Why aren't rates above 1.0 counting for scores?

[HalfStep]

Originally Posted by foxfire667

Though as Frank Munoz pointed out, once you get past the AAA's and obvious scores, it would be very difficult to actually factor in where people should be placed rank wise.

No it isn't, it's just a double sorted list.

First sort by score(high to low), then sort all the ties by rate(high to low). Nothing else.

As for what you suggested, It's a lot more work to add a separate leaderboard than to add 1 piece of metadata to scores. And like sax mentioned, we're low on server space.

Originally Posted by TheSaxRunner05

I don't think we have the server space.

Did some calculations.
Worst case scenario: Save an extra "float" data-type for rate on every song played every since the beginning of time.
27792.9568 Average Rank * 1412 Public songs * 4 bytes = 149.703 MB
6,502.6180 Token Average * 178 Token songs * 1 byte = 4.414 MB
Best case scenario: Same with but saving as a byte which translates to a rate (would force people to play on multiples of 0.5 or something, with a max rate of 128x or something)
27792.9568 Average Rank * 1412 Public songs * 1 byte = 34.737 MB
6,502.6180 Token Average * 178 Token songs * 1 byte = 1.103 MB

That's not much space at all (and you could save even more space by having a 1bit check to see if it's on 1.0 or not, which would return true for 99.9% of scores)