1st annual offline tournament "Best Of The Best"

Of course, one nomination would provide a reasonably objective assessment of the participants' strengths, but if someone decides to participate, say, at the 130% level, and then they are told that one nomination is worth 200%, while they could only manage 160% with great difficulty, playing on impossible difficulty might become a torment for them (nothing works despite all their efforts), and they might not even finish the game. There should still be 2 (or more) nominations, and each person should decide for themselves where to participate. An analogy with tennis comes to mind: an athlete chooses which tournament to go to, where the opponents are weaker (and the prize money is smaller) and the probability of winning is higher, or where the opponents are stronger but the chances of winning are low – but the tournament is more prestigious. It is difficult to say which is better – winning a tournament of category 1 or, for example, reaching the quarter-finals in a Grand Slam tournament (although there is a ranking system there, but it is also conditional and gives an idea of the strength of the players when considering a large number of tournaments). So, the problem of objectively assessing the strength of players at different game difficulties arises not only in HOMM, and it is solved in different ways, but there is no ideal solution. My opinion: 2 nominations, and each person will decide for themselves where to send their only save file. And I would also like to know if anyone will play below 200%? Because if no one does, then all this discussion loses its meaning. Personally, I will play at 200%.