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

Iron, you agreed to use both the venue and the results, right? So why aren't you persuading Dmitry about this? Is it pointless?

Don't you see? We're talking about different things because the player ratings are so messed up that it's impossible to make sense of it. I suggested simply keeping a rating for players across all official tournaments. But at that time, the Kanighem tournament started, and the question arose of how to determine the winners. I didn't care, but people got hooked on the idea of player ratings that I started, and they began to actively promote this system for determining the winners of the Kanighem tournament. And, by the way, I still think it's not without merit, as Dmitry A.S. does. Of course, we could have used the VDV system. But in the context of the decathlon, any of the systems would work. But I don't care about Kanighem at all. The topic was broader. A rating of forum players from all tournaments. Now, Dmitry A.S. and I are arguing about the rating, but he's projecting it onto the Kanighem tournament. So, I don't know what's useful and what's not here.

By the way, how much should the result exceed the placement in percentage terms, in your opinion?

By 100%, because placement is subjective. But that's if we're talking about a player rating and separating it from the Kanighem tournament. If we use the formula only for the Kanighem tournament, then in principle, 50/50 would work. But if this formula is applied to the rating of players on the resource for all tournaments, and there is no other choice, then at least 60/40 or 70/30. In short, the closer to 100%, the better – but it's not up to me to decide.

Added 5 minutes ago

Note that I didn't suggest this. You can make people laugh when they least expect it.
So why are you banging your head against the wall of your rating, explaining all its merits? I tore it apart from the point of view of its applicability to several tournaments. What a strange person. He comes in and cuts without understanding – and then heroically deals with the results of his actions.
Why do you emphasize the difference in results if it's not needed in the next tournament? What will that give?

Because it's hard to understand you too. If you're only talking about the Kanighem tournaments, but at the same time, you're using the word RATING, then, in general, it's nonsense to determine the winners based on the player rating. So just say NOT RATING, but a system for calculating points TO DETERMINE THE WINNER. And I was talking about a general player rating. NOT ONLY FROM THE KANIGHEM TOURNAMENT, but from all the tournaments on this forum that are considered official. Do you understand what it means to keep a rating for players? I'm sorry that everyone called the system for calculating points from the tournament for determining the winner a rating, and it's still unclear who confused whom and is confusing whom. And don't confuse the concept of a tournament. There is the Kanighem tournament, which consists of 10 tournaments. So, my system was intended to calculate ratings separately for each of the tournaments and summarize them for the players. Moreover, it's clear who took what place – the tables of EACH tournament are visible. That is, the rating does not determine the winner of each individual tournament. But, knowing the winners, we take their results and simply calculate the rating of the players of this resource. Understand?
P.S. That was the main idea. But since people liked this system (and how they modernized it, adding PLACEMENT to it) to calculate the winner of Kanighem, I wasn't particularly against it – I was already tired. I'm already feeling sick from the word "rating."

Absolutely, because the ranking is subjective. But that's if we're talking about player rankings and separating it from the Canigam Tournament. If we use the formula for the Canigam Tournament only, then it could be 50/50. But if we apply this formula to the ranking of players across all Tournaments on the resource, and there's no other choice, then at least 60/40 or 70/30. In short, the closer to 100%, the better – but it's not up to me to decide. :)

Essentially, if you're evaluating each Tournament individually, the method of assigning ratings still matters. Players will find their place regardless. The problem arises when you consider multiple Tournaments, as it can lead to confusion (the system is designed for a single Tournament), and you just stand by and watch the chaos unfold.

Added 3 minutes later

I'm to blame for everyone calling the system for calculating points in a Tournament to determine the winners a "ranking," and it's still unclear who confused whom and is continuing to confuse. :)

Explain the essence of the first one, i.e., the system for calculating points in a Tournament to determine the winners. I couldn't find it in the topic you mentioned so many times.

Iron, are you going to answer or not?! Post 68. I've been wondering about this for a while...
P.S. Last line.

Well, at least you understand my opinion now.

It's bad when several tournaments are held simultaneously; it can lead to quite predictable confusion (the system is designed for one tournament), and you just stand by and calmly observe the chaos – it's not right.

So, why can't the rating be calculated for each SEPARATE tournament? Why invent a system for calculating the rating for several tournaments at once? What's the point? Wouldn't it be simpler to just add up the ratings after each one is calculated?

Iron, why not 99 to 1? :), did you check and calculate in the case of 70/30?

Explain the essence of the first one, i.e., the point-scoring system for the tournament to determine the winners. I couldn't find it in the topic you mentioned so many times.

