Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

There are many inconsistencies here.
1. I do not agree with artificially boosting the rating of someone who doesn't belong at the level they are being boosted to. Because in VDV Tournaments, someone playing for oil, etc., will receive additional grails for it, and on top of that, their rating will be boosted for free.

I fully admit that my option regarding a minimum guaranteed bonus may be unacceptable. If it doesn't pass, we will abandon it, but this "purely gameplay" point is worth considering, because a bonus for participating in a tournament is not the same thing as a bonus for a beautiful description or for helping organize a tournament... I completely agree that certain things should be encouraged, but certainly not through the rating. However, participation in a tournament — even unsuccessful at the moment — is directly related to the rating.

The significance of the struggle for the top spots in the rating table is not the same as for the bottom ones. In the "header," there is a fundamental struggle, and any leniency there is a sign of bad taste. Everything there is strict and categorical. In the "tail," different laws prevail; there are fewer disputes and more solidarity. Additionally, the "tail" is necessary to popularize tournaments and support those players who do not aspire to leadership. They are not your competitors — I am speaking plainly — and therefore I do not understand your critical mood regarding the minimum guaranteed bonus for participating in a tournament... Although I fully understand your position. But I do not share it because I see no fundamental problem with a minimum bonus. It does not affect the results of the leaders; it simply maintains a quorum.

2. If VDV or someone else still conducts tournaments again at different difficulty levels — you do not agree with the coefficients, yet you haven't proposed your own.

I did not propose my own coefficients because they do not exist in nature. Any coefficients designed to equalize incomparable things are purely contrived and unjustified. I have said this before and will repeat it — everything depends on the map. Firstly, each specific map will have its own individual coefficients, and they cannot be presented in a general form — which is what you are trying to do. Secondly, in principle, I am categorically against multiple starting saves. Now, after the BB results are finalized, I can state this without reservations like "we'll see" or "time will tell"... Time has shown that multiple saves create more disputes and problems than advantages... Therefore, I hope the organizers will abandon this practice.

3. Rating decay is intended to automatically erase one-day players or those who haven't played in any tournaments on this resource for a long time.

As if there are no other ways to solve this problem without infringing upon the interests of regular players. One way is to adopt a minimum quota for the number of tournaments per year to filter out accidental results. I don't know if you read my post or not, but I'll repeat — the rating decay mechanism you proposed is mathematically unsound. I provided you with a detailed calculation logic. You have not provided any comments on this yet. So let's be consistent — first, your arguments in defense of the proposed decay mechanism, then we will continue discussing this point.

Decay terms can also be negotiated, but you seem to be completely against decay. Well, the rating cannot just keep growing for everyone all the time. A rating is a rating precisely because it goes up and down for each player depending on their activity and tournament results.

I am not against it; it's just that your decay mechanism depends on the time elapsed since the tournament took place, which defies any criticism. A February tournament should not be less significant than a May one, etc. For example, I played six tournaments from January to June and received 6*50=300 points, and you also played 6 tournaments from July to December and received 6*50=300 points. In my view, our annual ratings are equal. What would you say? :) Remove this inconsistency in the calculation and then we will continue.

And I still didn't understand the latest edits in your calculation system, regarding the fact that the second component of the second accrual option depending on the place taken will not affect the rating as much (at least I showed that it has a much stronger effect than the component of the first option). You should have recalculated that same stupid example of mine and shown how it would look.

Once again. My last post showed that points can be awarded not from 20 to 100 per tournament, but from 0 to 100, and that's it.

"regarding the fact that the second component of the second accrual option depending on the place taken will not affect the rating as much" — I did not say that.