Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

Your version is dogmatism. Mine is a bet on balance... It's simply that you and I have different approaches. You dogmatically insist on the difference in results, whereas I want to reward those who took second, third, and fourth place in the tournament... A silver medal in a championship isn't based on a specific result. It signifies second place. And that is the main thing. No one remembers the seconds, centimeters, or kilograms. Everyone knows that person is the championship's second-place winner. And that is what matters.

The rating remembers the kilograms. But you are right—the medal will remain with the second-place winner. No one is stopping you from rewarding them with certificates and medals. Shower them with grails using a linear formula: a bag for those at the top, nothing for those at the bottom. That is correct, and your linear formula, even without the first component, would handle this job perfectly. But what does this have to do with a game rating that reflects the players' skill in Heroes??? The non-linear system rating was devised precisely for this reason—to remember the kilograms and seconds. As for the medals, the rewards in the form of grails already serve that purpose. It turns out you want grails by a linear formula and the rating to follow the same path. In that case, the VDV rating is almost the same thing. Everything there is linear and great, depending on the place taken, and nothing needs to be "straightened out." Just account for the number of people and that's it. I have already stated my position. Tournament organizers are free to choose how and what they calculate. As long as VDV agrees to calculate at least its own tournaments using the experimental rating, I am at peace :) That is why I say that ALL rating tables should be published. Why—are you worried about space? Some people want to see the non-linear rating, some the oscillator. And some are fine with the VDV rating.

I suggest we end our conversation. It is pointless. And as I see it, you have no concept of compromise.

This is not a case where one needs to compromise. Because I am certain there is a category of people who don't just want to admire their numbers, but actually want to compare their results to see how far or close they are from the leaders in terms of off-line Heroes skill. Regardless, some of your ideas have been accepted. This includes aging the rating in regular tournaments by 10% without any privileges. Relative permissible limits for leaders have been introduced to exclude cases where there are no strong players in a tournament. Yes, those in prize-winning positions will receive the same certificates and the same amounts of grails. However, it will be impossible to artificially inflate the game rating. So, thank you for your help in the discussions.

After all, not everything is determined by mathematics. There is also psychology, ethics, and human relationships, for that matter. :) Even in the harshest sports, all of this exists. You deny this. But people are not robots.

I am not denying it; in fact, I constantly say that there are already rewards for prize-winning places, and they are in no way diminished or belittled based on the leaders' Walkthrough days. But you, for some reason, deny the additional experimental system, which accounts only for the result in days and the strength of the leader. You want to have both the "grail pot" and the rating, and for them to be the same balls, just from a different side :)

My version does not rely on dry statistics alone. The goal is to create motivation. Because the rating is ultimately secondary. If it lacks variability, if it is not flexible—it is not interesting. Moreover, all its components are purely game-related. I don't take anything from the outside. I simply account for ALL the points that deserve attention. Namely: the actual result, the place taken, and the number and strength of opponents. All of these equally form the player's assessment of the achieved result.

That is wonderful, and all of that will be reflected in the grails rewards.

And your version is just a set of duels with the leader, and nothing else matters.

Exactly—my system was designed specifically for that, as an alternative to the grail pots and the VDV rating.

Added after 25 minutes

Please, say something about comparing the result not with the leader, but with the average result? The leader, having a result significantly above average, has a chance to pull away. An underdog doesn't lose motivation, as they will be "pulled up" by the stronger players.

results of tournament 1 for Heroes-3:
player 1 - 1 day
player 2 - 100 days
player 3 - 1000 days

1101/3=367
player 1 - 367*100/1=36700
player 2 - 367*100/100=367
player 3 - 367*100/1000=3.67

results of tournament 2 for Heroes-3:
those three players skipped it, and we won't even age anything.
assume the map Walkthrough difficulty is the same.

player 4 - 1 day
player 5 - 10 days
player 6 - 20 days
31/3=10.3

player 4 - 10.3*100/1=10300
player 5 - 10.3*100/10=1030
player 6 - 10.3*100/20=515

Now merge everyone into a general rating table based on the results of the two tournaments. You'll get nonsense. There's nothing left to talk about. If it doesn't work on a simple example, then some kind of bug will appear in reality too.
Now calculate this same example using my non-linear system, taking into account the permissible time limits. You will get a normal general table that specifically shows who is capable of what. Try it for fun. Or you can even consider the oscillator.