Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

Let me give you another example using your running sport, like the 100-meter dash. The leader finished in 9 seconds, and the second-place runner showed up an hour later but still took second place. And you're suggesting giving this athlete a rating as if he actually earned second place, regardless of his result? Why would we need that when we want to actually compare the strength of players?

Theoretically, this is possible if the runner broke his leg or tore a muscle and crawled the 100 meters in an hour, but more often, he simply drops out of the race. ;)
So, there can be no talk of a REAL comparison of player strength, because offline play simply cannot be called a real competition... Here's an example: athletes record their run (or someone else's) on video and send it to the sports commission, where the results are summarized, and places are awarded. Is that nonsense? - That's exactly what I'm saying!!! :).
I'm not against awarding ratings for offline games, but talking about comparing participants based on strength is pointless until a suitable system is in place... In this case, I consider the KAmikaze system to be the "lesser evil."

I've shown and proven many times that a place in an offline game in Heroes means nothing, UNLESS IT'S FIRST PLACE!! ;) The result is what matters here. But in online play, it's exactly the opposite. It doesn't matter who beat whom in how many days; personal victories of each player over every other player are important, and as a result, the place in the tournament plays the MAIN role. And the results in days are irrelevant.

This competition is definitely real, and any system can be used to represent the approximate strength of a player!