Adjusted rankings calculations a bit

Still doesn't seem to have much impact.

Top list is just "Who's played the most" list. I think the only 3 people who have some value from the toplist are Dinius, gibbz & asda.

At the moment I increased it by 2x of what it was, if I were to increase it by 10x using the same calculations we get this:

Buuuut we've been over this before, going in this type of direction encourages NOT setting times unless they're times that are very close to the #1. Which is bad. Have plans for more sortings and sort of "trending\etc" players and so forth.

And there's multiple other people with > 400 records, and sapro with pretty much same amount of recs as me and so on.

Current system encourages setting times even when they are shit, because the list is meaningless. Yes that's exactly my point.

Imo the list should represent your "skill" at trickjumping. Everybody above my rank should consistently beat my times while people below I should be able to beat consistently. I can't say that about the current iteration or any iteration where only the rank on a map is taken into consideration.

Why can't we just have different scoreboards? One where you only count amount of maps played or time played and one that actually matters :D

You can be good poker player if you win most of your games, but you'll never be rich if you don't play many games.

If we really were to go for top skilled player list, then map and route difficulty in maps would have to be taken into calculations as well. Otherwise you could just strafe your way in easy maps to top5, while most likely still being worse player than the ones who get into top6-20 in harder maps. Most likely this system would also lead into people not even trying harder maps at all, thus never really getting better in the game. We all know just strafing relatively straight flat line, is much easier than actually having to use other techniques provided in the game.

It's far better to not even consider making such list, it has more downsides than the current one. Only downside in current one is that if you're inactive you wont reach top, but that only encourages activity which is good for the longer run.

The way I see this, is people who don't like the current system, think they deserve to be higher in the list, but aren't ready to do anything for it. If you want to have something brag about while being inactive player, you can just go into your profile and look your map records map-by-map.

Apart from your point that maps differ in difficulty which should be taken into account you were just further validating my argument.

Current list promotes activity (higher rank the more times you set), but has no actual value besides that. So then does it really promote activity?

You can think that I feel entitled, but I'm just trying to make the top list interesting for everybody. Including players that can't or don't want to play as much and people that just simply haven't been playing the game since release.

EDIT: Another suggestion if it's too complicated to get a solid value to rank players would be to simply omit players from the toplist until they have 100 or 200 records.

"Current list promotes activity (higher rank the more times you set), but
has no actual value besides that. So then does it really promote
activity?"

What the fuck did I just read? If I had a cat, would it really be a cat?

Also, if it would magically be so that every player had exactly same amount of records in same maps, then the rankings would show the true skill difference. So, the more you play, the higher chance of you seeing your true skill level. And to be honest that would be easily achievable with the amount of maps we have in RIK.

"Including players that can't or don't want to play as much and people
that just simply haven't been playing the game since release."

That's how it does with every single game out there. Do you really think people should automatically get to top10 in one game because they were in another game?

No point arguing with somebody who's always right.