.

There, your explanations also boil down to two prepositions, "in" and "on," and there's one more – your system is the best...

I hope the "crowd" you mentioned has changed their opinion, if it hasn't already...

I never said you were my buddy, and besides, I'm not in a bad mood right now. You're acting all offended. If you took offense at the word "rylo" (snout/face), I meant it in reference to myself. Like, you're subtly hinting about my 120 kg. You have a refined sense of humor, and I'm just a simple, unrefined guy – so, sorry, I'm just joking as best as I can. :)

The rumors about my resentment are greatly exaggerated. On the contrary, I'm afraid of "scaring" you with my "harsh reality."

If you realize that the skill of a top-tier player (which is what you're trying to emphasize in your system, considering the difference in results) lies not in how much stronger they are, but in the stability of their high results, then some things will become clearer. For me, this is a priority. That's why I prioritize the place taken in a tournament, regardless of the result itself. For you, the priority is something else.

A system similar to the one I described doesn't need to be introduced yet. In my opinion, we should choose one thing for the portal, so as not to create confusion. You even agree with me on this.

That's why I'm a bit aggressive and skeptical about all sorts of continuations and innovations. Look at what's happening. There are countless systems now. There are tons of tables with calculations for just one Tournament. The organizers still haven't said which system will be used as a basis for this Tournament. And suggestions keep pouring in, confusing the common folk, who are already in shock about this whole rating thing. So, please understand me correctly. If you want to prove something and show it, then calculate using your own system and show the tables while you still can. If not, then why create hype around an already hyped topic?

You simply don't want to consider that the stability of results can be shown both by the ranking and by the results themselves. In my opinion, the results are more accurate, and this is evident both from the exaggerated examples given and from the calculations already made for the tables from the Canighem Tournament, which were calculated using DIFFERENT systems.

You yourself stirred up the hype. If you just used your head a little.;) I will propose my system when the time and place are right. I don't think it's a good idea to apply it randomly. With your help, I've already assessed the situation.

I'll give you another example with three Tournaments (notice, without unnecessary fuss).
Player 1: 1,1,4.
Player 2: 3,3,1.
According to your system, it's possible for Player 2 to end up higher after 3 Tournaments.
What do you call stability then!? If you continue to confuse concepts, you will much more confuse yourself and others – which you are very afraid of, explaining your aggression – than any rating system would.

;) Regarding the head connection – this is probably another example of subtle English humor. However, even if my understanding is poor, why criticize all the other systems in the same way? After all, in each of them, with the exception of the VDV system, there is a component in the formula that takes into account the result, which you dislike so much.

No, honestly, after reading your posts, you could really fall off your chair, and when you start reading about the examples, your stomach aches from laughing, I swear... :)

Actually, I mentioned the hype. You're getting confused again and confusing others. I'm asking you again to be more attentive.
What can this part give? That's right - nothing. Would you be happy with a dog with no legs, even if it's a purebred? You've been trying to sell it to me for days, explaining and explaining with foam at the mouth that it's normal. I've already understood what your "normal" means.

;)
The rating I suggested is not meant to determine the winners of multi-stage tournaments – I’ve already said this – do you even remember the posts, or do you not read them? :)

Well, in the 8th game, it's hard not to twist your ankle... :)
And what about your latest example – are you working for "Smeh Panoramy"? :)

What... Then you summarized several Tournaments in one table. Or was it someone else? If it was you, then what's the point of all this? Here's another example.

Then I was very wrong with the example about the legless dog. Your dog, I'm sorry, is also headless. :)

I didn't come up with the idea of using a PLAYER RATING to determine the champions of multi-stage tournaments. I simply suggested keeping a player rating for ALL official tournaments on this resource. But people got so hooked on the rating that they decided to create a separate rating specifically for the Kanighem tournament and use it to determine the winners. Which isn't entirely correct. Or, they could consider Sage's arguments about the decathlon. I hinted at this, but then I gave up, thinking, "Whatever, go ahead and decide – why not run the tournament as a decathlon?" By the way, it still makes sense, BUT I didn't suggest it.