4 ms·

You're right, I don't have much of an argument for relational databases here. I am concerned about the complexity of this approach though and I don't think the

You're right, I don't have much of an argument for relational databases here. I am concerned about the complexity of this approach though and I don't think the concessions we're doing away with are that terrible. How meaningful is it to be rank 5623 vs. rank 5249, or even rank 2519? I don't think people can make much sense of ranks beyond 100, but maybe I'm wrong. I would rather break rankings into smaller groups. Which is more interesting, being ranked 23,528 worldwide, or being the town champion? I think the latter is much more meaningful to a person.

latch 15y ago
limiting ranks (to 5000 for most games and 1000 for a few particular ones) is the concession we ended up doing in v1. When we introduced the change, no one complained (or has since) - our developers have been great. As for complexity. The complexity of learning is a noop as far as I'm concerned. Duplicate data? Not concerned. Managing 2 stores...slightly concerning. Agreed. Maintenance? The entire change is largely encapsulated in a new ~30 line Rank class. Sure, I'd rather not have that extra code. I hadn't considered rank-groups (thanks for the idea though!). I'll definitely give that more thought. Nonetheless, I think I rather have the raw data available and accessible (in addition to any additional abstraction). I don't like making decision for the developers. Maybe 100 ranks isn't enough for them (I've seen them do some pretty creative stuff with the bit of data we're collecting already).