Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

He doesn't halve the rating of the last player; he assigns a rating to him in the form it should be according to the formula I proposed.
Iron, without delving into the essence of the mathematics, used the term "flaw." And no matter how many times I told him that this is just my suggestion for balancing, he still didn't understand.

:) Without delving into the essence of mathematics :) I remember someone here saying that logic comes first, and mathematics is secondary. So, explain logically why, if players complete the game in, say, the same number of days, have the same resource accumulation and oil production, but one takes second to last place and the other takes last place, why should the player in last place receive half the rating of the player in second to last place?
I understand that this is a balancing proposal. However, when comparing the results of a linear system and an oscillator, I didn't like this balancing. At least for the simple reason that, in the non-linear component, everyone honestly receives what they earned in days, and there is no need to artificially inflate anyone's rating in one direction or another. Moreover, I provided examples in numbers, both hypothetical and based on real calculations. Therefore, I used the term "flaw" only to shorten my explanations. Yes, for me, this balancing is a flaw. And it's not just about the last place. Look at the real calculations done by Kyle and AlexPank-o. I won't comment on them anymore, as the others continue to remain silent about it :) And I have already given my comments.

But at least he admitted that he doesn't understand numbers, but does everyone else not understand either? :)

:) I can at least admit something, unlike some. I don't understand complex formulas, because sometimes I don't even want to delve into them, but if necessary, I can understand something. But admit, Amber Soler, who found the error in the formula in your documentation for the third game (it's good and helped me in the tournament because I haven't played in a long time)? I remember you sending me to it. You admitted in a private message that the formula wasn't yours. But how did such a nonsensical formula end up in your documentation if you understand mathematics so well? :)
And why didn't anyone else notice this except me?

This "flaw" can be corrected in any direction, if there is a desire... But in any case, one will get less, and the other more.

I agree, but why don't you admit that the linear part gives each player as much as they earned in days relative to the leader. No more, no less. What they earned, they get. Is that unfair to you?

And according to AlexPanka's coefficient, there also seems to be an unsolvable situation, when a player with a zero rating receives a bonus after the game, like a starting bonus. Personally, I don't see the point of any bonuses when calculating the rating.