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

If you age by 1/10, then even if the game is very bad compared to the previous one, the rating will likely not decrease.

Tell that to Vasya Pupkin. You are currently advocating for the interests of consistently strong players. So whether it's better for everyone is debatable. :)

I disagree. Everything depends on the current rating.
The bonus for victory will be equal for all players, but the 10% decay for each will be a different burden... And the pressure on the leader will be significantly higher than on an underdog. I think there's no need to provide figures.

And the point of the rating is lost if it is too stable and does not depend on random factors.

But surely, the rating should attract at least someone, right? The rating isn't about grinding. The rating is initially for strong players who will pay attention to it. Otherwise, how? Weak players need the rating to a lesser extent... For example, look at who is involved in creating the rating? In two months, I haven't seen a single opinion from a weak player...
Therefore, the rating is definitely created for those who see themselves capable of reaching its top. And the more strong players there are on the portal, the better it will be for everyone... Or will you say again that Vasya will suffer from this? :)

Where is the equal bonus? Show me the numbers then.

Oh! Golden words! Tell that to Gus Hiddink, and he will agree with you! :) Only those who don't see another way to prove their strength rely on chance. The harder it is to break through to the top, the more excitement and interest there is... You play on Impossible difficulty for exactly that reason.
It's good that we have opposite views. Otherwise, we would have abandoned the idea of a rating system long ago, I think... :)

The rating system is flawed – it doesn't encourage anyone. It simply reflects the current state of affairs. If a runner breaks their leg, they spend three years recovering, and during that time, they remain near the top of the ranking, slowly declining. Meanwhile, everyone else is running in the Olympics – is that how it works? And they can't seem to knock this limping runner off the top spot?

Hold on, I mean that for a victory, every player gets the same amount of points, regardless of their current rating... And the aging penalty hits the leader harder... You all understood, and please don't twist my words... ;)

If the damage is reduced by 1/3, and you happen to break through, they'll knock you down in no time. Staying at the top is the real challenge under such harsh conditions.

I don't really like your examples with abstract numbers... I'll send you a link to an archive of real tournament results in a private message. Take a dozen tournaments in a row and calculate at your leisure how long it will take to knock a player off the top, and in the meantime, let's agree on 1/10 and not argue... I'm sure that's a perfectly acceptable ratio...

What points are you talking about? I am talking only about the CURRENT rating.

Let VDV and AlexPan worry about how much to decay. Otherwise, we're deciding everything as if we were the mods or some kind of administration here :)

I agree, staying at the top under these conditions is almost impossible... :)

Well, at least there's some dynamism; many will reach the top, whereas with you, one person climbs to the top, wins a couple of tournaments, and leaves. Stronger players will quickly overtake him, and the average and lower-ranked players will watch as the player who disappeared in an unknown direction plans his next move.

There are two players - A (rating 850) and B (rating 250). For a victory, A will receive 100. If B wins, he will also receive 100 (regardless of rating). BUT: as a result of the "aging" system, A will lose 85 in any case, and B will only lose 25. In total, A will earn 100-85=15 points in the best-case scenario, and B will earn 100-25=75 points in the best-case scenario. This is what I call a greater burden for the leader... :)

Indeed, it's not a leader's job to calculate ratings... We have more important things to do... Let those, whatever you call them... the moderators... calculate... yes, yes...

Then it's simpler not to overcomplicate things, but to post the results of the last tournament each time as the current rating. This will be the most realistic... If you want to be in the TOP, win every tournament... And if you don't play, you won't be there... This will be the most accurate reflection of your position. Why have "aging" at all?