Top 100 Relative Rank

[Velvecarrots]

Drastic example:

ouyin2000 has a score of 21, and a relative rank of 8.613.

Say ouyin2000 wins a battle royale on World 2.1, stealing 100 points from 112 other players. His score is now 11221, and say his RR is still 8.613.

11221 x 8.613 = 96646.

Yes, even the current system would allow this player to reach a ridiculous score, but the relative score is an even mroe meaningless number.

When can we get an "average score" statistic? It can help put things into perspective.

if that was to ever happen, which it wouldn't (so a very poor example) then I would happily accept there is no place for RR. However, even if this did happen, based on his present performance, within 966 games he would be back where he is. Meanwhile his RR would then be somewhere near to .01

That's why I called it a drastic example.

The point remains valid though. The player who stays at a low score for a long time, and then moves up the scoreboard quickly will have an inflated relative rank compared to the other players at his position on the current scoreboard.

I don't want a system that "will even itself out" in a couple hundred games. How will we ever be able to tell who has an inflated RS and who doesn't?

I also don't like how your RS could increase even if you lose, and decrease even if you win.

If you really wanted a relative score, you'd have to have a different scoring system. The current scoring system already determines points won and lost based on the scores of the involved players. And, assuming you agree with the OP, you like the idea of multiplying THAT number by RR again to get a RS!

[Beckytheblondie]

very interesting discussion all. I shall weigh in later, and what I say shall be written in stone and become the 13th commandment. What were the the 11th and 12th you ask? The 11th was thou shallt never eat a salami sandwich past 11pm. The 12th was "I like rice." I admit that one doesnt make much sense, I was a bit drunk when I proclaimed it.

but seriously... nice topic. Keep this fire going

[Dustine]

Drastic example:

ouyin2000 has a score of 21, and a relative rank of 8.613.

Say ouyin2000 wins a battle royale on World 2.1, stealing 100 points from 112 other players. His score is now 11221, and say his RR is still 8.613.

11221 x 8.613 = 96646.

Yes, even the current system would allow this player to reach a ridiculous score, but the relative score is an even mroe meaningless number.

When can we get an "average score" statistic? It can help put things into perspective.

yes he will win if he joins a battle royale similar to this game [game]3960030[/game] .

with his record of 32% turns taken he will probably win if he join last and deatbeats

[benjamenlewis]

I'm doing my best to keep up with all the arguments in the second post in this thread. This seems a hot-button issue that attracts polar arguments.

Stemming from my claim that absolutism is unjust comes the caveat that a single scoreboard will never suffice. Whether a player is ranked by his/her points, relative ranking, a clever combination of score and relative score, win percentage or how quickly said player learned to ride a bicycle.... nothing will be perfect.

That being said, I quote King_Herpes from This Forum:

I would never agree with the person that has the most points is the best player. That would be the ultimate fat headed thing to say... I think Prismsaber said it best about the best player can only be decided individually by playing many great players on many different settings and not solely by Map Ranking them.

We'll never collectively find an answer, but discourse on the matter is stimulating and heck of a lot of fun!

That being said, I'm glad this is clearly not cavil and I appreciate the discussion from all sides.

Benji

[Beckytheblondie]

My simple question. Since there are arguments for both sides, why does the current system solely take precedent? Why not toss a tab in the scoreboard to include a relative rank board too. Would be easy enough. Both have merits, so why discriminate against relative rank?

[prismsaber]

My simple question. Since there are arguments for both sides, why does the current system solely take precedent? Why not toss a tab in the scoreboard to include a relative rank board too. Would be easy enough. Both have merits, so why discriminate against relative rank?

Just because there are "arguments" for both sides doesn't mean the arguments are equally valid. relative rank is a fallacious stat, it hardly proves a thing. The only people who support rr either don't understand the arguments or they have an agenda (ie the fact that rr tells them they are an "equalitarian" makes them look better than they really are).

[AAFitz]

I would never agree with the person that has the most points is the best player. That would be the ultimate fat headed thing to say... I think Prismsaber said it best about the best player can only be decided individually by playing many great players on many different settings and not solely by Map Ranking them.

Exactly.

Also, anyone who understands the game at all, understands this point immediately. The score is a reflection of skill, but it is also more a reflection of game choice. My score fluctuates as much as anyone on here. Ive been up close to 3000 or over it at least 3 or 4 times, and have let myself drop to 1200 or lower between those peaks. I may be better, or I may even be worse, but certainly its not my skill determining that score. Its game choice. Certainly skill makes it easier to gain points, but the chosen games are far more important.

The reason relative rank is no better than the current score, is because it is very easily manipulated, even more so than the score itself. All a player has to do, is play with a low score for a lot of games, get a good RR factor, and then get all the points. It will look as though they have a higher score, when in fact that scenario is much easier to do, than someone who maintains a high score for a long time.

It is difficult to maintain a high score for a long time. You win on margins that require near perfection. Necessarily, most have scores less than you, so your RR goes down, but this a result of keeping a high score, which is difficult to do.

Map rank is the perfect example of why RR can be manipulated. If you play with a low score, and win, you get more points. If you play with a high score, and win, you get less points. Its the same with RR, if you play with a low score, just to get the RR number, and then get a ton of points, you may outscore someone who worked to keep their rank up at all times, which is clearly more difficult to do, thereby, the RR is rewarding the player that either purposely doesnt win as much, or actually just doesnt win as much.

It is a useful, and interesting statistic for sure, but to suggest that it replace the current score just doesnt make any sense, since it is no more accurate, and in the end will penalize the players that are actually able to, or choose to maintain I high score.

[Fruitcake]

Map rank is the perfect example of why RR can be manipulated.

Unlike any other kind of scoring eh?

As to the rest of this...quite frankly I cannot be bothered any more. I fail to see a decent rationale why it should not be included along with all the other scoreboards. It is another way of scoring, simple as that.

[chipv]

Map rank is the perfect example of why RR can be manipulated.

Unlike any other kind of scoring eh?

As to the rest of this...quite frankly I cannot be bothered any more. I fail to see a decent rationale why it should not be included along with all the other scoreboards. It is another way of scoring, simple as that.

There is no decent rationale. Split scoreboards, RR, all same kettle of fish. I will include it in next version of Map Rank.

[AAFitz]

Map rank is the perfect example of why RR can be manipulated.

Unlike any other kind of scoring eh?

As to the rest of this...quite frankly I cannot be bothered any more. I fail to see a decent rationale why it should not be included along with all the other scoreboards. It is another way of scoring, simple as that.

perhaps you should have quoted me when I said the regular score could be manipulated too, or at least implied it. And I never said it shouldnt be included with other scoreboards...Its an interesting statistic as I posted. I was only arguing against replacing the regular scoreboard with it.

I kind of suspect you didnt read my whole post.

[AAFitz]

Map rank is the perfect example of why RR can be manipulated.

Unlike any other kind of scoring eh?

As to the rest of this...quite frankly I cannot be bothered any more. I fail to see a decent rationale why it should not be included along with all the other scoreboards. It is another way of scoring, simple as that.

There is no decent rationale. Split scoreboards, RR, all same kettle of fish. I will include it in next version of Map Rank.

You are single handedly breathing life into this place chip...Ive been waiting for someone to come along and do this almost since I got here.

[demonfork]

Map rank is the perfect example of why RR can be manipulated.

Unlike any other kind of scoring eh?

As to the rest of this...quite frankly I cannot be bothered any more. I fail to see a decent rationale why it should not be included along with all the other scoreboards. It is another way of scoring, simple as that.

I agree, especially since I am now #2 , 4001*.913=3653