Ephemeral wrote:
I don't really agree with the premise that properly creating a ranking for your own game requires you to play it at a quasi-professional level. The rulesets are clear and ranking assessments can be made objectively on raw data alone without introducing arbitrary multipliers and other shonky things that are based purely on "experience" over any tangible representation in the game's mechanics.
The problem is, that what most players consider "skill" is not represented very well in an objective way within the game's mechanics. People often talk about aim, speed, jumps and so on, yet the only objective data available are the amount of 300s, 100s, 50s and misses... and score. Accuracy can be inferred.
Reverse engineering the performance out of said amounts of 300s, 100s, 50s and misses is impossible to do without error, due to the fact, that per-hitobject information is lost and you can therefore not know whether for instance most 300s come from a hard part of a map or from an easy part.
That's where "arbitrary multipliers and other shonky things that are based purely on "experience"" come into play for somehow approximating what many people call skill.
To make things worse, often aim and speed are considered different skills, making it even harder to properly extract them from a score, if one wishes to do so.
I personally wish tp would work without arbitrary multipliers and such - even without seperating skills into "aim" or "speed" or whatever -, but so far I have failed to build such an algorithm, that would even remotely satisfy most people.
Regarding ppv2, from what I have read on how it works it indeed sounds very promising to me. I'm not trying to badmouth it or anything.