I still think this is a great idea. As stated previously, if you don't care about other modes, just ignore the cumulative rank like you would ignore the other modes rank.
Honestly I agree there, this is an interesting idea but it just doesn't seem needed... more or less another way for bragging rights.Kayla wrote:
Yes people can ignore it, but people won't.
Okay. Should I make a thread in feature request sub forum suggesting that all ranks should be removed from the game. What is the point of having a rank if not bragging rights...Charlieesh wrote:
Honestly I agree there, this is an interesting idea but it just doesn't seem needed... more or less another way for bragging rights.Kayla wrote:
Yes people can ignore it, but people won't.
Just my opinion.
Edit: 9400th post ^_^Bara- wrote:
Baraatje123 wrote:
Bump
I'll do that later todayEndaris wrote:
Filthy Postcountfarmer :^)
I think when you're already bumping it would be good if you added the arguments given so far to the OP to make it easier to discuss for people who see it for the first time now so they don't have to dig through 7 pages.
I assume one of two things would happen here:AnimeGod2205 wrote:
that would be pretty cool but i would be sad to see how low my average rank is considering i have a horrible mania rank.. how would it work with people who dont have a rank in a gamemode?
the more mode you play, the better you areXanandra wrote:
This means that my friend should be ranked higher than me in the cumulative rank, which makes sense as having 2 modes ranked at ~2000 is more impressive in my opinion.
My point is, if we were to use the cumulative rank based on pp, in my example given, I would have a higher rank than my friend because I have higher pp even though I only excel in one mode (whereas my hypothetical friend excels in two mode)AncuL wrote:
the more mode you play, the better you areXanandra wrote:
This means that my friend should be ranked higher than me in the cumulative rank, which makes sense as having 2 modes ranked at ~2000 is more impressive in my opinion.
I am only giving out an idea, it can be fine tuned so that higher ranks wouldn't be rewarded so handsomely, and we would have to define starting at what levels should a player excelling in two modes have a higher rank than a player excelling a single mode, etc etc etc. To do all of these, tests and fine tuning will be required.Bara- wrote:
Xanandra, that would favor #1-10 who play only one mode much more over those ranked #100-1000 in all modes
Yes, it is true that some modes has a higher player base than others, but at least when you're comparing by ranks, you're comparing them by something consistent which is by how far you are from the #1 in the specified game mode.Catgirl wrote:
rank is also based on how many people play a mode. being #1000 in standard is much more impressive than being #1000 in taiko for example just because so many more people play standard. pp was used in my example earlier as a "skill metric" because it doesn't depend on what anybody else does with regards to ranking up, even though we know it's not the best system for skill.
if you use an extreme rank example, let's say you have 2 players. one of them only plays standard and mania and is #20k in both games. one plays only taiko and ctb and is #20k in both games. which player should be higher ranked? obviously the first player because standard and mania have larger playerbases. it's possible to get to those ranks in taiko and ctb with a double digit playcount, while reaching #20k in standard requires well over 3000pp. but if we just average ranks then both players are seen as equal.
using a pp system would make up for the difference in the number of players that play each gamemode, but it would need some normalizing if we wanted a perfect ranking system. however, that's not what pp is. all of the other rankings use pp so the best we can do for now is use pp in some way to balance all of the modes.
Xanandra wrote:
And here's the amount of pp of players in rank #1000
Standard: 6548
Taiko: 4744
CTB: 3608
Mania: 7132
See how erratic it is? If we were to use pp, the player that is #1000 in taiko and mania will be better than the player that is #1000 in standard and CTB (hey! I thought you said that standard weighted more because of higher player base! guess not).
Xanandra wrote:
On the other hand, if you look at them as being 1k players away from being the top of two modes, then they are ranked the same, which makes more sense to me.
In my opinion, that doesn't work, since the reason one is ranked 2000 in CTB with like 2300 pp and you're 2000 in standard with 5800pp is because there is way less players, I am WAY better at standard than CTB, but I'm 2400 in CTB and 7000 in standard, that woul make more sense to give me more credit for my standard than CTB, since I'm better at it.Xanandra wrote:
Hello.
So, I haven't read the whole posts and discussion so far, only the last page and the first post, and from what I can see at glance is that the usage of pp is flawed if we are to calculate the cumulative ranks through all game modes. The main reason being that pp gained through the four modes are NOT normalized.
I just wanted to point out the the possibility of using the ranks in each mode as the measure instead of pp at each mode, meaning this:
CP (cumulative points) = 1/(rank in standard) + 1/(rank in taiko) + 1/(rank in ctb) + 1/(rank in mania)
If any term results in 0 because of no rank achieved in that mode, it should default to 0
And then rank players based on their CP.
I think this way it will help normalize a bit the parameters as well as rewarding more to those players that has a high rank in a specific mode.
Ex:
I have the following ranks:
standard: 2000 (~5800pp)
ctb: 10000 (~1000pp)
taiko: 30000 (~800pp)
mania: 0
CP = 0.0006333
Total pp = 7600
My friend has the following ranks:
standard: 0
ctb: 2000 (~2300pp)
taiko: 2500 (~3500pp)
mania: 0
CP = 0.0009
Total pp = 5800
This means that my friend should be ranked higher than me in the cumulative rank, which makes sense as having 2 modes ranked at ~2000 is more impressive in my opinion.
Anyways, it should be polished a bit more as people in the top 10 will be weighted too good, etc etc etc. But my point is that using pp as the parameter is not the way to go for this. (Maybe setting it so that it is 1/(100+rank in mode) can help offset a bit, but idk, will require real testings to fine tune it.