Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

In both cases, there are shortcomings, but both consider days and placement.
Objectively - see example in post 711.

I agree - in my case, placement is automatically taken into account because the results by DAYS are always arranged in a certain order. And Amber then takes the SUBJECTIVE placement into account to consider secondary parameters, and that's where the mistakes are made, but at least the secondary parameters are taken into account. But who said that secondary parameters can only be taken into account through PLACEMENT?! I don't have enough mathematical skills to come up with a coefficient and take these parameters into account without using placement. But because of the mistakes, I don't want to.

Added 3 minutes ago

Yes. I don't deny that. So, should we abandon it because of this drawback? Why aren't you looking at the bigger picture? You are deliberately focusing on one thing - your approach is biased, and your opinion is questionable from an objective point of view... You need to evaluate all the pros and cons, so either talk about the system as a whole, comparing the pros and cons, or tactfully remain silent. I've already asked you about this...

How can I be more tactful? I'm telling you. You said that you use PLACEMENT to take into account secondary parameters. Take them into account without using the PLACEMENT parameter. Then I will appreciate your mathematical skills.

Added 6 minutes ago
A formula that will take into account only days (placement is automatically visible, showing who is in what position) and, in case of a tie in days, will take into account a bonus for secondary parameters (but without using the occupied placement for this), would be SUPER ACCEPTABLE, in my opinion. But how can this be done? Find a bonus that is not as large as it turns out when calculating with placement taken into account. Well, I showed it on the 4th. How a 28-point bonus is immediately deducted for second place compared to when placement is not taken into account. If someone else had also taken second place, a bonus could have been added to the 27 points in my system for the secondary parameter. But not 28. Because then it turns out that even if there was no one else in second place (there is no need to compare secondary parameters), a 28-point bonus is still added. It turns out that Amber is again hiding behind the secondary parameters, saying how good it is, but it's not quite like that. They choose examples that favor them. And here is an example if there are no identical results in terms of days. There, a huge bonus is simply added to the actual result for DAYS for the SUBJECTIVE PLACEMENT. At the same time, no bonus is given for the subjective 1st place for the actual result for days :) Amber, stop deceiving me :)