Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

Well, you convinced me, you convinced me... :) Let the leader work hard, we'll write that down so we don't forget... :)
This issue has long been resolved, so everything is fine...

That's when we were arguing about the aging rate, I didn't express my main thought, but now it's come to me. The goal here isn't to punish the leader, but to give his closest rivals at least some chance to overtake him, even if only temporarily, or at least catch up, even if he doesn't miss any Tournaments, but just happens to play poorly. So let's check these possibilities with an aging rate of 1/10 in the near future, and with the oscillator and everything else we've discussed :) Here's an example with Radik and Dmitry. The difference is only three days.

Added 4 minutes later

I'm not against this coefficient (or bonus increase) as such; I just didn't like the proposed way of calculating it, because in a tournament with less competition for places, as in the second tournament from the example I provided (in which any player can more easily take a higher place + a higher coefficient), more points will be received than in a more intense competition in the first tournament (where it is more difficult for any player to take a high place, and the coefficient also turns out to be lower).

But no one knew that the newcomer with zero rating would be so good. And how can you determine this by any system before the player plays and proves himself?
This coefficient is designed to resolve minor situations, not major ones. And because of this situation, we shouldn't ruin the minor one.
Or maybe we should just calculate the total ratings of all participants in the tournament and divide by the number of participants. This would be the coefficient. Maybe it will be simpler for calculations.