Well, let me try to remember where I wrote that. But I've mentioned several times that the system for calculating the rating for each player in the off-tournament on this resource (and for the official tournaments that run in parallel with the Kanigema tournament, for experience on skeletons, etc., and for the tournaments themselves from the KANIGEMA TOURNAMENT) is one thing. And determining the winner of a MULTI-STAGE tournament, like the Kanigema tournament, is another. But some organizers – I won't point fingers – started using the term "rating," and even "RATING," to determine the winners of the Kanigema tournament. And they attached "PLACE" to my formula!! And I know on what basis and how the moderators name and rename topics. They drop a bunch of posts, and then you have to sort it out. I'm telling you, they threw everything into one bucket and started stirring it vigorously :) But since it started with my small formula for determining the player rating, it was already impossible to stop. That's why there's confusion. You see the tables from the Kanigema tournament. They simply calculate the rating from the Kanigema tournament to ultimately determine the winners. BUT they also use these same formulas to calculate the player ratings for the resource, which include results from the Kanigema tournaments and other official tournaments. Is it clear now? I just didn't understand you – as always happens :) But now I don't know who's to blame :) Probably ANARCHY :)

Added 3 minutes ago

So why can't the rating be calculated in each SEPARATE tournament? Why invent a point-scoring system for several tournaments at once? What's the point? Wouldn't it be simpler to just add up the ratings after calculating each one?
Iron, why not 99 to 1? :), did you check, did you calculate in the case of 70/30?

Do I have nothing better to do? I said it. I'm interested in the player rating. And there, I don't want to see "PLACES" in the calculations at all. But in the Kanigema tournament, do whatever you want :) Come up with any formula you like – as vbn said, he doesn't care; he just needs to take first place everywhere and not give a damn about the formulas :) That's what I support him in – at least I try, even if it doesn't always work out :) Like, no matter what system is used, the leader gets a hundred :)

That's for sure – take first place, and in any formula, the others will be judged in relation to you... ;)

That's for sure - take first place, and in any formula, the others will be based on you... ;)

But I agree with him, this only applies to the Caningham Tournament. I am against including the place taken in tournaments in the general player rating on the forum. But since it is practically useless to try to convince anyone of anything, I am forced to agree for now with Kamikaze's system because, in my opinion, it is slightly better than the oscillator, or rather, it seems to be a further development of this formula.

I'd like to summarize the results :) of the dispute with Dmitry AC regarding the rating. I won't be overly ironic, but I will "poke" him a little :) For the sake of fairness, I'll say that the dispute wasn't entirely useless – some things are becoming clearer and clearer, and in reality, it is difficult for a person to immediately make sense of the mess we've been dealing with for an entire year, so this post will also include a bit of history. So...

1* When you talk about rating, clearly separate the concepts of what you mean. I'm not even talking about dividing ratings into current, cumulative, general, and universal.
2* When we talk about the player rating on this forum for offline Heroes tournaments, we must keep in mind that this rating calculates all official tournaments on this forum, including all stage-tournaments of the Kanigem Tournament and other officials conducted with various winner determination criteria (speed, experience, skeletons, minerals, mines, etc.) and must understand that this rating is not intended to determine tournament winners. This rating is exactly what results after the winners have already been determined and their results are known.

For this purpose, I came up with a simple formula. Place was not taken into account due to its subjectivity. Why is it needed? Because here is how the rating calculation happens. First, places in the tournament are distributed based on player results and winners are determined for each individual tournament. Then, for the rating calculation, each player was credited with a rating for the tournament depending on the result they showed. At this point, the place they took in the tournament is irrelevant (even if with a result of 100 days they got second place while the leader finished in one day – such a person will still remain a tournament prize-winner and receive a prize if provided for by the tournament). The result, strangely enough, is also a reflection of the place taken because the PLAYER gets a PLACE depending on the result they showed (though examples have already shown that it's possible to take a high place with an IDIOTIC result due to the absence of players of a certain level). That is the only reason I did not include the same-place accounting in the formula. According to the proposed formula, for any tournament – regardless of the victory criterion – the leader was credited with 100 rating points for their result. Others danced based on the ratio of their results to the leader and were credited with a rating accordingly. At the same time, the subjective place introduces no distortions since it does not participate in the calculation. Thus, it became possible to calculate a rating that would reflect player results across different tournaments with different winner determination criteria (skelets, experience, speed) and introduce a Unified offline player rating on this resource for each version of Heroes (and besides, this allows for a Universal rating, which considers a player's results across different versions of the game). This is because such different values as experience, skeletons, and days were brought to a common denominator through the leader's result (the player who took first place), and we called this common denominator (a kind of substitute for skeletons, experience, and days) - RATING POINTS. At first glance, it seems that here we have mixed everything into one pile – all types of tournaments and different winner determination criteria, combining the incompatible. Yes! That is so. But that's exactly what we were striving for – we were looking for this common denominator to be able to calculate ratings for offline players from any tournament and obtained a unified and simple rating calculation, which relatively accurately reflects the sum of results accumulated by a player from the tournaments they participated in. The Price-Quality ratio of such a system is the highest of all proposed – even my main opponent AmberSoler agreed with this (or as AmberSoler says about me – that I am his eternal opponent ;)

