[SUGGESTION] FFR Master Rank: The Ultimate Ranking System

[Kairon]

(Okay, so even though I haven't seen another thread like this, I'm pretty sure I'm not the first person to think of this general idea; however, I think I've put a bit more effort into the idea than the average suggester. So here we go.)

Presenting, The Master Rank System! (a.k.a. Finding out once and for all who's the best at FFR... or at least getting a better idea.)

So, for a while now I've been pondering the idea of some kind of system that would do a better job of displaying one's skill at FFR than overall rank, av. level rank, or tier points. These thoughts were originally spurred when the 'Top 1000' shirts came out a few years back. I remember thinking that overall rank really wasn't a good way of assessing one's actual skill. These thoughts were quelled momentarily when tier points and the 'top average players' list came out, however the more I thought about it, the more I realized that no one ranking system really covered all the bases in terms of skill.

Anyway, yesterday I casually brought up the idea of a Master Rank system in another thread...

Originally Posted by Kairon

Now see, I think there should be some sort of "master rank" system that combines and compiles overall rank, average rank, tier point rank, token rank, token/skill token count, and any other ranks one might think of into one number which encompasses every facet of your FFR skill and dedication. Then we take, say the top 100 or 1000 numbers, line 'em up, see who's is biggest, and make a t-shirt out of it.

To which Tass responded...

Originally Posted by Tasselfoot

kairon: you're far from the first to suggest it. the problem is... how do you accurately come up with a formula for measuring/ranking? i guess there could be some sort of sabermetric approach that could be applied, but my statistics knowledge is not that good. if anyone is a statistics whiz and wants to try to come up with an algorithm that makes logical sense, be my guest.

Well, I'm not much of a stat wiz, but how about just averaging all ranks in several key areas and ranking the resulting numbers?

Okay, example based on my current ranks:
Overall Rank - 166
Top Average Players Rank - 84 (for av. rank 115.5)
Top AAAs Rank - 62 (for 456)
Token Average Rank - Don't have top average token players rank, so let's say 75 (for av. rank 103.8)*
Tier Point Rank - I have 257 points, so I'm probably around 110? (I suck.)
Skill Token Collection Rank - Again, no ranking system. So, I have 96 skill tokens, and let's just say 74 people have 97+ skill tokens, thus making me (and any other 96-token holders) rank 75*

So, (166+84+62+75+110+75)/6 = Master Rank Number of 95.3. Obviously, this wouldn't automatically make me the 95th best player on FFR, but these numbers would be stacked up a la Top Average Rank page.

*(I tried my best to form this system around pre-existing ranks and systems, but obviously the token-related rank systems have yet to be set up; I assume this wouldn't be too much trouble to do?)

Incidentally, I think these six areas encompass just about everything skill-related on FFR. Overall Rank measures dedication to playing FFR (and I wrestled with myself on this one... in the end, I think it SHOULD be included), Top Average Players Rank measures overall song ability, Top AAAs Rank measures PA skill, Token Average Rank measures skill on non-public or otherwise hard-to-get songs, Tier Point Rank measures skill on the hardest songs in the game, and Skill Token Collection Rank measures ability to complete specific tasks.

Obviously, in order to be eligible for the Master Rank, you need at least 1 AAA, at least 1 tier point, and at least 1 skill token, and I also think you would probably need an overall rank/average level rank/token level rank under a set number (say, 1000). This is for practical purposes, but it would also add an extra delicious element of accomplishment and elitism to the whole thing. (Mmm... yes. -snooty look- )

Anyway, I really love the idea of an uber ranking system, and with some help I think it's a possibility. Obviously, I don't know accurate this idea would be in terms of measuring total FFR ability; I'm just pretty sure that it would at least be more accurate than any of the individual ranks. Best of all, should this system get put into play, FFR could release a REAL 'Top 1000' shirt that would genuinely chronicle the best talent this site has to offer. So, whaddya think?

(Support and suggestions are, of course, highly appreciated. Please feel free to point out any gaping flaws, or tell me how my stat setup could be vastly improved.)

[Breakdown16]

If you feel some things are more important than others (i.e. average rank is more important than overall rank), then you could give the different ranks more or less weight. I'm no good with stats either, but it's just a thought I had.

[Kairon]

I considered the idea of giving certain ranks more or less weight in the final equation, but I decided to just leave it be for now... I was kind of hoping to get some kind of general concensus regarding what other people at FFR feel is important before making any changes.

[sumzup]

Weighting would be almost necessary for such a ranking system; obviously some things are more important than others. Anyways, I like the idea. Perhaps FCs could be included as well in order to further shed light on those who are better overall vs. those who have the same # of AAAs but relatively sucky ones.

A
N
D

Devil's Advocate: Is this system even necessary? What's the point? Average rank is good enough, despite its flaws. This would just add another layer of complexity and confusion to FFR.

[reptile3141]

Originally Posted by sumzup

Devil's Advocate: Is this system even necessary? What's the point? Average rank is good enough, despite its flaws. This would just add another layer of complexity and confusion to FFR.

I personally don't think any ranking system is needed. I wish people would just play for fun. :/ (I'm probably one of like 5 people on FFR that thinks that)

[Zageron]

Some of us hate rock, that would make our average ranks almost 20% lower.

[Tasselfoot]

even though i did encourage this... let me be fairly clear that i HIGHLY doubt anything like this will ever be displayed.

and, for any kind of master ranking... there would need to be weights assigned to each value based upon their statistical importance to the overall whole. you really need to run some kind of regression or advanced statistical model to calculate an accurate algorithm.

[iceefudgesickle]

Completely unneeded. We already have average ranks. I highly doubt anyone would actually use it.

[sumzup]

How about we instead implement an "average rank w/out Rock" feature? :P

[blindreper1179]

i like the idea, but i don't know how to weigh the ranks for each one. if someone could do that, it'd be +1 from me.