Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

You are not taking into account the number of participants in the tournament and the player's position in the tournament standings. That is, you are simply accepting Option #1 from my post, which was based on IronAxe's suggestion.
I ask you to consider that the oscillator primarily reflects the player's strength in relation to other participants in the tournament.

In the form where the second component artificially elevates an outsider in the ranking, this is not quite a correct comparison. The place in the tournament is secondary. The primary factor is the time it took for the participant to complete it and how close they are to the leader. Therefore, comparing the strength of players is not entirely correct.
I showed it with a STUPID example and compared two stages. Where a player who is a thousand times behind the leader has 2nd place and, accordingly, receives the same rating for the tournament as a player from another tournament who is eight times behind the leader, but also, let's say, took 2nd place! IS THAT RIGHT?

AmberSoler is talking about the solidarity of outsiders, but maybe they also want to overtake each other and fall behind, and who knows, maybe they will suddenly surge ahead :) It doesn't really matter to me how AmberSoler speaks, and it doesn't matter to him either, and to many others, but why should we level all the outsiders to the same standard? They won't feel the dynamics of their development or, conversely, their lag - well, you're in last place, so what, a soldier who doesn't dream of becoming a general is a bad soldier :) And what if the leaders' bicycles break down :) and what if I have an idea on some map and I'll show them all in a couple of months :)