Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

Some minor adjustments:
Essentially, it's a standard cyclical rating that takes into account the results of all stages in which the player participated or did not participate.

If the player did not participate, what should be taken into account? Should we calculate the sum of zeros using a complex formula? The result will be very predictable, by the way... :)

Regarding this: I don't think that combining the "player's result" and their "activity" into one number is the right solution! It's better to separate it into two ratings: one showing the player's average result, and the other showing their activity... Combining everything into one number won't tell us anything. That is, it might show us the leader, but there will be complete confusion regarding the rest because it will be unclear whether the player isn't playing, or is playing but poorly, or something else.

Instead, come up with a logically and mathematically sound mechanism for separating them... In my opinion, this is an unsolvable problem, so either leave it as it is or abandon it altogether. If you remove the aging factor (which is precisely the parameter that reflects activity), the rating will constantly increase and reflect not the player's strength, but the number of tournaments played. And if you again suggest dividing the sum by the number of tournaments, then the players who won one tournament and then stopped playing will remain at the top of the rating forever... And if you remove inactive players, where will you get the "activity criterion"? And in general, you will reduce the current rating to a cyclical one, which is not the same thing...

I dare to give some advice: take a piece of graph paper, a pen, and experiment with a dozen abstract characters in ten abstract tournaments... And then tell us what observations you made regarding the accounting of their results... It's a very interesting exercise, I assure you... :) Simply, so many options have already been calculated manually, in Excel, on graphs, and with other clever methods that I don't think you will be able to invent anything new... What has been proposed is the best option so far, taking into account the interests of all players...

I think it shouldn't be introduced yet.

Justify it. And what does "not yet" mean? Does that mean it will become "necessary" later? And what needs to change for this to happen?