The first two options will not be published anywhere – only the last one. I will create a template where you only need to substitute the values. IronAxe agrees to handle these calculations.

I agree, but for now, it's just an experiment in the VDV tournaments for Heroes 3. I don't know what will happen at Kanighem's tournament, but I can calculate the Heroes 3 players in our rating, taking into account the best of the best. Then, AmberSoler will remain a consultant and assistant for as long as possible. Just in case I mess something up. If everything goes well, then that's fine.

Now, think about this: I didn't promise to maintain a rating for all versions of the game. Who will take on the rest? Or maybe we should take everything into our own hands, AmberSoler and Sage??? Maybe we can calculate the ratings together? I can give Heroes 3 to Amber, and I'll take on something else. What do you think? I think the administration will definitely reward the raters for this.

Added 5 minutes later

In what "certain moments"? Provide an example in numbers, not words. Just don't confuse the concepts of "eats up" and "corrects".

I did give you an example where a player in 1st place completed it in one day, and the player in 2nd place completed it in 1000 days. Do the math yourself. The first component of your rating is useless for the player in 2nd place; it won't correct anything.

I mean that under normal conditions, when there are many players, a player with 1000 days would hardly take 2nd place.
But here, he got lucky and got a lot for free. And it's strange to hear such a suggestion from AmberSoler when he was talking about the large aging factor and that he doesn't want randomness to greatly affect the change in the result. And my example with 1000 days and the second component shows when there was no strong player between the 1st and 2nd players by chance!

VDV wanted to say something similar when he jumped into this topic. If nothing changes with the second component and the ranking, then I will demand that only matches with at least 10 participants are recognized as rating matches. Although there may still be an awkward situation there, but the chances of it appearing are already lower.

Added 6 minutes later

I want to correct you a little. With aging at 1/3, the rating ceiling will be only 300 points (300/3=100 + 100 (for a win)=300). I think you missed this point.

Yes, that's right. This example turned out to be unsuccessful. But essentially, what difference does it make where the limit will be – 300, 1000, or 10000? In my opinion, 300 is also good, but with 2 decimal places