Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

Why bring up cases of no-shows? Do you think I'm defending the interests of those who skip Tournaments? Start with something simple. Understand the core idea: with the same amount of effort put into a map, the rating difference will be one thing in one case and another in another. I hope I don't need to explain the concept of subjectivism to you.

Besides, cases of no-shows are not that rare. Where were you and Radik, for example, at the "War of the Strongest" Tournament? I understand that this is your personal matter. But because of this, we subjectively ended up in places we shouldn't have. However, our results haven't changed because of this – we achieved as much as we could. You should look at your own example – in your system, the leader who takes 1st place on ANY map (small or large, difficult or easy) will receive a fixed maximum number of rating points. The person who takes 2nd place (and it doesn't matter what their result is relative to the leader, even if it's a thousand times worse, the main thing is that they are in second place) will also receive a significant fixed number of rating points – and according to you, this is not a flaw? No, it's a much bigger flaw than any flaw you can find in a system tied to the leader's result. You're trying to say something to me with some vague phrases. You're scaring me with subjectivism, even though there's more of it in your system. So let's not use the term "subjectivism" anymore.

Why bring up cases of no-shows?

Because the system should work more or less stably under various major circumstances