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

Or is it not like that? :)

The oscillator will work even on Mars, and it does take location into account... But the first term will always be zero for everyone because everyone fights everyone else... In pairs. The winner is the one with the most victories over opponents. Then everyone is ranked in a table, and the calculation is made according to the position... :smile51:

The Prophet told me that at the very beginning. So I don't count arena battles towards the rating. As far as I know, Arena is a different type of offline tournament. You need to gather troops and fight there. Have there been many Arenas on this resource?

Considering that our portal is quite new and therefore there haven't been many tournaments, nevertheless, a tournament like "Arena" was held for the second game in the series you can read about it here. And I think there will be more of them. We shouldn't give up on them...

If you are going to combine different types of Tournaments, such as arena and speed tournaments, into one rating, then why don't you combine all versions of the game into one rating?

So, you're lumping together speed tournaments, experience tournaments, skeleton tournaments... and they all have different numbers and compositions of participants... That's why I decided to add this type of tournament to the mix. And what? AmberSoler's system handles this, albeit imperfectly... Yours doesn't...

And if you want to say that these tournaments cannot be compared, then you would be right... but only partially, because you can't compare different types of tournaments at all! I've written about this many times! Tournaments can only be compared with each other if several conditions are met (I've already written about them).

By the way, have you noticed that if you compare speed tournaments and tournaments for collecting something (experience or skeletons) using your system, it is much more advantageous for outsiders to participate in collection tournaments, because the gap between the leader and the outsider is not many times greater, as in speed tournaments. Look at the results of the corresponding tournaments. The oscillator, at least, smooths out this obvious bias.

What if the oscillator doesn't start from zero (as already suggested)? Then the underdogs might actually benefit. I suggested starting the linear part from 5 points; then, there wouldn't be such a disadvantage for the underdogs (especially with a large number of participants). So, the oscillator isn't unfair; we just need to figure out what value to start from (I believe it shouldn't be 0, because the non-linear component isn't zero).
So, there's no need to blame the oscillator; it just needs to be refined.

I suggest considering the linear system starting from five points for the following reason: it is close to the minimum score obtained in the non-linear system among all the tournaments held (5.65 for Evil_Hearte in the tournament for the fifth game). So, this is not an arbitrary number. The non-linear system is suitable for comparing two tournaments only in one case: the map was the same, and the starting save was the same. Otherwise, we are comparing apples and oranges, or even 100 meters and 400 meters with hurdles.

This means you simply have nothing to say, because, as I understand it, this thought never occurred to you before. You can't compare two maps if they are different. One map was completed by the leader in 10 days, and the second-place player in 12 days. The same players completed another map with different results – the leader in 100 days, and the second-place player in 150 days. And on a third map, the first player completed it in 30 days, and the second in 31. Tactics change, but that doesn't mean that one player suddenly became worse than the other or drastically improved their skill. He is consistently second. It's just that on this particular map, one player's tactics are better than the other's. But the players' strength couldn't have changed so drastically back and forth.

No one is trying to diminish the importance of the non-linear aspect! How many times do I have to say that it's just ONE of the key components? And based on calculations using only this one non-linear component, it turns out that in the first tournament, the second-place player performed 17% worse than the leader, in the second, they suddenly forgot how to play and only performed at 2/3 of the leader's level. And in the third, they suddenly drastically improved and almost matched the leader. What an unstable player, suffering from amnesia and flashes of genius at the same time.