Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

Decathlon and speed skating are out. They have a fixed number of rating points for every 1 second and 1 meter of result, meaning the gap between leaders is accounted for automatically, not as you've done, and I'm interested in how you will determine this figure for each map individually...

And in some of the n-athlons, they even jump over bumps on horseback (if that's not like Heroes :) They probably account for not only meters and seconds but also knocked-over obstacles. In my system, the leader's result (whether it's days, experience points, or skeletons) is equal to 100 rating points. For others, it's calculated based on their personal result relative to the leader (the result doesn't compare days and skeletons with each other—at each tournament, everything is compared separately and a certain equivalent to the main victory criterion is found, whether it's experience points, days, or skeletons), which, by the way, is almost what Perpolken suggested. I also know that VDV and Prophet spoke positively about this system in their time. Later Ataman and then Sage. Although the latter, as he said in his previous post, was also favorable to accounting for the place taken, but he has now changed his mind. And here is AmberSoler's farewell speech when he got tired of arguing (maybe he was joking? :)
-------------
I think it's not worth overcomplicating.
All possible calculation options that account for placement (or similar parameters) turn out to be quite cumbersome, difficult to understand intuitively, and inconvenient to work with. Essentially, Iron's version is the optimum in terms of simplicity, clarity, and relative accuracy. If we assume that the average tournament doesn't have huge gaps by the leader, then provided we abandon placement, this method can be left as a working one...
No "simple" modifications can be tacked onto this calculation method, because we immediately drift toward the same problems we want to get rid of.
--------------

With the mentioned "bicycle" that you are trying to "remake" even simpler. There is such a universal unit of measurement as hours, minutes, seconds. In Heroes, however, it's days, experience, skeletons. It's simpler there—all these data are summed up. In our case, you are essentially proposing to sum up days, experience, and skeletons (to put it bluntly). Not to mention the

That's exactly where everything is fine. In this decathlon or pentathlon, they run, swim, ride horses, throw spears, and shoot bows :) How are those not Heroes ???

much greater specificity of hero maps compared to bicycle tracks. This is what I've been trying to say for a good dozen
posts, and I suggest taking into account only the place taken.

I haven't been able to get an answer from you for a good dozen posts. If a second-place result lags behind the leader by dozens of times, do you think it's right to give this player a HEAP of free rating—just so? Just for the place, so to speak? I am not belittling second place. Please—count some points for it and determine the champion of multi-stage tournaments based on them. But let the rating depend on the results. Although, as Sage showed, one can also pick a champion based on such a rating. But in this case, it might turn out that the champion took first place in only one of the stages. I'm not insisting on this system for determining the champion, nor am I against it. I simply proposed calculating the FULL Player Rating using such a system. And I stand by my opinion. Carthage must be destroyed! ;)

to IronAxe.
I am grateful to you for not uttering a single "sharp" word in the last two posts, which are present in abundance in your arsenal. Believe me, it only makes you look better, and not only in my eyes. Furthermore, the discussion is moving in a productive direction. And I like jokes and humor too, and no one has ever come to harm from them.;)

I'm simply out of words. You joined this discussion recently, while I've been debating this topic for a year. So now I have to go through it all over again. And it all started now because Perpolken proposed a system almost identical to mine, which effectively means he shares my views on managing the rating system. My positions are clear—I am generally opposed to accounting for placement in the system. But after a year of discussions, I finally agreed to let it be calculated by both components—both result and place together (but not by the oscillator, because PLACE has a very large weight there). And I think that no one here will back down from that now, and they are unlikely to switch to a rating system that considers only PLACE, so it's useless for us to argue here. It's a different matter if they decide to determine the Kanigem tournament leaders ONLY by the places taken in the stages—that's up to the organizers. But what does this have to do with the current Player Rating, which was calculated not only for Kanigem stage tournaments but also for other official tournaments on this resource? You say yourselves that such a system doesn't exist on any resource. And I think it's not a bad idea to stand out from others in some way, especially since I believe this distinction is not for the worse! And you are trying to prove the opposite :)