Ranking Balance

[Zageron]

I've got an idea. Dunno if it's been suggested. But whatever.

Instead of using only the "Grand Total" as a ranking. How about we use.

Grand Total - games played / average rank.

So

1,000,000,000 - 30,000 / 50 = 19,999,400 points

SO!

The less games you play the higher your rank can be. And the lower your song rank average is the less it gets divided by. The more points you have the higher your rank is.

What do you think?

[spinal_compression]

No. Because that would require the following...

- That would force experienced players to play off-sync files.
- That would requre too many queries from the server.
- That would require people who like to play to play less.

[Zageron]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No. As long as you get decent scores on the games you play your rank wont go down. Your only taking away ONE point it's not a big deal unless your suck so much that you loose 100 times in a row While getting like 10 points.

[spinal_compression]

It has been suggested before. And we all know it's not happening.

[Zageron]

Yeah I just read some stuff. However I like the idea of it automatically sending the 200million queries or whatever at midnight.

[super kid]

Lets not confuse people.

[Wootsicle]

Yeah, and then no one will ever use auto fail again.

Sorry, but this just doesn't work. When people don't get their high scores they just boo out of the song.. Also, sometimes when the server is lagging, files start off sync and people restart.

You can't take games played into ranking, it just doesn't work.

[CrashJet555]

I agree, I would be afraid to try new songs for fear of screwing up my grand total score.

[Smok3y]

Perhaps this wouldn't work, but maybe there should be something else that decides what rank you are, sure the grand total leaderboards would still be there, I just don't think that it should decide rankings, lump is definitely not better than Shash

[CrashJet555]

If you can think of a better idea to decide it by go ahead and suggest it to us. You haven't given any better ideas, or even really said what your problem with the Grand Total rankings is...
You can't judge it by credit count because that is ever-changing.
You can't judge it by games played because people could simply play one note and end the game over and over.
You can't judge it by boo/good/perfect/etc. ratio, because that would just be gay.
You can't judge it by games played/ total points average, for reasons already stated below.
Personally, I believe that our current ranking system is the best possible at this time.

[Smok3y]

If you can think of a better idea to decide it by go ahead and suggest it to us. You haven't given any better ideas, or even really said what your problem with the Grand Total rankings is...
You can't judge it by credit count because that is ever-changing.
You can't judge it by games played because people could simply play one note and end the game over and over.
You can't judge it by boo/good/perfect/etc. ratio, because that would just be gay.
You can't judge it by games played/ total points average, for reasons already stated below.
Personally, I believe that our current ranking system is the best possible at this time.

Well, I know it's already been suggested by someone else, but maybe a revised version of the Tier Point System could be worked into the game? Seems to be a pretty good indicator of skill level. Though there's probably already been a reason stated why that can't work though, too obvious. =\