Player rating for offline Heroes 3 tournaments!

Have I explained everything clearly now, or what?

Yes, it's quite clear. I completely agree with you, "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam!" (by Cato the Elder)

Indeed, it would be better to have one difficulty level, one league, and one rating. And finally, open a school of Heroic Mastery to bring everyone up to the same level.

Excellent point! It's clear you're one of us! :D

Added 12 minutes later

Let's take two players - AmberSoler and, again, AmberSoler. Let him play the same map for speed on different difficulty levels. The question for everyone is: which map will he complete faster, even if it's just by one day?

No, let's use abstract characters instead, like Johnson and Johnson :) So, on the current tournament map, the difference will be no more than a week.

Why? Because with a shortage of resources and a focus on building dwellings in the first week, there are no funds to buy troops in the second week. Therefore, the delay occurs solely due to waiting for financial income to hire troops. That's it. If on Normal, we buy troops on the first day of the second week, then on Impossible, it will be approximately in 3-4 days...

Well, with a particularly rich resource spawn, on Normal, we can afford to hire one or two secondary heroes, who will help to quickly clear the spawn and bring more resources into the treasury (per unit of time, of course), compared to Impossible. Then, these secondary heroes can be arranged in a chain to transfer troops to the main hero... This will save another couple of days of initial development.

Furthermore, the development scheme at these difficulty levels is practically identical. If we are talking about a map of the difficulty level presented in the current tournament...

If we consider a map of S or M size, then the advantage of the starting bonus on Normal will, as a rule, be unattainable. This is obvious and doesn't need to be explained.

So, what am I getting at? That dividing into difficulty levels according to a fixed system leads to completely different results depending on the map. On large and complex maps, the advantage of Normal is minimal. On small maps, it is undeniable. And how can this be taken into account in the rating? Is it fair to apply a coefficient of 1.5 in both cases?

Therefore, the conclusion is: one save, equal conditions, and therefore - an objective rating. If there are several difficulty levels, there is no point in calculating the rating, because over time, the distortions will only accumulate... Otherwise, there is no other way.