FFR Ranking Question

[passivegirl]

Sooo! Starting two days ago I've been trying to actually AAA songs/up my level rank. Everything has been working out fine so far, but there has been oneeee little thing that's been bugging me. Basically, whenever I make one little mistake on a song, even if it's something like getting an all-perfect FC but 1 boo, my rank flies into the thousands. That's leading me to believe the FFR ranking system isn't as I thought it was, i.e., instead of it being ranked on the actual score, it's ranked by... the amount of people that have AAAd it <_<;;. Ok, I suck at explaining things, so I'll post an SS here of what I mean.

An AAA on Ball of Malt would be a score of 666,500. But with my score of 1/0/0/0 on this Ball of Malt song, I got a 666,225. So in a perfect world, based on my score, I would be rank 3 or something, yes? Since the only scores above mine were 666,500 and 666,480. But if you look at the image, because 176 people have AAA'd it and 9 people have... done something strange to it, my rank is stuck below to a low 186. Why is it like this?



So I'm drawing that it's based on not score, but the amount of people that scored above you, even if they all got identical scores? And that explains why every time I make a trivial slip on any lowish difficulty song, I wind up with rank 12k? Rofl, someone please verify this for me. It's a weird ranking system to me, that's all.

[Beethovens mask]

AAA's are the highest score possible on a song. The ranks with the most amount of points possible are all stacked together, even if a person is 166 on the rankings, they still have rank 1 on the song.

So for easy songs, you have to triple A or your rank will suck, because so many people with triple A's on that song are stacked together.

Hope that makes sense at all!

[Jtehanonymous]

You are exactly right. Ranking is based on the amount of scores ahead of you that are better.

It's....always been like this.

[passivegirl]

Well uhm, to me that kind of is weird. Shouldn't it be like... all the billion people that AAA'd the song should ALL TOGETHER hold Rank 1? Otherwise it's not really as score-based as it should be. Just soooo weird to me!

[EnR]

They are all rank one, but everyone behind them is ranked according to how many people are ahead of them,

[Kekeb]

Originally Posted by passivegirl

Shouldn't it be like... all the billion people that AAA'd the song should ALL TOGETHER hold Rank 1?

If you have the highest possible score, you're ranked 1 because no one is above you score wise. If two people tie for rank 1, and a third person has the highest score closest to the rank 1 score, they have a rank of 3 because two people are above that given score.

[passivegirl]

I don't think anyone understands my point ;o;. I'm just saying to say that instead of it being about the number of people that got a score better than you, ranks should be just cleanly score-based. So instead of me being screwed over by 185 people scoring above me and me dealing with a low score of 186, it should be like... 176 people got 666,500--they all have rank 1, 9 people got 666,480--they all have rank 2, and x amount of people got 666,225--they all hold rank 3. Does that make sense?

[EnR]

Yes it makes sense, but it's not going to happen. Just go AAA the song xD

[LoneW0lf]

Originally Posted by passivegirl

I don't think anyone understands my point ;o;. I'm just saying to say that instead of it being about the number of people that got a score better than you, ranks should be just cleanly score-based. So instead of me being screwed over by 185 people scoring above me and me dealing with a low score of 186, it should be like... 176 people got 666,500--they all have rank 1, 9 people got 666,480--they all have rank 2, and x amount of people got 666,225--they all hold rank 3. Does that make sense?

But then everyone with dumb BF's and stuff would have wayyyyyyyyy better ranks.
Meaning a lot of people would have better ranks, so i think this system is fine :/

[One Winged Angel]

I get what you're saying, but it doesn't work that way...and not just for FFR, any ranking system is like that.

Kekeb's post explains it best.

If one person has 10,000 points, another with 7,500, and another with 5,000, they would be ranked first, second, and third, respectively. However, if second place improves their score to 10,000, third place remains as third place, because it isn't score-based...it's how many people have done better than you.

[Shashakiro]

That system would make far less sense IMO, and cause ranks for easier songs to skyrocket while hard songs would be unchanged.

Current system is fine I think.

[passivegirl]

Hehehe, ok fine! My dreams of start a ranking revolution are dead D: Oh well, back to making 1 good on old songs and getting ranks of 20k, then!

Btw, thank you all for offering insight on this. Talk about fast response

[Tasselfoot]

Look at sports, as an example... If two players each have 10 home runs, and nobody else has more... they're both 1st in baseball with 10 home runs. But then 3 other guys all have 9. They aren't 2nd in the league, since you already have 2 guys with 10. There's no way for someone to be 2nd with 9 when there are 2 with 10. It would defy logic and math.

They're ranked as 3rd, all of them. Then anyone with 8 would be ranked 6th, since there are 2 with 10 and 3 with 9. 5 people in front of them, so they are 6th.

I've never seem a ranking system that ignores the weight of number of people tied for a given value. The closest I've seen is multiple people with an equal value NOT all being tied. Instead, they're ranked by another value... such as time. Going back to the baseball analogy, the 1st person to reach 10 would be 1st, the 2nd person to reach 10 would be 2nd, the 1st person to reach 9 of the 3 tied at 9 would be 3rd, the 2nd would be 4th, and the 3rd would be 5th. Aka, there is no ties, even though they have the same value. This system penalizes some people who are tied, but has no effect on lower values with respect to higher values. To me, this system is also dumb, unless time plays a factor in the ranking, and then it's ok (such as a Strongman Competition... # of leg squats at 700 lbs... if 2 people are tied, the fastest to reach that number would be the higher ranked).

Does that make sense?


edit: and don't go throwing hyperbole all over the place.... 1 good is not rank 20,000 on ANY song. . Although many songs will get you a rank in the mid or high hundreds for 1 good.

[passivegirl]

Hehehe, yes, yes, it makes sense. I understand now, Tass! It was just confusing at first, but after this forum I'm more at ease with the ranking system. And hmph, hyperboles are my friend! Thanks though for the in-depth response; I'm officially back to thinking FFR is the best thing in the world. xD

[Bluearrowll]

Wow everything was explained before I saw this thread o.o

Though actually a blackflag on Excite Bike is like 4K. But that shouldn't be too hard to do, right?