Because ranking 1st once cant be compared with ranking 2nd or 3rd a few times
That's entirely an opinion.
I will make a parallel with a recent event : the Olympics.
The Olympics does not officially acknowledged a winner of the games, yet most newspaper will rank countries to see who is "winning". However the way these rankings are done can vary wildly. A few of the most prominent methods:
- Gold count
- Total count
- Per capita
- Weighted ranking
Per capita has been suggested a few times for titans to be shot down in flames as it is (imo) absurd.
Total count is obviously flawed as a gold medal should be worth more than a bronze medal. However, it is often used in certain countries as it put USA on top instead of China in recent years.
Gold count assumes that silver and bronze medal are worthless, which is quite false imo. This is also used in many countries, putting a different country on top (Canada this year).
Weighted rankings acknowledges that silver and bronze medals are quite good scores, yet far from being as good as gold. Seems like the most fair system to me, although it might be hard to comprehend on a quick read. However in FS we aren't doing quick reads, especially not in a guild ready to start hunting titans.
I firmly believe that many 2nd and 3rd place can be better than a single first place and I therefore think that weighted rewards should be put in place.
I propose as a tentative solution numbers based on the Fibonacci sequence (the nth number is the sum of the n-1 and n-2 numbers), skipping the first 1, as it is one of the methods used for weight rankings in the Olympics:
5th: 1 Point
4th: 2 Points
3rd: 3 Points
2ng: 5 points
1st: 8 points (Automatically awarded the drop)
8 Points = an epic.
Though it could probably be tweak so that a few more points are needed while keeping 1st as an automatic win.