Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

Set a higher completion speed for the leader in the calculation scheme — for example 5, and see how everyone becomes equally close to zero... Just don't tell me that such a speed is questionable for THIS tournament. I am not talking about a specific tournament, but about your calculation methodology. Then apply aging and calculate the totals for the sum of two tournaments. This is the third time I've suggested you do this. After that, try to justify the permissibility of such an imbalance.

I know all that. Regarding the zeros, I mentioned how I would get around that situation. But show me just one Official tournament with a huge crowd where some weirdo finished in one day, and the rest in a thousand. In the ones I've attended, and here already three times at VDV's tournaments, the gap between the leader and second place was roughly twofold. The rest follow smoothly. And this system works there. That is, the situation where the leader pulls away from second place by double is a verified scenario. But don't suggest I generate an excel sheet anymore — I already generated one today and showed everyone the inconsistencies. Now it's your turn, and I'll show you what I will do with that sheet so there are no zeros, but the rating still realistically reflects strength in proportions.

A situation where the leader pulls away twofold only shows that there are still players who haven't filled the niches of those spots. And that's exactly the situation I examined in excel today. My system works when the leader is detached from the main mass. Yours fails right here. I believe it is correct that if there is a super player at a tournament or a missing middle layer, the following happens: Since a player cannot take more than 100 for first place, but a large gap exists, my system allows the leader to lower the rating for the others. He pulls away without any bonuses, while everyone else's rating is lowered according to their result. But at the same time, the last person's rating is not halved.
And what does your correction do? It pulls the first place up by the ears regardless of how many days the player took to finish. And it kicks the last place with its feet, just so they'll leave the tournaments entirely.
And as for the threshold you proposed, where the last 20 outsiders are crammed in with 20 points each. How are the numbers of twenty 20s different from twenty zeros at the end of the rating table? Especially since I already said how I'd avoid zeros. Tell me how you'll avoid the 20s under the threshold, and how you'll remove the artificial rating reduction for last place by half?

Added after 16 minutes

The calculation methodology based on the first parameter (using the previous tournament as an example) will lead to the following scenario under a quite possible development of events.
1. With rating aging at 1/10, the gap in results among tournament participants who did not take 1st place is only about 3 points, which is disproportionate to the effort expended.
2. With rating aging at 1/3, a player in 2nd place will receive 16 points fewer than a player in last place.
Moreover, the probability of such a situation arising is very high — it only takes one relatively strong player appearing at the tournament.
The behavior of the oscillator (with rating aging at 1/10) was proposed alongside it as a comparison for the smoothing effect of the allowed imbalance.
Please comment.

I don't have excel at home. I'll check at work, but I'll comment anyway, just make sure you answer my questions that you find unpleasant too :)\
What does it mean "receive 16 less than the player in last place"? I've already seen how those in last place get a ton with you :) especially with smoothing :) The player in second place simply receives a portion that is 16 smaller. This is exactly how the bonuses you're trying to artificially cram into your system work automatically for me. The leader can lower the rating of players at the bottom, while those at the top receive smaller portions as the rating accumulates. Because there is a ceiling, and you know it. The higher you climb, the harder it is to climb. And so that you aren't quickly caught up to by someone else's result, you try to lower the rating of those trying to catch you. What's not clear here? Why artificially resolve this situation? Or do you want to accumulate rating infinitely, so that a player arriving in a couple of years looks at ratings of celestial heights that can never be reached and just quits?