3* With the start of the Kanigem Tournament, the question arose as to how to determine the winner of this tournament, which consists of ten separate tournaments (or stages). The organizers wanted to take as many parameters into account as possible when awarding points to determine the winner of the Kanigem Tournament, and for this, these points must be considered for each stage-tournament in the Kanigem Tournament. As parameters to be considered, they wanted to see the place taken by the player at each stage-tournament and the Strength of the Tournament for each stage, and also consider how the player performed relative to themselves in the previous tournament. At this time, I, AmberSoler, and Sage were arguing about rating in a separate thread. AmberSoler proposed including place in the rating and provided an oscillator formula. I disagreed. And at that moment AlexPank appears in this thread, scouring the forum for a formula by which points could be awarded in the Kanigem Tournament and then used to determine the winner. He gets caught up in our argument with AmberSoler, although we are arguing about something completely different, and then everything went wild. Firstly, three formula-systems were born at once:
Axe – accounting ONLY for result
Amber – oscillator – accounting for both result and the place taken by the player
AlexPank – accounting for result + accounting for place + accounting for tournament strength + something else there

All these formulas are called rating calculation systems. Only AmberSoler and I were talking about a General forum rating for players, while AlexPank took these ratings to calculate points to determine winners in the Kanigem Tournament. Amber and I told AlexPank our doubts regarding the Kanigem tournament rating. Therefore, Alex Pank did this – he began calculating three tables for the Kanigem Tournament using these three formulas without including other tournaments from the forum in this so-called rating. To compare what would result from different systems. Parallel to this, he maintains another three tables where, according to me, he calculates ratings for all players on the forum for all official tournaments using these same formulas, including the stages of the Kanigem tournament.
And suddenly FireBall appears, who begins to improve Amber's oscillator and AlexPank's formula. But why improve them? Well, here is why. I told both Amber and Alex that since you include place in your formulas, your rating systems are more flawed, and to eliminate the flaws, you start adding additional parameters (Alex Pank's system was a continuation and improvement of the oscillator). And the more parameters you add – the more flaws you introduce, but different ones. Like patching one hole while another rips.
And as confirmation of my words, FireBall appears and continues to develop the theme of improvements :) We also clashed with him, because I realized that now a fourth table of ratings multiplied by two would appear, since they would use it to calculate both the General rating from all tournaments and separately calculate the Kanigem tournament. In the end, the results of this skirmish led to AmberSoler leaving the dispute, leaving kind words specifically about my system as a farewell, for which I continue to respect him, although we cursed each other like there was no tomorrow :)
But the result of clashing with FireBall turned out predictable. Kamikaze appears with a new flawed rating calculation system and begins himself (to his credit and praise ;) to calculate both the General Player Rating across all tournaments and separately POINTS for the Kanigem tournament.
And suddenly Dmitry AC appears (this is after a year of our discussions :) and says, "what's with these legless and headless dogs here :)" And I feel a fifth system coming, which VDV started, and which, by the way, no one has yet canceled in his tournaments. The idea of this system boils down to considering only the places taken by the player in tournaments and not considering their results according to the main criteria for determining the winner in a tournament. But I am simply sure now that Dmitry AC could not make sense of the threads and posts about ratings accumulated over the year. It is actually practically impossible. One could go crazy there :) as many wrote.
Therefore, Dmitry AC begins the discussion of rating systems but projects it ONLY onto the Kanigem tournament. And I don't even understand this yet, because I don't know that he is unaware that both points for the Kanigem Tournament and the General forum player rating from all officials (including Kanigem stages) are calculated using the SAME formulas. The misunderstanding intensifies after Sage enters the dispute and politely and in detail tries to explain the intricacies of this matter to Dmitry AC with good sporting examples (and he has the right to do so, because he started discussions with us a year ago).
And at this moment Dmitry AC simply deceives us and even I didn't immediately catch on to this trick on his part. But I still think he did it unintentionally. He tries to debunk Sage's example of sports pentathlons/decathlons and multi-stage bike races by pushing the idea that there, seconds and meters are the same criteria – while here we have different ones – skeletons, days, experience :) My dear sir, where have you seen different criteria in the stages of the Kanigem Tournament??? :) All stages so far were run ONLY for SPEED (DAYS)!!! And if the organizers keep it up in the same spirit and make such a winner determination criterion in each stage the trademark of the Kanigem tournament, then you simply have nothing more to object with against Sage's examples; and he, by the way, asserts that the bicycle you are trying to invent has long been invented, and the system proposed by me (without considering PLACE) is perfectly suited for calculating points in the Kanigem Tournament to determine winners. But at that moment of the dispute, I overlooked this. And I misunderstood you even more by attributing your words not to the calculation of points in the Kanigem tournament (because there we have seen only one criterion on all stages so far – days for speed – like your meters/seconds – and no skeletons or experience) but attributed your words to the calculation of the General rating for all forum players for all official tournaments, including the stages from the Kanigem Tournament.

