Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

Let's also give tournament participants half of the credited rating because there are no strong players in the tournament and, consequently, a low result, even though some strong player, just for a warm-up and not as part of the tournament, completed this map twice as fast.
I don't understand exactly what you're trying to say—answer my question specifically. If the second place result is 100 days compared to the leader's result of 10 days, and if a player takes second place, do they deserve full rating for 2nd place in your opinion, regardless of the actual result??? This is the specificity of Heroes tournaments; such things happen easily, and there have been plenty of examples. Not every player can play in absolutely all tournaments, which leads to no-shows, and someone gets undeserved rating based on their rank. You refuse to understand this and have essentially picked on me for one flaw in the system: when the leader happens to be a novice. But this same flaw exists in the system where only rank is considered without regard for results. However, in a system that ignores rank and considers only the result, there are fewer FLAWS, and I'm tired of proving this in the corresponding thread. Look for examples there. And don't forget about possible "merchanting" involving cooperatives, where several players complete a map together and get a collective result, thereby pushing subsequent players lower in rank and artificially lowering their rating as a result. If only the result is considered, there will be no artificial lowering of rating for these players because their rating depends purely on the ratio of their result to the leader's, and the "buffer" layers don't matter anymore.

The fact that you are not well-versed in sports does not mean that such systems are non-functional. Using football as an example, I can explain what you've dreamed up. You are suggesting awarding points for winning a match proportionally to the goals scored in it. That is, nominally a victory
You're confusing something—we aren't playing football; we're playing Heroes. And here, exactly such a system works. Now I'll give you another example from your running sports, like the 100-meter dash. The leader finishes in 9 seconds; the second person catches up an hour later but takes second place. And you suggest plugging in a rating for this athlete as if they took second place, regardless of their result :) Why the hell would we do that when we want to actually compare the strength of players here? Obviously, it won't be perfect. But accounting for the result fixes this somehow. Because without considering rank, under a result-based system, the "turtle-runner" would get a small rating, and THAT IS CORRECT, and second place can go screw itself :)

And the gap in player skill isn't going anywhere. It was there and will always be.
Well, in sports, they don't mix all leagues into one big pile like we do. There, competitions take place roughly between equals in strength because there are qualifying rounds. That's why real 100-meter runners won't have such a gap as I provided in my example. But in our case, this is easily encountered in real tournament examples. That's why there is such a specific rating calculation system, and that's why I wrote above that you shouldn't project this system onto real sports.

Thank you, but I think I won't maintain your bar of "slight thinking and empty talk," nor would I physically be able to. It's unclear why you are so "concerned" for those who don't participate in the tournament. Think (at least as best you can—a little) about those who do participate, and everything will work out.
I'm not concerned about those who missed the tournament. I'm concerned that we shouldn't be stretching the rating BY THE EARS of those who get a good rank with an idiotic result (which is visible to the naked eye) due to the lack of worthy results caused by the absence of appropriate players. What's not clear here? Let them get their rating relative to the leader, whatever it turns out to be :) I'm not arguing—there is a flaw if the leader themselves was weak (no one else showed up)—but this same flaw exists in the rank-based system. But with rank consideration, the flaw can exist even if the leader showed a super-normal result. In other words, in a result-based system, there's a condition that the leader showed a more or less normal result, and then everything is clear. But in a rank-based system, we can't even clearly define conditions to avoid flaws—meaning your condition is: forget who got what result, we calculate rating by ranks. Which rating will be more objective? :)

Everything genius is simple (not for everyone, of course).;)
And here I see that it's not for everyone :)

Now to the explanation in simple terms.
I'm starting to break someone's fingers (explain simply) :)

The season consists of 5 tournaments.
Player A: 1,1,1,2,2.
Player B: 2,2,2,1,1.
Under your "system," it's possible that Player B will take 1st place.
Explaining for those who are slow on the uptake :) My system was not intended to determine a champion from multi-stage tournaments. Analyzing your example, I can say that I don't care much how the winner is determined in your case. Suppose 2 points were awarded for first place and 1 for second.
Then Player A becomes the tournament winner. However, as you correctly noted, under my system, Player B could still have a higher game RATING than Player A, and there is a logical explanation for this that you refuse to understand :) In the first three stages, Player A beat Player B by a margin of ONE day at each stage. But in the last two stages, Player B beat Player A by a margin of 10 days in each stage. Since Player A has more wins, he is the champion of the multi-stage tournament. But in my opinion, Player B still played better in terms of total results because he tore him apart in the last two stages. (Imagine your damn runners are running five laps :) And so, for the first three laps, A beat B by 1 second, but in the last two laps, this guy B pushed harder and beat runner A by 10 seconds on each lap—AND WHO DO YOU THINK WON? :) Therefore, the game rating would reflect this. I've been trying to say for a long time that all ideas here have been mixed into one big tub; everyone ran up to it with large ladles and started stirring everything together :)

Voice-over: Nikolai Nikolaevich, who appeared out of nowhere, joined the footballers, fans, coaches, etc., as he was deeply affected by all this...And everyone who feels like it is calling others to this tub—footballers, tennis players, biathletes, runners, motorcyclists, and fans :) And Dmitry AS even called Nikolai Nikolaevich with a ladle, though it's unknown where he came from :) How much I hate this (za-lo) :)

Added after 12 minutes

I fully support Kamikaze, as I believe that both rank and result should be considered in equal measure! In my opinion, they really deserve a 50/50 split...:)
Kamikaze, do the math... ;)Let him calculate however he wants :) But how does Kamikaze's system differ from AmberSolera's oscillator??? Just make it clearer and clarify only the essence. I would still put more emphasis on the result in days relative to the leader than on the rank achieved.

Added after 4 minutes

I fully support Kamikaze, as I believe that both rank and result should be considered in equal measure! In my opinion, they really deserve a 50/50 split...:)
Kamikaze, do the math... ;)I've long since shown and proven that rank in offline Heroes is worth nothing IF IT IS NOT FIRST !! ;) The result is more important here. Now, in online—it's exactly the opposite. It doesn't matter who beat whom in how many days; personal victories of each over every other are what matter, and consequently, rank in the tournament plays the MAIN role here. And results in days can go to hell :)