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

What about agreeing on things with others? I agreed with VDV and Prophet. And who organizes tournaments for other versions of the game?

Still, I prefer the idea with the oscillator. And for the "Van Kanighem Memorial" tournament, I suggest calculating based on it. If it's not too much trouble, please send me the detailed formulas in a private message; I will calculate them myself. Because, in my opinion, a rating that takes into account both the completion time and the number of participants is more objective.

Now, to the point:
You missed one fundamental point - how to deal with the case when two players finished at the same time, but received different places according to the second qualifying criterion (total skills, points, etc.). Example - Vbn and Kyle in the BB rating. This issue needs to be resolved, taking into account the real results of the players, because there is an obvious flaw.

But there should be some consideration for the popularity of the Tournaments. If only three people participate, and they are all top players, while others simply don't want to join, that's not a good thing. Have you seen the Tournaments hosted by natashi? Four or five people. And what about VDV_forever? Around 20 people in the third bracket, and even 6 in the first part. That's what the number of participants means. No one wants to compete with the top players, so they don't participate, to avoid feeling inferior. But in Tournaments with a larger number of participants, the results are also quite good. So, judge for yourself which Tournament is more prestigious and whether this should be taken into account.

Why should a player from a less popular Tournament have a lower rating if, for example, they play very well and complete the same starting save, but on a different Tournament, performing significantly better than the leader from a popular Tournament???

Unfortunately, in my opinion, you have long gone beyond the bounds of common sense and are so blinded by your calculation method that you are unable to comprehend rational comments from other players if these comments do not fit into your scheme...

On what basis are you comparing players from different Tournaments, even if they played on the same map?...

In other words, why should the winner of the second Tournament receive the same number of points as the winner of the first on the same map, if the second performed, say, twice as poorly? This question is based solely on your principles of argumentation. And, paraphrasing your phrase, I will ask the question like this:
Question: "Why should the winner of an unpopular Tournament receive the maximum rating if, for example, he plays very poorly and completed the same starting save only in another Tournament, but performed an order of magnitude worse than the leader from a popular Tournament???"
If you say that the winner receives the maximum number of points because he took first place, then you admit that the place matters regardless of the result. In this case, second place should also matter. Otherwise, if you deny the importance of the place taken, it will be interesting to get your answer to the question above.

2. I believe that the fact that Kule didn't receive a couple of rating points for the second criterion is a smaller mistake than the one I provide in my examples.

And with your oscillator, he will also receive a SIGNIFICANT bonus for the fact that he took FIRST place.

Do you agree to leave it as is?

Added 2 minutes later
What do you mean? In both cases, it's 100 points.

Isn't that an exaggeration?

Go and look at my latest example and calculate it along with everything else. The fact that you took second place will earn you a significant bonus from your contribution, and so on.

Well, that's normal... :) Second place is second place, even in Africa... And the fact that there weren't many strong players at the Tournament (which allowed a weak player to take second place) is compensated for by the lower rank of the Tournament.

You're trying to reduce everything to a comparison with the leader's result.

But this simply narrows the picture down to two numbers. It feels like the Tournament is a duel where only two people participate - the Tournament leader and the player. That's it. Your accounting mechanism ignores many significant factors: - does not take into account the number of participants - does not take into account the second criterion, which also indicates the strength of the player. After all, getting the most mercury in a Tournament, even if other participants completed the map in exactly the same time as the participant who got the most mercury, indicates the strength of the player. Or do you disagree?

- does not take into account the average strength of all players in the Tournament; according to your method, a Tournament in a kindergarten is evaluated with the same points as the World Championship :)

The word "Rating" is a broader concept. Therefore, I urge you to spend your energy not on defending your specific position, but on finding solutions to all the points that you are not satisfied with in the oscillator. And not to reject these points, but to make them more balanced. You simply cut everything out. This is dogmatism. Your principle: "this is not accepted because there are flaws." Maybe just correct the flaws so that only the advantages remain...

Well, who among us is better at math and coming up with formulas? Let's help each other. I've suggested comparing the time taken to complete a task, not to the leader's result, but to a conditional unit. I'm also not against other coefficients. But let's first check the formula's functionality on the last example I provided. If there are no problems there, then everything will be fine. But as long as the principle doesn't work because there are flaws, it's not accepted.

Well, in that case, specify the current real rating of all six players... :) I hope their result will correspond to their rating, because we are taking the solution to the problem in a general (most likely) form. And the rating should reflect the player's actual strength, in theory.