Conclusion: Based on the statements of people who have been actively discussing the topic of ratings for a year, I once again come to the conclusion that the formula which does not take into account the place taken is perfectly suited for maintaining General Rating calculations for players on the forum for offline Heroes. Also, this formula (based on examples provided by Sage) is suitable for calculating points from each STAGE in the Kanigem tournament for further determination of the winner, BUT on condition that all TEN stages in this tournament are run SPECIFICALLY for speed (DAYS parameter). Although to be honest, like Sage, I didn't understand why it's specifically impossible to compare different criteria if we bring everything to a common denominator through the leader's result. According to Dmitry AC, this is because a person who took first place fewer times could eventually become the winner by rating. Well, to hell with that – personally, I see nothing scary in this, because on some of the stages, another contender tore apart someone aspiring to be a prize-winner like a dog tears a rag. And if we compare the Kanigem tournament as a multi-stage pentathlon (sounds beautiful :) Five versions of Heroes, two stages each), then Sage showed us that it's enough to break away sharply on one of the stages to become the winner. But it would be more correct not to say "break away" – because the leader at each stage cannot receive MORE than 100 points, but rather call things by their names: a potential leader who is pushed from first place in the overall standings even though they took first places on stages more often - FAILED their own game - for they showed a very poor result relative to the leader on other stages, or didn't show up at all!!!
I can only suggest that Dmitry AC describe his rating system and his system for awarding points to Kanigem Tournament stages and calculate ALL past stages using his formulas (considering the parameter – only place taken) and show us the results of his calculations. If for any reason he does not want or cannot do this at this stage, then the dispute can be closed until better times when he can perform all the necessary calculations to continue the dispute!

But generally, Carthage must be destroyed!!! ;) Everyone should finally understand this :)
After all, both main opponents with whom I began these discussions about ratings agreed with this. AmberSoler was forced and under pressure :), Sage – voluntarily.

And at this point, Dmitry AS is simply deceiving us

A sharp phrase, once again emphasizing that you are just talking for the sake of talking. I meant all the Tournaments held on the portal in 2007 (including the ones you mentioned, named after Kanighem), where, as everyone knows, there were both skeletons and experience points. And the trick – asking the question myself and answering it myself – is very suitable for those who jump into the fray without fully understanding the situation. First, I strike (in your case, I bang my head), and then I figure it out. Although, I must admit, you did summarize and clarify this complex scheme of the emergence of various rating systems for many.
First of all, let me clarify for you, who is unintelligent in every sense, that I am advocating for a universal rating system that can both "reward" for the current Tournament and "summarize" the results of several. Your one-sided, single-Tournament system does not have this quality. For a single Tournament, absolutely any system would be suitable, since it cannot move opponents around. But when summarizing the results of several Tournaments, understandable (but not for everyone) difficulties arise.
A reasonable question arises – what is the point of a rating system that is only suitable for one Tournament? It seems that I can hear the rustling of toilet paper. AronAxe's one-sided rating sank, as you can imagine, where. Unfortunately, I must state that your creation, as sad as it sounds, cannot satisfy anyone but yourself, since any system based on logic and common sense can "summarize" one Tournament.
I wish you too would acquire these two important qualities (including for communicating on this resource); perhaps then you will bring order to your ruined Carthage.
A system that takes into account both the place taken and the difference in results is not suitable for calculating the rating based on the results of several Tournaments, since the following situation may arise, when, based on the results of 5 Tournaments:

Player 1 - 1, 1, 1, 1, 3 places
Player 2 - 2, 2, 2, 2, 1 places

Based on the mixed system, it is possible that Player 2 will be the champion (Player 1 showed a weak result for whatever reason). "Who cares" - these words can be safely applied to the author of such a rating.
If you propose a system that can eliminate this shortcoming, then we can talk about something else, using logic and common sense as much as possible.
For now, I do not see a way out of this situation, other than to calculate the rating according to the places taken. Unless we reconsider the percentage of the place and the result.
Thank you again for the story.
And one more thing – quantity does not mean quality; with time, this will come, who knows, maybe even to you.
I am looking forward to the next flare-up... that is, post :).

