But I see a problem with the current relative rank. I'll tell with an example :
A lieutenant with 1600 points played 2 6-players games, 1 against new recruits/cadet/private (av 1000 points) and 1 against major/brigadier (av 2400 points). He won the first game and lost the second, win% = 50%. Let's see what he got :
1. From 1st game he gained 5xround(20x1000/1600) = 65 points, and from 2nd game he lost round(20x1600/2400) = 13 points. Also total he gained 65-13=52 points.
2. His relative rank for the 1st game is 1000/1600 = 0.625 and for the 2nd is 2400/1600 = 1.500. Also in average his relative rank (shown in Map Rank Table) is (0.625+1.500) = 1.063 (Equalitarian)
Conclusion : If we look at Map Rank only, we see the player on a map played 2 games with 50% win ration, gained +52 points, , and 1.063 relative rank. He must be good. Only if we take a look on his games, we will know "how good he is really"
My suggestion : Split the relative rank into 2 columns, 1 for winning and 1 for loosing !!
... and we will know that he gained points from games with 0.625 relative rank. He is a Points hoarder
P.S : you can make an extreme example, a 2000+ player played 1 game against new recruits (won) and 1 game against brigadiers/generals (lost)
