Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

I tried calculating. With a virtual 1 day for winning the 4th stage, you get 33,(3) points, while vbn gets 14.26 points for winning the 3rd stage, even though the tournament in the 3-player format was much stronger and more representative, and both reached the real limit of the map in terms of days. Do you think that's how it should be?

What I got was 28 more than you showed, but the fact that it was easy is just your personal opinion. By the way, I was immediately reminded of a tournament in the 1 Hero format, when the winner spoke disrespectfully about the walkthrough and reasoning of the second-place finisher. To which he indignantly replied that if you speak like that about second place, how do you speak about the rest? Prorock was first then. Do you happen to remember who took 2nd place?

The absurdity, at the very least, was that you wrote that Alexei in VK gets a bonus for progress, which is not true. I received those ill-fated extra 28 points solely for 2nd place, for being the best among the worst. It's not a very cool title, but still...

You need to rest, mathematics tires you out too much. I'll show you with our favorite example, the 4th stage of VK.
The "Axe" system: you have 100, I have 27.27. We added 10 mega-players, you have 100, I have 27.27.

You were removed, I have 100, everyone else has more than (11/3). Did you notice the changes?

Alexei's system: you have 100, I have 55.3. We added 100 mega-players, you have 100 (even if you are in 101st place, somewhere at the bottom), I have 16.44. You were removed, I have 100, the rest have more, but not even twice as much. The bugs are completely different.

Iron, I suggest you look at things this way:

1. You have a magnificent and simple system that everyone understands and is part of other, more complex and incomprehensible systems.

2. There are people who, in addition to playing, have other interests, for example, finding a way to calculate the rating more effectively than your system does. I don't think you'll argue that such a possibility exists - your option is not ideal.

3. The search for any solution is fraught with difficulties - sometimes you have to go through complexity to get to simplicity, that's life. Maybe we'll succeed, maybe not... It depends. At the moment, we are having a dialogue in our language, which we understand, and there is no goal to comment on our thoughts in your language. I know both languages, both the everyday (yours) and the academic (for specialists). In this case, it is more convenient for me to speak in the second - this is my right.

4. Our conversation is private, although anyone can read it and participate... If the topic doesn't bother you, just pass by, but don't interfere, you won't say anything smart - you create quote collections, breaking up another person's post into ten parts and commenting on words, admitting that you don't understand anything about it.

5. I am NOT interested in your personal opinion, I am NOT asking you to express it here. I am talking to another person who has a different view of things. The other point of view is of interest, not yours, which is already taken into account everywhere.

6. Why are you raising a dispute? We are not offering any solutions and are not demanding that anything be changed - we are simply developing another calculation option. It may not even affect your rating by a comma - time will tell. This is not forbidden to us, is it...

7. Conclusion: rant and be done with it. Don't interfere.

If they accept your system, which has not been tested on all options, then sooner or later it will fail.
In response to you - how often do you see tournaments with a result of 3, 6, etc.? You are proposing a system that should always work - in any case.
Nevertheless, since we are discussing theory, I ask you to provide a calculation for the scenario I proposed. These sometimes happen. We'll wait.