A sharp phrase, once again emphasizing that you are just talking for the sake of talking.

I can just as easily say that after an entire year of discussing systems here (as if you didn't see it :)), you suddenly decided to just chat. :) Present your system and the results of its calculation, at least for the stages of the Kanigema Tournament. I wrote this in my post - otherwise, you just decided to chat for the sake of chatting. Otherwise, arguing with you is pointless if you don't understand what tournament results are, how to determine the winner, and what a Player Rating is. In general, you have already been explained why the one-sided formula was created. By the way, your system, which takes into account only the PLACE, is also flawed.

I meant all the tournaments held on the portal in 2007 (including the Kanigema Tournament), where, as you know, there were also

And if that's what you meant, then throw your example in the trash. :)
---------
Player 1 - 1, 1, 1, 1, 3 places
Player 2 - 2, 2, 2, 2, 1 places
According to the mixed system, it is possible that Player 2 will be the champion (Player 1 showed a weak result for some reason). "Who cares" - these words can be safely applied to the author of such a rating.
---------
What's the point of a champion in all the tournaments on the forum? Who holds such a nomination? The system is suitable for calculating points to determine the winner of the Kanigema Tournament, and Sage has already explained this to you. And this system is also suitable for calculating the General Rating of forum players because it does not identify the forum champion - there is no such nomination, but simply maintains a Player Rating, and this situation has been explained to you again.
It is quite acceptable that the second player's RATING will be higher than the first if player 1 lost one of the tournaments to player 2 by a large margin, even if he won four tournaments against him by a day. And even if player 1's rating is lower, no one is taking away his championship in those four tournaments.

skeletons, and experience. And the trick - I ask the question myself, I answer it myself, it is very suitable for those who rush into battle, having only partially understood the situation. First, I attack (in your case, I bang my head), and then I figure it out. Although, I must admit, you summarized and clarified this complex scheme of the emergence of various rating systems for many.

I rush into battle head-on, but you... from the rear. :)

First of all, I will clarify for you, who is unintelligent in every sense, that I am advocating for a universal rating system that can both "reward" for the current tournament and "summarize" the results of several. Your
one-sided, single-tournament system does not have this quality. For

Listen, you, multifaceted and many-sided :) You've already made so many digs in this post with hints of unintelligibility, although it's obvious that you yourself don't understand. Because, after the discussion of the VDV system, no one on the forum suggested a rating system that would take into account only the PLACE. Will you continue to insist that you are the most intelligent, and everyone on the forum is an idiot?

It seems that the rustling of toilet paper can be heard. The one-sided rating from IronAxe has sunk, you know where. Unfortunately, I must

And Dmitry AS's system has not even surfaced from there. :)

I wish you to acquire these two important qualities (including for communication on this resource), who knows, maybe you will bring order to your ruined Carthage.

Likewise. :)

The system that takes into account both the place and the difference in results is not suitable for calculating the rating based on the results of several tournaments, since the following situation may arise, when, based on the results of 5 tournaments:
Player 1 - 1, 1, 1, 1, 3 places
Player 2 - 2, 2, 2, 2, 1 places

You've annoyed me with your stupid example, but you constantly modify it. Reread the posts in that thread with my examples, where I showed the flaws in taking into account only the PLACE. I won't explain it to you again, you're smart enough. It's not advisable to throw pearls before swine, you know. :)

If you offer a system that can eliminate the indicated drawback, then we can talk about something else, connecting logic and common sense as much as possible;).
I do not see any way out of this situation, except to calculate the rating according to the places taken. Unless we reconsider the percentage of the place and the result.

So, describe your system and calculate the rating according to it - maybe then you will understand the flaws of such a system that takes into account only the place. This drawback was discussed a year ago, and that's why the VDV system was rejected for the rating - we started with this, but moved on. If there were no flaws, no one would have made further improvements. You are suggesting that I eliminate the flaws in my system - I know them. You eliminate the flaws in yours first - but it's harder for you - you don't see them at all. And I'll tell you that the flaws in your system are even worse. :)

Thank you again for the history.
And one more thing - a lot does not mean quality, it will come with time, who knows, maybe it will come to you too. I look forward to the next exacerbation..., that is, the next post:).

