Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

If you analyze the results of vbn and Zingel, you could come to a different conclusion. In the first tournament, it was impossible to complete it faster than 12 days. And this Walkthrough was found by two players. In the second tournament, it could be completed in 7 days. One player found this. Honor and praise to him for that, but in the first tournament, Zingel is not to blame that Kyle was able to find the same Walkthrough.

In this case, Zingel is at fault for not finding a 9-day option himself in the second tournament. In the first tournament, vbn failed. But if you set aside all the smoothing and the places taken, which roughly depend on the number of participants and the lineup (who is to blame that the lineup and contingent in one tournament are different from another), it turns out that the PURE FORMULA ACCOUNTING ONLY FOR SPEED showed the ratios and result on DIFFERENT maps for these two players. The accounting of their places and the lineup and contingent of OTHER players, who may directly or indirectly affect the places of Zingel and vbn, are not involved here. Only their (Zingel and vbn) pure speed results. Imagine if there were no "nine-dayers" in the second tournament. Then Zingel would have placed three spots higher, and vbn would have dropped to second by a larger margin than now under your system, although the "nine-dayers" have NO direct relation to the speed Walkthrough results of Zingel and vbn.

And it would be incorrect to lower his result for that.

He did not get close enough to the leader in the second tournament by result. While vbn got close enough in the first. Although at first glance, the difference is 5 places in the first tournament and 4 in the second. That's how it seems. But here, the LEADER'S RESULT ITSELF also matters (7 days versus 12). You say that these were the limits of different maps and Zingel could not improve the result beyond 12 on that map, and vbn could not improve the result beyond 7 on the map of the second tournament. Agreed. But vbn could have improved HIS result in the first tournament, and Zingel could have improved HIS result in the second? However, in your systems, if he had finished in 9 days but lost on skills or oil and still took a lower place due to the presence of three players with the same results. But what do these players have to do with the dispute between Zingel and vbn, especially since some of the players in the second tournament were not in the first at all.

Therefore, I believe it is more appropriate to consider not only the completion time (which cannot be compared across different maps), but also the place in the tournament. And

That's a fairy tale made up by AmberSoler; by the way, where did he go? And we are not comparing "only the completion time" as you say. Let's not distort the facts, alright? We are comparing the ratio of a player's completion to the leader on the 1st map with the ratio of a player's completion to the leader on the 2nd map. And that, you know, is not at all what you wrote :)

this is where the results become different. Your version "punishes" Zingel for the fact that there is a player of the same level. This is not correct.

My version punishes no one — everyone gets exactly what they earned through their personal result relative to the leader's completion. And the DISTRIBUTION OF PLACES, WHICH IS AFFECTED BY OTHER PLAYERS, DOES NOT AFFECT THIS. But in your version, it does.

The oscillator "punishes" vbn for a relative failure in the first tournament.

Now the oscillator REALLY punishes, and not in quotes as you wrote. IT punishes vbn because there were players in the first tournament who pushed him back simply by place. If they weren't there, everything would be different even with the same results for Zingel and vbn.
And especially who it punishes are the players from the second half of the table (the outsiders, whom you probably don't even look at). Look at OlegRS's results under my system and yours. And please give a comment on who punished whom and for what :)

Therefore, I believe it is inappropriate to compare the rating systems yet, let's wait until the end of the first round...

I already said that we compared everything a long time ago. Now, in the course of calculations, I am personally trying to analyze the RESULTS according to these systems, not the systems themselves, although of course they are indirectly affected. Well, that's why you calculate using three systems at once.