Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

I venture to guess that by the end of the tournament, the leaders will be separated by millimeters—meaning it will all come down to primary skills and, if the devil is joking, mercury. Therefore, let's not forget all possible ways of obtaining this resource, which is so precious to us.

Added after 4 hours 29 minutes

I had a thought regarding: the rating (starting next year)
Whoever takes first place gets 100%, everyone else gets (%) depending on the tournament task and the result of the 1st place.
Example:
A timed tournament. If the 1st player finished in 200 days—received a rating of 100%, then the 2nd player finishing in 201 days will receive 99.5% because (1%=2 days, and 1 day=0.5%)
Experience and skill-gathering tournament: If the 1st player gained 20000—received 100%, then the 2nd player who gained 17000 will receive 85% because (1%=200).
Under this formula, players who show a poor result might not receive a rating at all (in principle, they don't need it anyway)! On the other hand, those who do receive it will realistically see the ratio of their result compared to the results of others.

In my humble opinion, your option will only blur the real picture for the simple reason that tournament maps are, by their nature, very different from each other. Where is the guarantee that the winner's result is the gold standard to base everything on? Because of this, a certain subjectivism will be heavily present, which doesn't actually show the objective difference in results between opponents when playing different maps. If the same map were played in all tournaments across all parameters (which is, in principle, impossible), then one could consider implementing the system you proposed.

But no matter how you look at the table, you wonder why people are being awarded rating—for participation, maybe? And sometimes it turns out that the 1st and 10th place results are roughly equal, but the ratings are not equal at all; the same goes from 10th to 20th place.

I am fond of the system used in biathlon. That's where absolutely everything is taken into account. Let's take, say, the top 10 results from the tournament (it could be more—a thorough analysis of the average number of tournament participants is needed, and we should take about 50-60% of that figure) and count them as rating points. That is, there will be a direct incentive not just to run through the map and submit a result, but to actually fight for the rating.
30 rating points are awarded for first place, 27 for second, 24 for third, and so on. The player in 10th place gets 3 points. A very objective picture emerges. And it seems this system satisfies your desires.
At the same time, all players are given the chance to discard one or two of their worst results by the end of the year. This means there is an opportunity to take a timeout (perhaps even a forced one) or to correct one's mistakes.

I also have an idea for a replacement: Skill sums for the amount of experience. Experience more accurately reflects a player's strength. There will be no handouts from the computer. Replace mercury with gold, as it is more accurate. In these 2 cases, identical results are very rare.

That is a good idea. It could be put into practice. Although we haven't had problems with identical results, and in principle, the probability of such an outcome is negligibly small.

Speaking of which, the existing rating calculation systems do not satisfy me either, just as they don't satisfy you.

P.S. Tournament maps provide different potential opportunities for one player to create a gap over another. Essentially, we are faced with an unbalanced rating system that ties this rating to the winner's result.
That is, theoretically, there is a very real possibility for the winner to create such a gap on just one map that they will be unreachable for others even with mediocre results in subsequent Tournaments, where the priority is not the place taken, but the gap from the winner.
Agree that this is wrong. Therefore, it is necessary to tie the rating to the final place taken. I have proposed my option.
For clarity, one can compare the tournament maps from Best and the current tournaments—completely different things...

p.s. The last two posts belong in the "tournament troubles" thread.;)