And you're pretending to be concise - the sister of talent. :) Your example, which supposedly takes everything into account between several tournaments, is stupid because you suggest not paying attention to some players missing tournaments, which speaks to your "foresight" and predictability of flaws for various systems. Well, let the post be long, but if you can't understand anything briefly. Never mind, especially for Dmitry AS, one more time. :)
My example is a little more complicated, and I gave it earlier:

Tournament 1
Player A - 1 day - 1st place
Player B - 2 days - 2nd place
Player C - 3 days - 3rd place

Tournament 2
Player A again 1 day - 1st place
Player D - 1000 days - 2nd place

Based on the results of several tournaments according to your super-correct system, we will get that Player D has the same rating as Player B, and also outperforms Player C. Who needs such a rating for your lame dog? Now imagine a bunch of tournaments and the inconsistency of their composition. Your rating, which takes into account only the place, will mess things up. :)

Dmitry, my advice is to carefully study the topics first and not think that you are the smartest. Otherwise, you will just be the funniest.

I might as well say that after systems were discussed here for a whole year (as if you haven't seen it :) you've decided to just blather right now :) Put your system up for display.

Everything in its own time. I'll repeat this to you one more time, and I won't bother myself with such a tactic in the future. Everyone gets it differently.

What the hell is a "champion of all tournaments on the forum"? Who runs such a nomination?? For the Kanigem tournament, the system is suitable for awarding points to determine the winner, and Sage has already explained this to you. And for calculating the General Player Rating of the forum players, such a system is also suitable—because it doesn't identify a forum champion (there is no such nomination), it simply maintains the Player Rating, and the situation was explained to you again: it is entirely permissible for the second player to have a higher RATING than the first if Player 1 lost one of the tournaments to Player 2 by a margin of 1000 times, even if they beat him in four tournaments by a margin of one day. And even if Player 1 has a lower rating, no one is taking away his championships from those four tournaments.
I'm the one charging the embrasure chest-first—while you're doing it backside-first :)\br>

Obviously, by "embrasure" you mean your tongue—well, I don't mind, just wash it thoroughly, otherwise I'm afraid I'll get dirty from any contact with you.
I've suspected for a loooong time that your head (the one next to your breasts) and my "backside" perform the same functions. A wish for you to learn how to actually think with your head wouldn't be out of place. Who knows, it might come in handy somewhere.

Listen, you, multi-sided and multi-faceted :) You've made so many jabs in this post hinting at obtuseness, though it's obvious to a fool that you're the one who doesn't get it. Because before you, the "perceptive" one, not a single person on the forum (after the VDV system was discussed) proposed such a rating system that would consider only the PLACE. Are you going to continue claiming that you're like, the most perceptive, and everyone else on the forum is an idiot?

Why so emotional! You need to save your nerves.

And Dmitry's AC system hasn't surfaced FROM THERE yet :)\br>

I haven't shown you my system yet. And so much sh... has already poured out. I understand, nature takes its course.
But that doesn't stop me from pointing out the flaws in existing ones. Including your one-legged system, whose author "barks" at everyone who "dares" to say anything in that direction. Don't idealize the situation—they gave you a toy so you wouldn't cry, or more accurately (maybe you'll understand at least this), they left you with your rating and stopped bothering you (including Amber), so as not to "get mixed up" in another polemic with you. Whatever keeps the child happy... you know the rest.

I'm sick of your stupid example, but look at how you constantly modify it :) Re-read the posts in that thread with my examples where I showed the flaws introduced by accounting for the PLACE. I'm not going to explain it separately again to someone as "perceptive" as you. Haven't you heard it's useless to cast pearls before swine? :)\br>

Obviously, you have relatives among woodpeckers. On top of all your "pluses," you're also a snitch. And I didn't intend to waste any pearls on you from the start—fortunately, you've characterized yourself perfectly.

Go ahead, describe your system and calculate the rating according to it—maybe then the flaws of such a system based on a single occupied place will get through to you.

Essentially, that's what I'm talking about—I haven't posted the system yet, and my shy friend continues to "hammer away."

Dmitry, my advice to you: first, carefully look through the threads and don't think you're the smartest. Otherwise, you'll just be the funniest.

Sorry for developing your inferiority complex. Everyone uses the resources they have in their arsenal. You've already demonstrated your "arsenal" to everyone.
Regarding your "helpful" advice, I can say that I have some as well—I'd really love to point out a couple of places to you, "you exhausted man," where you'd look great with your ruined Carthage (maybe you'll bring some new "buddies" along), but I won't do it—it's all pointless.

To be continued...

Everything has its time. I'll repeat this to you one more time, and I won't bother myself with such tactics in the future. Everyone comes to understand things differently.

I understand that it will never dawn on you. And I doubt I'll ever see a description and calculation for your amazing system. But talking is not hard for you.

You, apparently, mean your tongue when you say "under fire" – well, I don't mind, just wash it thoroughly, because I'm already afraid of getting dirty from any contact with you.

