Normalized grades/ranks

Describe the new feature: Directly compute score grades from accuracy, based on a natural logarithmic scale. It makes a lot more sense and just feels intuitive.

Proposal designs of the feature:

• Compute grade = -ln(1 - accuracy) (reverse would be accuracy = 1 - exp(-grade)) (accuracy running from 0.0 to 1.0)
• Look up grade name/icon from a table like this (top to bottom): grade <= 1 → C rank grade <= 2 → B rank grade <= 3 → A rank grade < ∞ → S rank grade = ∞ → SS rank
• If played with visually impaired (HD, FL mods) apply platinum icons instead
• Optionally, subdivide into ranking system into C-, C0, C+, B-, … or increase “shininess” of icon or something. Lots of options.

[Firmatorenio]

I think that pretty much defeats the original idea of natural logarithms - to an outside observer you’re taking rather arbitrary accuracy numbers to define the rank borders (in this case, C<77.69<B<89.46<A<95.02<S), then you try to explain this system… which again uses arbitrary (albeit nicer) numbers behind the scenes (1.5, 2.25 and 3). There’s no need for such complexity, in my opinion. The current system is very straightforward and pretty fair.

[MitsukaiDokuro]

@igontusuwu The calculation is correct. If you are going to modify the grade name/icon lookup table. I’m fine with your proposed modification to the lookup table - if you insert another point for “D rank” at 0.75 (to close the gap). For future readers : It’s important to make the numeric values of the entries equally spaced to each other, including the implicit entry for 0.

@Firmatorenio Well, it’s subjective which system you would prefer. This isn’t even complex maths, in my opinion.

@peppy Well, the whole point of the suggestion was to make grading more precise and intuitive without relying on arbitrary numbers (with exception of the point from where on a score is rated as ‘S’ and the number of grades). Rounding to multiples of 5 would be counter-productive. Though whole integer rounding would be fine, I guess.