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

That makes sense. I don't object. This will resolve the issue and eliminate unlikely individual events. Just suggest your vision regarding the number of players, because it's difficult to determine everything here... My tournament experience in the third game shows that there are never fewer than ten (usually significantly more). But for the second game, 10 people is normal... I think we need to approach this flexibly.

But is it worth dragging this out for so long if the only question was about the number of people? I was proceeding from your fundamental position, but the whole thing was only about this... :)

Maybe at least five participants?

But I said right away today that if nothing changes with the second component, then we need to determine the number of participants for the tournament to be counted towards the rating. And before that, I thought that even two people should be counted.

You can count it as five or two, if you don't see a problem with that. Personally, I don't care how many participants there will be. Everyone who played deserves a rating. Because they all had equal conditions. The announcement about the start of the tournament is posted for everyone. And if you don't play, that's your problem, right? Well, let it be five. Anyway, it will never be that few. There will always be more...

That's it. I agree. Everyone deserves a rating. But if two people are playing and both are weak, I'll hit you right now using your own Patrice Lumumba method :)

Announcement:
We invite participants with a rating lower than 2.5 to the tournament. Those with a higher rating are kindly asked not to disturb :) That is where weak players can actually increase their rating :)

Heh, right away... :D This was said a couple of posts ago, and before that, the second component was questioned dozens of times throughout the discussion... :)

On one of the resources - well, I'll say which one :) - it's done that way. There is a series of Tournaments where even the average players are not allowed, let alone the veterans... And the newcomers compete fiercely and get a real chance to improve their rating... And then - if they want - they are welcome to visit Dino! :D And it's very well done. And it's a very popular tournament because everyone has equal chances, and that's the golden mean of any tournament. And that's what we're striving for.

And moreover, in one of your posts, you even agreed that the second component contributes more to the rating and even started talking about some kind of coefficient.

I don't understand. If I personally maintain a rating on this resource, I will not consider Tournaments with such restrictions as the Patris Lumumba Tournaments to be rating-based and I will not calculate them or include them in the table. Imagine, they played in a general Tournament, and some players received ratings from 0 to 5. They quickly organized a Lumumba Tournament. And some of them will come out of it with a rating from 50 to 100. And they will ask, "Now, please add us to the table with the new rating." Is that what you mean?

Well, when was that? Back then, the second component was initially considered from 20 points... Of course, at low levels, it boosted the entire rating... But now, when we start from zero, it has become almost equal in importance... It only smooths out the fluctuations... That's all.

Well, ranked tournaments are still official and open to everyone... And no one will calculate a tournament named after P. Lumumba if it is organized quietly... But if it is announced in advance, there may be all sorts of different players... and the problem you are talking about will not arise...

That's exactly what will happen if many players of varying skill levels participate in a tournament, evenly distributed in terms of strength. But in the considered specific cases, it causes an imbalance.

So, at the moment, we need to consider each specific case in detail, determine if there is a problem, assess the likelihood of this specific case occurring, and decide how to proceed – whether to ignore it or make some changes...

So, let's discuss specific cases, but with details on all aspects – how many players, how they played, etc. For example, I haven't seen any such cases yet. We analyzed the case you proposed earlier in detail, and I ask that we not return to it...

These are at least some specific cases that I was talking about, and you too – the P. Lumumba monster tournaments, somehow minimize them.

The case you previously proposed was analyzed in detail, and I ask that we do not return to it...

And I will see how and to what extent those who accidentally missed the tournament will overtake us by rising to higher positions (but not because of gameplay, but simply because we missed it — you often used this tactic in discussions against own aging), although their Walkthrough days will not be improved. Maybe I'll do this at work tomorrow. Now time for sleep :)

I don't understand why this system isn't suitable for calculating Grail scores. It takes into account both the number of participants and their results. Plus, fixed thresholds are set.
The General table is simply to avoid having to browse through dozens of links to find your results. After all, it will contain not only the overall ranking, but also the ranking for individual parts, the number of games, the number of prize-winning places, etc. It's just to simplify the search; it doesn't obligate anyone to do anything.

Now, consider this. I didn't promise to maintain rankings for all versions of the game. Who will take on the rest? Or maybe AmberSoler and Sage should take on everything for now? Perhaps we can have three people handling the rankings? I can give the Heroes III½ version to Amber, and I'll take on something else. What do you think?