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

I didn't take into account that the higher the accumulated rating of a leader, the smaller the portion they will receive from victories, considering the aging effect.

Quoting my post #116:
"There are two players - A (rating 850) and B (rating 250). For winning, A will receive 100. If B wins, he will also get 100 (regardless of rating). BUT: as a result of aging, A will lose 85 in any case, and B will lose only 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... "

Is that right? Worked hard and got nothing? Is that fair?

Yes. I accumulated enough rating to reach the top – now I have to work hard to maintain it.

This is just an idea. It can and should be adjusted as we go. I'm all for it! The main thing is that the balance is as realistically as possible, finding a golden mean while taking into account everyone's interests. As an option, instead of adding a multiplier, we can add a summand. That is, add a single bonus equal for everyone to the rating (instead of multiplying), but the bonus will depend on the tournament rank. And for the winner, the significance of the bonus in the total sum of his points will be significantly less than for the underdog – which is also correct. The winner had practically no competition compared to the others... And I think this will be more correct, so let's keep it in mind...

Well, you convinced me, you convinced me... :) Let the leader work hard, we'll write that down so we don't forget... :)
This issue has long been resolved, so everything is fine...

I'm not against this coefficient (or bonus increase) as such; I just didn't like the proposed way of calculating it, because in a tournament with less competition for places, as in the second tournament from the example I provided (in which any player can more easily take a higher place + a higher coefficient), more points will be received than in a more intense competition in the first tournament (where it is more difficult for any player to take a high place, and the coefficient also turns out to be lower).

I don't object to this coefficient (or bonus increase) as such; I just didn't like the proposed way of calculating it.

because in a tournament with less competition for places, as in the second tournament from the example I provided (in which it is easier for any player to take a higher place + a higher coefficient), more points will be earned than in a more intense competition in the first tournament (where it is more difficult for any player to take a high place, and the coefficient is also lower).

But no one knew that the newbie with zero rating would turn out to be so good. And how can you determine this before the player plays and proves himself?
This coefficient is designed to resolve minor situations, not major ones. And this situation shouldn't be used to spoil the minor ones.

It's not clear why it's easier to get a higher ranking in the second example. From the perspective of a strong player? I suggest looking at it from the perspective of the average player... And therefore, the second example actually requires a higher coefficient - because the spread is greater... and the chances for a weaker player to break through to the top are less...

I ask you to grasp the idea: the weaker the average player in the tournament is compared to the top players, the fewer chances he has on average, and the more the non-linear coefficient of rating calculation pushes him into a corner (the effect of lowering the bar) - which means that, for balance, the tournament rank should be taken into account...

I'm talking about tournaments without so many newcomers.

Added after 12 minutes

In the second tournament, there are fewer strong players, so a weaker player has a better chance of placing closer to the leaders.

In the second tournament, there are fewer strong players, so a weaker player has a better chance of placing closer to the leaders.

Please consider the core idea: the weaker the average player is in a tournament compared to the top players, the fewer chances they have on average, and the more the non-linear rating calculation coefficient pushes them into a corner (the "lowering the bar" effect). Therefore, the tournament rank should be taken into account for balance... We can achieve this by making the coefficient provide more support to weaker players than to stronger ones... we just need to think about it...

But wouldn't this thing work?
---
Or maybe we should just calculate the total rating of all participants in the tournament and divide it by the number of participants. This would be the coefficient. Maybe it would be simpler for calculations.
---
Where it is higher, it means it is more difficult to play for anyone :)

The whole point is this. The same coefficient always benefits the leaders, increasing the point difference between the players.

I said: "It's possible to take this into account in such a way that the coefficient provides more support to the weak than to the strong... we just need to think about it..." This means - a NON-uniform coefficient, which means it doesn't favor the leaders, but supports the weaker players to a greater extent... :)

I don't understand why the rating should provide some kind of support to someone. If all participants are strong, and there's only one weak player, the tournament's strength is high, and everyone should receive a slightly higher rating (both the strong and the weak). And if the tournament's strength is lower, everyone will receive a little less. As a result, a weak player in a strong tournament might gain a little more than a player of the same level in a weak tournament. Why do we need to artificially inflate someone's rating?

Don't the weak compete against each other? The weak among themselves have the same chance to take a place near the mega-dinosaurs as the medium-strength players among themselves... Do you constantly overlook this point?.. But the weak have a smaller chance of taking a prize-winning place than the medium-strength players... Therefore, in the end, they lose when comparing the weak and the medium-strength... Leave the strong alone - they are simply an indicator of the tournament's strength.

The essence of this coefficient is that the higher the strength of the competitors, the higher the coefficient, and the more significant the player's result in the tournament.

For the calculation, the current Player Rating will be used and presented as a quotient obtained by dividing the average rating of a certain number of leaders (e.g., 5) participating in the tournament by the average rating of all participants in the tournament.

Otherwise, it'll turn out that the dinosaurs gather together, calculate the average rating, rub their hands, and set a coefficient for themselves that is simply off the charts!
Announcement: "For the purpose of holding the P. Lumumba tournament, a group of players invites all those wishing to participate with a rating of at least 950. Those below are asked not to trouble themselves."