Here comes the subtle English humor again :) Why are you touching my tongue? You should take care of your own backside – and learn to wash yourself without help :)

I've long suspected that your head (which is next to your chest) and my "rear" perform the same functions. It wouldn't hurt to wish you to learn to think with your head, just in case it might come in handy.

Don't you think you're flattering yourself? Your rear probably performs the same functions as your head :) Take care of your own head. By the way, you could try taking care of your backside – but with your own tongue :) You're good at coming up with examples about dogs :)

Why so emotional! You need to take care of your nerves.

I'm not that emotional yet. Just don't think everyone is an idiot and that you're the smartest – I understand that it doesn't occur to you, but I won't be lazy to repeat it to you. And your nerves are already failing. I'll explain why below :)

I haven't shown you my system yet. And so much... has already been said. I understand that nature takes its course.

You don't need to be overly intelligent to assume that I won't see it anymore. However, you, who is so perceptive, were already told that a system that only takes into account the occupied space has already been considered. And more than three people took part in this. It's not difficult to predict how such a system will behave, no matter what you come up with.

But this doesn't stop me from pointing out the shortcomings of existing systems. In particular...

English humorist, so when you point out shortcomings, you're not just talking nonsense. Especially considering that the decision to move away from a system that takes into account space was approved by the majority of people involved in the discussion a year ago. You hinted at the short-sightedness of all these people and presented yourself and your flawed idea as superior – as if you're so smart – while they've been wasting time for a year – it's a pity that Dmitry AC with his amazing system didn't show up earlier, although a similar system was ALREADY being discussed (I mean that the system will only take into account the occupied space). And the shortcomings that we found in the system at that time, which I pointed out to you here, mean that you're just talking nonsense about your system :) Well, let it be. If you provide us with your masterpiece and it is appreciated, then so be it – I will "wash" it. But if not, then you clean it yourself :)

Among other things, you're also a snitch. And I didn't intend to waste my pearls of wisdom on you – you've already characterized yourself perfectly.

What's with the snitch? Since you started, explain yourself to the end – otherwise it's unclear who I "snitched" on? You didn't intend to throw pearls? You don't have much to throw yet :)

In fact, that's what I'm saying – I haven't posted the system yet, and my shy friend continues to "bang his head against the wall."

Oh, first he says I'm not his friend, then he adds me as a friend without my consent – he does whatever he wants – he has no manners :) At least put it in quotes :) There's nothing to "bang your head against" there – I gave you my example, which you haven't commented on in any way – you're just talking nonsense. I, unlike you, if I do talk nonsense, at least comment on the examples of my opponent.

Sorry for giving you an inferiority complex. Everyone uses the resources they have at their disposal. You've already demonstrated your "arsenal" to everyone.

You've already developed it in yourself :) My complex is doing great. You also demonstrated your arsenal in the argument with me. Do you think you showed yourself in the best light? :)

Regarding your "valuable" advice, I can say that I also have some – I really want to point out a couple of places where you would look good with your ruined Carthage (maybe you'll find some new "friends" there),

Well, point it out, my dear friend :) And I'll consider it. Then maybe I'll point you to a couple of other equally interesting places.

"... but I won't do it – it's all pointless."

Okay, okay – then just shut up :) And therefore, Carthage must be destroyed! PS. And if you continue, then not only talk nonsense, but also comment on the examples of your opponent, as I do. You still have a lot to learn in this regard :) If anyone noticed, in the previous post, Dmitry did not comment on my example in any way, and in general, he said very little informative, unlike my previous posts. Apparently, he decided to switch ONLY to personal attacks. If that's what he wants, he'll get it :) Since he has nothing to object to in substance, and he hasn't come up with his amazing system to demonstrate yet :)

I already told you that you are a great clown – such characters are always in fashion. You create a favorable environment for others. It's fun for others. Life isn't so boring with you.
Sage, please provide a couple more examples of a similar rating system from sports (specifically for the "athlete") – otherwise, he won't calm down until he gets a good kick in the pants.
Your reactions to my examples in the style of "whatever" are very informative. Well, time waits for no one, your turn to enter the arena... The circus applauds!

Judging by the decrease in morale, I'm not the only one who doesn't like this circus. But all is not lost. Perhaps the administration will remind everyone of the forum rules.

