About the scoring system, I made two simulations.(posted 9391 days ago)The first score is the sum of the rounded percentages of highest score of each game. ( Deca2000 scoring )
The second score is just weighted by the ranking, just as our current leaderboard : each score on a game is : 100*score/(best score) X 0,85^(rank - 1) , then rounded. So, here are the rankings for the 20 players who qualify, playing all the 10 games :
Percentage scoring Percentage and ranking scoring 1 sutton 668 1 sutton 522 2 lamat 625 2 lamat 455 3 tiihonen 584 3 tiihonen 423 4 bjw 535 4 bjw 347 5 blost 461 5 boxster 270 6 boxster 452 6 cicca 245 7 bbh 429 7 blost 237 8 cicca 405 8 bbh 196 9 sandman 367 9 iur 181 10 axe 342 10 sandman 168 11 iur 306 11 axe 114 12 donut 253 12 lagavulin 106 13 lagavulin 251 13 donut 84 14 guru 188 14 guru 51 15 rodewald 176 15 rodewald 38 16 millardet 148 16 millardet 18 17 julie 132 17 julie 14 18 gameboy 122 18 gameboy 14 19 queenmary 64 19 queenmary 3 20 jump 28 20 jump 1
So, the question is : Why not adopt one of these methods ( According to me, the first one is better, less frustrating for weak or occasional players )instead of the current one, quite curious and giving no benefit to players who leave others far behind them : when the best score is 100000points, it's not fair to have the same points if you make 101000 or 700000 !
Lagavulin.