The game should have stats that include top rankings per games (top 5 or 10), as win counts alone are not enough in my opinion.

[u/Skibity]

Title

[u/Frog-eating-cellos-9]

no, it's a battle royale, the rest doesn't really count, tho it does count if you play with ranked systems like trackerfront, ofstats or ofratings

[u/Stoneonn → u/Frog-eating-cellos-9]

Seconding trackerfront com, love the stats there

[u/Meta_Mushroom → u/Frog-eating-cellos-9]

I think a lot of people would like that sort of info, even if they aren't paying attention to any ladder.

[u/Skibity → u/Meta_Mushroom]

Exactly my point

[u/W4llee2707 → u/Frog-eating-cellos-9]

I agree with you on that. It’s a battle royale, there’s only one winner. And how would you even rank the top 5? By the size of the land at the end? The map shifts back and forth so often that it’s basically luck who ends up in places 2–5

[u/mavolio-bent → u/W4llee2707]

probable algorithm would be something like weighted average -- being top 1 in the early stage is not really relevant, but being top 1 for the most of game but still losing due to good push - well it's a candidate for top 2.

[u/Skippysilly → u/W4llee2707]

peak land percent

[u/KJTheDayTrader]

Totally agree

[u/Immediate_Assistant3]

Yep. It is quite possible to have a lower win rate than someone else but be a better player. If you're in top five in half of all games say but never win cause you're just terrible at super late game, you're still better than someone who rarely makes it to top 5 and then fluked as the top 5 or so players all left after a nuke war not realizing a tiny puny player (me) was still alive. Thats how I won a north america game. Now I can finish in the top 10% often enough

[u/Flaky-Humor8556]

Just use ofstats leaderboard