Added 3 hours 54 minutes ago
Let's get to the point:

The rating system proposed by IronAxe is undoubtedly suitable for summarizing the results of a single tournament.
It is not suitable for calculating several tournaments, and the creator himself stated this.
If we summarize the results of several tournaments, we can discover its flaw, namely, considering the difference in results between participants in the tournament over several tournaments, we undertake the obligation that:

- the maps in these tournaments were of the same size, which is, in principle, impossible even within a single version of the game, let alone "mismatched" stages in memory of Van Kanegem.
- the maps in these tournaments were of the same complexity, which is also impossible.
- the task for the tournament within a single version of Heroes was the same.
As we can see, it is impossible to create an ideal situation to ensure that players have equal opportunities to "improve" their rating.
That is, in each of the tournaments, players have different potential opportunities to create a "difference," even with the same amount of effort and time invested by each of them. Therefore, when considering the difference in results, one player may get so far ahead of the competitors on that map (tournament), where it actually provides such an opportunity, that it will be unattainable, no matter how hard the competitors try to catch up. The competition is lost.
Let's take the multi-event competition (athletics) mentioned by Sage. In each of the events, a balanced system is used to reward athletes for each unit of result. That is, each meter, each second of the result is multiplied by a coefficient that is calculated empirically. This system allows athletes to compete until the last event, identifying the winner. That is, in each of the subsequent stages of the multi-event, athletes have the same chance to improve their score compared to the previous one. And even if you introduce a standard unit of measurement for the Van Kanegem tournaments (days), different versions of Heroes create that very mess that will arise when considering the difference in results. If there are several such measurement systems (days, skeletons, experience), this does not reduce the subjectivity, since the opportunities for a difference in results when completing speedruns in days, collecting skeletons, or gaining experience are absolutely different.
This is a significant drawback, much more significant than the "free" rating you mentioned, which, allegedly, the system I proposed gives. There is no freebie; you take a place, you get rating points. Again, the difference in results can only be applied to a specific tournament. But if it is not needed to create a general rating, then why create confusion?
A multi-day cycling race. A huge distance (about 1000-1500 m) is divided into stages. The difference in results at the end of the stage goes into the overall standings. In the next stage, the athletes start together again.
That is, in heroic terms, this is like completing one large campaign in Heroes. Something similar can be seen in the "race for the leader" tournament.
But there are still the same "buts." In essence, a multi-day race is one large road divided into stages. You get on your bike and pedal, earning yourself a lead. Everything is straightforward.
In Heroes, however, the version of the game, different maps, and different tasks for the tournaments turn the overall rating into such a mishmash when considering the difference in results that no one will like it.
Therefore, there is only one way out: to consider only the place taken when calculating the rating, both in individual tournaments and in the overall rating for several offline tournaments. The main thing is to preserve the principle of competition, which I have repeatedly spoken about.
In order to somehow level the difference in the class of players (it is this class that affects the "free" rating, according to your statements), it is necessary to hold qualifying tournaments and create several leagues, as you rightly noted, which is currently not possible. So for now, we will have to be content with what we have.

Judging by the decrease in morale, I'm not the only one who dislikes this circus. Well, not all is lost yet. Perhaps the administration will remind everyone of the forum rules.

Dmitry, I lowered the morale for both you and Iron because your argument turned into a quarrel with mutual insults and indirect insults towards the portal's users.

That is, in each of the tournaments, players have different potential opportunities to create a "difference," even with the same amount of effort and resources invested by each of them.

It seems I understand what you mean:

Tournament 1 ____________ Rating Received
1st place - 5 days _____ 100
2nd place - 10 days ____ 50
3rd place - 20 days ____ 25

Tournament 2 ____________ Rating Received
1st place - 25 days ____ 100
2nd place - 30 days ____ 83.3
3rd place - 40 days ____ 62.5

That is, with the same difference in days between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place in the two tournaments, the difference in rating turns out to be different. But, if the winner was able to complete the map in 5 days, and the second-place finisher only in 10 days, the difference in their skill level is obvious to everyone (since the starting save is the same for everyone), not to mention the difference in skill level between 1st and 3rd place. In the second tournament, a 5-day difference between 1st and 2nd place no longer seems so catastrophic. I'll give you a favorite example from sports: being one second behind the winner in a 100-meter race and in a 400-meter race are completely different things.

P.S. Both your system and Iron's system have shortcomings, which have already been discussed extensively. But Iron's system still more accurately reflects the skill of the players participating in the tournaments.

Let me give you a familiar example from sports: being one second behind the winner in a 100-meter race and in a 400-meter race are completely different things.

That's exactly what I was saying earlier, comparing races of 100, 200, 400 meters, etc.

P.S. Both your system and IronAxe's system have drawbacks, which have already been discussed extensively. But IronAxe's system still more accurately reflects the skill of the players participating in tournaments.

I confirm that the IronAxe system more accurately reflects the skill of the players. But it can only be applied to a single tournament, and IronAxe himself has said this. In the case of such application, we get the case mentioned above by you and me, where, in principle, incomparable things are compared.