Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

Another example for the sake of discussion :) Let's assume, for simplicity, we calculate the rating based on the "trio" [map]. 100 games played. We have the final rating table according to my system and according to the system that takes into account the places taken in the tournament. It's clear that players have played different numbers of games. But comparing the ratings of players who have played the same number of games according to my table, it can be unequivocally stated that the one who has a higher rating showed results in days closer to the leader in tournaments, or was even the leader themselves sometimes.
And what can be said looking at the table where ratings soar taking into account the places taken in the tournament?? Unequivocally, nothing can be said, because a player might have jumped up with a hefty bonus in the tournaments due to the absence of the middle tier (like the example of the 4th stage), or they actually showed results in days close to the leader, or who knows what—in short, an "oscillator" in one word, a bonus with a coefficient, and nothing is clear :) Apparently, this is how they want to cloud people's minds :) However, I can thank my opponents for the discussion for teaching me how to argue scientifically. Now, when we're drinking in the garage and start arguing strongly about something, instead of the expressions known to everyone, I use words such as bonus, coefficient, oscillator, etc. Fortunately, it doesn't come to a fight, otherwise they'd probably kill me, because common expressions are more understandable to the people :)

Added after 12 minutes

Tournaments are not equivalent. Player C beat twice as many players, therefore his rating is higher.

Tournaments are equivalent by condition, because it was agreed that the game is played from the same starting saves. Player D simply, out of stupidity, by chance, on a whim, signed up for the second tournament instead of the first—do I have to repeat it 100 times? What does the absence of fool D change for the leader of tournament N1? Nothing. Even if this player were there, nothing would change. But you stubbornly use the expression that he would have surpassed him :) Yes, he surpassed him anyway if you can't understand this from the example, even though the latter played in a different tournament :) This is visible from the results by days :) Do you actually not see this?

But the ratings themselves are so insignificant that one can safely say that the players wasted their time.

Well, there it is. Now you've already admitted another flaw in your system. Like, players wasted their time for an insignificant rating according to your system. In mine, such nonsense is not foreseen. Even the outsiders got 25 each :)

And why do you assume that this is a decent result. Maybe the map is cleared by an average player in a day. And super-noobs played in the tournament.

And why did you give everyone 25 at the start? That's exactly why the leader gets 100, and for 1st place. But nothing is given for free in mine :)

Yeah, and also these ratings are full-weight and with a huge probability they are freebies. My flaw is in the tenths, yours is in the tens.

First he says he doesn't understand why he has different ratings for the same results, then that they are insignificant and the players wasted their time, then he pulled 25 for everyone out of thin air. And my system is flawed? :) I'm tired of laughing :( And he didn't notice a single one of these flaws in his own.

Added after 21 minutes
And also regarding the "full-weight" ratings taking into account the strength of the tournament that you're trying to drag in. 4th stage. Suppose I showed the limit result on this map. But there were few players, and there were no strong players for this version of the game in offline. Accordingly, as the leader, taking into account all your bonuses and coefficients, I should receive less than if there were strong players and many players. Why is that? The result was the limit, and I couldn't care less; I am not responsible for the turnout of other players at the tournament. And then I go to the "trio" where there are plenty of strong players and many people, I try my hardest to stay in the top ten, but meanwhile, bonuses and coefficients will soar for the leading players for the strength of the tournament, and since I'll be displaced in rank, the oscillator will finish me off with kicks, EVEN if my result in days is not very bad. There was simply an influx of strong players for the trio. Offline differs from online in that no one personally interferes with the production of my personal result in days. Players can only interfere with me by their presence or absence if we start taking into account the places occupied. And the presence/absence of players is a random factor. And you want a random factor to affect the rating of each player??

PS. I already occupy a place in the trio in this tournament, which is distributed according to the number of days and secondary parameters. To take into account who wins in a multi-stage tournament, the VDV system would be quite suitable. But what does the rating have to do with this? What does my result in days, approximated to the leader as much as I could, have to do with this? Why the hell do I need a random factor of player presence/absence to affect my rating, and consequently a double counting of the place occupied, when there is a standalone result in days??