Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

I agree with that! I'm talking about the fact that there are maps where the best result is 10 days, and the worst is 14, and there are 20 participants. This way, you can get 71.4 points in the ranking for 20th place! But if you introduce a place component, it becomes more logical. :)

Give an example of such a situation in at least one of the past stages of the Kanigam tournament. Of course, the top results may be close, but they still differ by 1-2 days.

Added 1 minute ago

How can I put it...
But what if, for example, there are 6 or 7 participants. The first one finishes in 4 days, the second in 20, the third in 25, and the last in 109. And how, tell me, should we not take into account the result coefficient? ;)

But such a situation constantly occurs in all stages of the tournament if you look at all the participants; the gap between the leader and the outsider is significant.

Added 17 minutes ago

This, as you rightly noted, is another (no less sad) side of the coin.
The place in the tournament, in my opinion, is the most universal, if you will, standard unit, operating in almost any competition. And we are trying to "reinvent the wheel".

What, the place is a standard unit? The definition of the winner in the tournament? I agree. But what does this have to do with calculating the rating? Do they calculate the rating for all athletes, even amateurs? Who needs to calculate the rating for amateurs? Therefore, when you talk about big sports and ratings, we assume that the competitions involve athletes of a CERTAIN level, who have passed a lot of qualifying stages and won many competitions, taking first places there. Therefore, when they gather at competitions TOGETHER, their results will be close to each other, MOSTLY. Therefore, the place there is of significant importance - if not to say the MAIN one. But in our tournaments, there are no qualifying matches, the composition of the participants and the result are unpredictable - therefore, the place here is of a SUBJECTIVE nature. Our situation is more like dumping athletes from the lower, middle, and top leagues into one pile and making them compete against each other - AND AT THE SAME TIME, we are going to calculate the rating based on the place, and participation in the competition is not mandatory, and it may turn out that only one player from the top league comes, three from the middle league, and the rest from the lower league. So, if we proceed from the place, there will immediately be a lot of problems. Because the athletes who came from the middle and lower leagues will receive a good increase in their rating thanks to the absence of athletes from the top league - in fact, they will get their rating, which corresponds to players from the top league. But if, in this case, we take into account only the rating relative to the result, then there would be no problem. Here, the place would not subjectively affect - and the rating would be calculated for everyone relative to the result of the leader from the top league. In this case, a problem can occur only in ONE RARE CASE, when NO player from the top league comes to the competition, which, I think, will be much less frequent, if it happens at all. Practice has shown that in any of the stages of Kanigam, we have received the maximum results from the LEADERS!

Therefore, the participants in the dispute seem to have come to a consensus that both the result and the place should be taken into account when calculating the rating. That is, the rating is calculated based on two components. Now, the disputes seem to have stopped at the point of deciding what the percentage ratio of these two components should be. It seems that 50/50 is not suitable, and it seems that they have come to the conclusion that the result component should be greater than the place component. Kamikaze, is this the case in your system?