i think it unfair that those who scored 103 points are all #1, yet those scoring @102 are all #45 when they should all be #2. and down from the point to where i personally am ranked #89 when there are only 8 scores above mine, so it would be fairer for me to be placed, along with all others with my score, at #9. perhaps the method of configuring these numbers could be adjusted for the next leg of the tour.
Re:the numerical rating system 5 Months, 3 Weeks ago
i didn't write the module script, i presume it would be hard to alter, a study on it's one. it was not meant for a same predictable setlist ... anyways, at least there's something, i will think about something separately.
best wishes
Re:the numerical rating system 5 Months, 3 Weeks ago
as the number of participants has dramatically dropped over the passed months & years i played around with the numbers & it now shows ALL results as far as i can figure it.
Re:the numerical rating system 5 Months, 3 Weeks ago
the only thing that makes sense to me is this. if 44 people share the #1 position, the 45th person with one point less than the winning 44, should have, along with any others who have the same number of points, the #2 position...not the #45 position. as it stands, there are no positions from #2 through #44...and it continues in this manner until the end,
Re:the numerical rating system 5 Months, 3 Weeks ago
A little bit more explanation of the maths. 103 points is the top score, the first on the points list. 102 points is the next to top score, the second on the points list.
However, the list is of individual persons, not points scored. Hence the jump from #1 to #45.
Re:the numerical rating system 5 Months, 3 Weeks ago
i studied the scripts a little, the rank is written into the database while it might have been able to take it via the points itself. i'm working on a workaround for the display on the front page only, otherwise it would require more study & a rework, previous games would theorethically also have to be recalculated.
Message Board 
