Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

Well, this is getting ridiculous... What do "super-cool" players have to do with it if the rating isn't even for all players, but only for players on our portal?
And even if they do join (which would be very good), in what way would we look ridiculous (please explain)?
Sincerely.

It's very easy to provoke me, but I'll try to be more polite. A super-fast monster arrives. He looks at the results of tournament runs. He looks at the rating and the formulas. He figures out how quickly he can climb to the top of the rating, assuming he completes maps ten times faster than everyone else, exaggerating.
Let's say the regulars have very good current ratings, accumulated over years. And he realizes that he'll have to spend a year with his kids, a year taking first place in tournaments to prove that he's incredibly good - is that right? And if it's clear after the first tournament who's who?
However, the rating, as a reflection of the situation based on the places taken, will reflect this lazily. Therefore, the second component will strongly affect the player who took, for example, second place, even though he is much slower than this monster who takes first place with a super result.

PS. And also, if you haven't noticed, the oscillator hits the underdogs hard!!! See the file I uploaded.

Days Non-linear Linear Oscillator
20 OlegRS 220 16.4 13.6 15.0
21 BATIAS 242 14.9 9.1 12.0
22 0-6 303 11.9 4.5 8.2
23 Izual 372 9.7 0.0 4.8

Damn - the underdog's already small rating is halved.
AND WHY? And again, the second component from the place taken plays an active role in this. At least explain this point to Izual, not to me :)
With this system, the player in last place will always get it the worst :)

Added after 15 minutes

I looked at your calculation option. It is correct.
However, the conditions for its application cannot be called a "solution to the problem in general." And the caveats "all the same conditions apply, but the leaders didn't show up again" suggest that it's an artificial and contrived example tailored to a specific and desired effect.

You'd better model the same absurd situation using my rating calculation scheme and show the shortcomings in numbers, and make a clear conclusion. This will be beneficial.