Posts from Alternative rating. Auto-translated

Does Dream's rating not suit you for some reason?
IMHO the time of manual ratings is over.

I have an idea, though it's not very specific yet – to play seasonal and tournament games with a handicap.

It was inspired by billiards tournaments, where, depending on the players' skill level, a handicap of 1-2 games is given.

In Heroes, you could give a handicap of 1-2 days of development. That is, players are divided into 3 groups based on some criteria, and when players from different groups play, the weaker player gets a bonus – their opponent is not allowed to leave the castle for 1 or 2 days (they are allowed to build and buy a second hero).

The player who gives the handicap starts their 111 restart not on day 111, but on the first day when they leave the castle. The 113 restart is always taken on day 113. So, with a 2-day handicap, the player will essentially have 2 restarts on the first turn.

The division into groups should be something like:

1st group – beginners and chronic noobs (those who clearly play poorly)
2nd group – the majority of players
3rd group – pros

The goal of this innovation is to slightly level the playing field for players with different skill levels, and also to provide more opportunities to find a partner not only among their own "social group," but also among those who are better or worse. Right now, many are hesitant to play when the chances of winning are low, fearing a loss of rating.

I don't know how and who will divide the groups, but in my opinion, it's not necessary at all. Because defeating a generally recognized authority, playing against them on equal terms, is more important than any fear of losing rating!

Did it seem to you, or are you modeling someone else's consciousness as if it were uniform to your own?

Did it seem to you, or are you, as usual, realizing that yet another of your far-fetched ideas has failed, switching to modulating your consciousness?:D :D :D

Well, I'd definitely play with that handicap :) and even without it.

Will you continue to update the alternative ranking in the future?

Since the rating is calculated using a statistical formula, it only makes sense if a player has played a certain number of games. Therefore, I suggest excluding players who have played, say, fewer than 5 games. Then Valentine's position would be twice as high.)
Secondly, the rating counts games played during the year, not the season, so people with approximately the same statistics for the spring may be at different ends of the table.

No - that's not entirely fair, what if this "non-player" plays another 10 games in a month or two?
We just need to introduce a minimum barrier (3 or 5 games) to be included in the rating ... which, by the way, is not reset!