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

I'm not missing this point; I simply believe that, based on your idea in point 6, the coefficient should be higher the more high-ranking players participate in the tournament. However, in practice, the results might be somewhat different when applying such a calculation.

I'm not missing this point; I just think that, based on your idea in point 6, the coefficient should be higher the more high-ranked players participate in the tournament. However, in practice, things might turn out differently when applying such a calculation.

Who would even let them do that? There are administrative and forceful methods to put a stop to it, with the help of a coordinator. But even in that case, someone will still end up in last place. Or are you afraid that even in last place, a player will more than compensate for the aging penalty with a 10% bonus, and get a bigger increase than if they went to a weak tournament and took first place? Yes or no? I'm not really getting into the high-level details anymore.

And it's already beneficial for a weak player to be there. The aging penalty from their meager rating is negligible, and the bonus from the tournament's strength will definitely more than compensate for the loss.

If a decision is made to introduce a coefficient that takes into account the average rating of players in the tournament, we will develop a formula that is both mathematically correct and easy to understand... so don't worry about that...

It's quite difficult to fully address the aging issue... You've certainly tried... I don't think it's worth delving into the details where, as I said, we might be digging in the wrong place... :) Let's see how the audience reacts to what's already been presented. But if there are specific questions, there will be specific answers...

I agree, there's a certain charm to it – a kind of lure for the less skilled, you could say. But you'll end up saying that it's even more frustrating for the strong ones... They're already doing well, and now they're getting even more bonuses based on their ranking...

These are the ones who will end up at the top of the tournament table, but isn't it fair? They won against practically the strongest of the strong.
Those who screw up will take a massive hit to their fancy ratings — and that's fair — they knew what they were getting into; no accidents. And the only one getting a free ride there is some random Joe on ice :) who crawled into that tournament through connections. And you're suggesting he should get even more of something using a coefficient. He'll already do well in such a tournament, probably even if he takes last place. Right?

He will receive very little for last place. For example, if he performs 10 times worse than the winner, he will receive 10 points + 0 according to the linear system, and 10/2 = 5 points after the oscillator. In this case, the coefficients won't add many points.

Yeah, imagine, and his rating was only 0.05 before this tournament.

Yes! I’ve got an idea! :) The bonus should depend on the player's rating relative to the average rating of the tournament. This way, Vasya will find something of interest in any tournament – even if it’s just a little, he’ll get something from each… and the dinosaur won’t be able to get something for free… If you want to get a good reward, go fight not with Vasya, but with MEGA-dinosaurs, where your dinosaur rating will be below average!..

How do you like this approach? :) It’s easy to calculate and provides an individual approach for each player. The more challenging the competition, the harder it will be for you to play, but the reward will also be good… And if you come to a “kindergarten” to boost your rating, you’ll help the kids, of course, but you won’t get anything for free… :)

Then he will simply rise unrealistically :D.

What does it mean to be more difficult to play? I understand it this way: if you win, you get a good reward, and if you lose, you have a significant drop in ranking. That's what makes it more difficult. But if you win and get a reward, and if you lose, you don't lose much, then what's the difficulty?

All formulas will reflect the results, as long as the idea is well-formulated.
Regarding the drop in score – this reflects the oscillator. Everyone played well, and you played well too, but you took last place – so you get a drop. For example: 30 participants. The first one finished in 8 days (100 points), 28 people finished in 9 days (70 points), and the last one finished in 10 days (40 points)...

Here. It's closer now. Let's consider the player who finished in 10 days. They got 40 points, is that good or bad?

Here. It's closer now. ... And with a reduction of 1/3...

What does good or bad mean? Everything is relative – compared to the other participants in the tournament, it's bad. Compared to someone who didn't play, it's good. The most important thing is that everyone received what they deserved at each moment in time. If there wasn't someone who finished in 8 days, and 40 points would only turn into 45, but if one of everyone who finished in 11 days was found, then 40 immediately turns into 56... which is quite different now... And all the credit goes to the oscillator! And if you only consider the first non-linear option, then it always has a simple 80 points and doesn't depend on the game of others...

What does good or bad mean? Everything is relative – compared to the other participants in the tournament, it's bad. Compared to someone who didn't play, it's good. The most important thing is that everyone received what they deserved at each moment in time. If there wasn't someone who finished in 8 days, and 40 points would only turn into 45, but if one of everyone who finished in 11 days was found, then 40 immediately turns into 56... which is quite different now... And all the credit goes to the oscillator. And if you only consider the first non-linear option, then it always has a simple 80 points and doesn't depend on the game of others...

:smile14: :smile14: :smile14:

You play today – for tomorrow... I play today – for the annual result... and I don't want to sit in front of the monitor and worry about missing the announcement of the next tournament, otherwise, what if I get adjusted, and I don't even know... And I also want to go on vacation for three weeks, but what if I miss two tournaments? and that's it... do you understand the difference in approach? why all this cosmic frenzy?! :)
I know that by playing one tournament a month and playing well, I can consistently compete for the rating, and if Vasya wants to break into the leaders, let him not wait for me to ruin the tournament, but learn to play! that's all.

:smile14: :smile14: :smile14:

Yes, I'm talking about something else. Why does a player in last place with a low rating get a rating increase, for WHAT?
...I really don't understand, the guy completely lost, he's in last place, and his rating is increasing instead of decreasing, what a rating :)

I'm just saying this while you prepare and calculate your test table with Radik and Dmitry :) But still, the questions I asked concern me and require a specific answer - why? :)