I honestly don't know how difficult it is to medal because I've never really tried, so I'll go with your expertise on this one monte. Unless anyone dissents, that'll be the formula I use after I compile all the data.

if it means that das isnt 1st overall, its not the correct formula ;)

it's true, most of my KDice spreadsheet formula's have at least one "IF(account='dasfury';100;0)" in it somewhere

careful about the escape characters jurg, big difference between dasfury and 'dasfury' in kdice ;P

nah, they're both mean

You need some form of exponential degradation of the weight of each successive place.

50-100 should all be worth roughly the same there typically isnt a big difference of points over that spread, and just about anybody that hasnt been lebotamized can do it if they really want to.

I propose a medal value system of the order of finishing in Nth place yields a score of (N-1)(N-2)(N-3)......(N-88)(N-90)(N-91)....(N-100)

thats a factorial. and its WAY to steep imo. i.e. it would take 720 7th places to equal 1 1st place.

but its funny that you propose using the point differential as a scale. i.e. the diff between 50th and 100th is pretty tiny compared to the diff between 1st and 50th. if you take this to its logical conclusion, the weighting would be completely by points on a month to month basis... which would yield... the EXACT same answer as total career points, lol.

i mean, in the end, career points is a somewhat decent metric which balances number of games played with quality of results.

but still, fuck you Sinth for taking away elo.

monte you missed the joke, if you used my proposed system, then you would only get pts for 89th place.

monte won this thread