Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="vikingerik" data-source="post: 144723" data-attributes="member: 3745">I'm not sure I was really making a serious suggestion, just kind of thinking out loud.  <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />  Really I'm trying to resolve this: the difference between the #1 and #5 slots represents a serious interval of skill on many tables (certainly any with limited EBs like Ripley's), but on some tables represents nothing but the willingness to sink more time.  But any method of leaderboard rankings treats all such intervals as equal.A score threshold like 1B on Funhouse isn't really the right way to do it.  Demonstrating that one can go infinite isn't based on score or time.  Going infinite is really based on the relative rates between earning EBs and draining balls, not on any score threshold.  But you can't get that from the leaderboards.As for how many players can, fromduc (hi, welcome!) makes a good point that the scores on the boards don't reflect everyone capable, since not everyone cares to sink the time to prove it.  I'd bet at least 10 players could hit 1B on Funhouse if they seriously tried.  Hard to back this up with any real reasoning though, I know.</blockquote>

No members online now.

Total: 331 (members: 0, guests: 331)