Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

You took a phrase out of my message... but you should have read the whole sentence... I wrote: "The overall rating combined with the average rating shows who is who..."
That is, the overall rating in itself doesn't show anything... the same goes for the average... but if they are both considered together, it immediately becomes clear who is who... ;)

I didn't exactly take it out of context. I also wrote that I consider the Overall Rating column to be fundamental, i.e., more important. What will the result of two columns give me when I look at a player who has played only one game and has 100 in both columns? But I agree that the Average Rating column is not unnecessary as a secondary one. I might add a similar column to my rating for the next recalculation.

Still, I'm against aging...
It's possible to deal with inactive players in another way...

And how will you deal with them? Will you remove everyone who has played only once after a year? And why after a year? And on what basis? And why should everyone else look at a player with a score of 100 for a whole year and his first place, if he only plays once this year? :)

Added 14 minutes ago

What if the map allows you to get close to the leader?

Honestly, I'm starting to not understand you anymore. For example, take the Best Of Best tournament map. The map allowed you to complete it in 36 days, right? And how many players got close to the leader there? Only one. Oh, the poor leaders suffered there :) They clearly hit EVERYONE in the rating with their results, and they took a rating of 100 or close to that number.

Why should the winner suffer if 10 people are one day behind him? He chose the best playthrough. And those behind him will get almost the same.

And why should these 10 people who got as close as possible to the leader suffer? In this case, everyone gets WHAT THEY DESERVE for THEIR result. And there's no need to artificially boost someone up or push someone down with BONUSES.

As I see from the rating, the number of games greatly affects the result, much more than with the oscillator and my bonus.
I'd like to hear Amber's opinion, but he's gone somewhere.

I've heard that. The number of games definitely has a big impact, whether with bonuses or without. To analyze and compare the strength of ALL players who have played a different number of games, there is another RATING called the AVERAGE. And the OVERALL rating compares the strength of only those players who have played the same number of games. However, it is more likely that those who have played more games in this OVERALL rating will be higher, as the overall rating ALSO takes into account the players' activity in tournaments. The Average rating DOES NOT take into account the players' activity in tournaments. This is quite clearly explained to you and Kyle.

Added 42 minutes ago
I'll explain with an abstract example why I consider the Overall Rating column to be fundamental. 10 players played 10 tournaments in a row. I highly doubt that the Average rating of any of them will be 100. On the 11th tournament, the 11th player came and took 1st place. He will have an average of 100. And then he left. And now? Should these 10 players look at the Average Rating column for a whole year, where he is ahead of them? Look at the real results in the table published by Kyle in the posts above. The Average Rating is 100 for three players. But at least Dmitry has only two games and he has appeared here recently and is currently playing in a tournament. What about Prorock and Shoot-nick? Naturally, as a player, I look at the Overall Rating column. And I know that I need to try hard to overtake the player Zingel. Secondarily, I look for players who have played 6 games like me and look at the Average Rating. There I can really compare my strength only with those players who have played 6 games like me. With those who have played fewer games than me and are lower in the OVERALL RATING, I can't compare anything yet, as I don't yet know what their Average Rating will be after they play the missing games and whether they will catch up with me in the OVERALL RATING. With those who have played fewer games than me, but are higher than me in the OVERALL RATING (in this case, it's Zingel), I can compare my strength - I see that I am losing. At the same time, I don't even need to look at the AVERAGE RATING. In short, IMHO, the average rating is secondary for me, as can be seen from the example, I don't even look at the numbers in that column. However, I look at the number of games played by each player and look at the numbers in the OVERALL rating. This data is enough to assess the situation at the CURRENT moment. The numbers of the average rating have the status of predictive. That is, I see at the moment that the AVERAGE RATING of players who have played fewer games than me is higher than mine. I can only assume that some of them are stronger because I don't know how their AVERAGE RATING will change when they play as many games as I do. And what if one of them is unlucky, he fails a game and his AVERAGE RATING drops below mine. That's how I understand these ratings. Maybe I'm wrong. But how should they be understood correctly? :)

PS. And now about aging. I decided that for now I will not publish the number of games played and the average rating in my tables. Because I was just convinced once again that my system is actually an alternative to the proposed ones. Aging is an alternative to the Average Rating. Moreover, with aging, it is IMPOSSIBLE to calculate the average rating in principle - the results will be distorted. Because aging takes away from each player not the same amount of points, but a percentage of their current rating, it is clear that those with a higher rating will have a higher aging in numerical terms. Therefore, the Average rating in this case makes NO SENSE at all.