Well, here’s what I see today.

I’m going to assume it’s not a callout if I refer to them by number. Seriously, all of this information is right there on the leaderboard so I can’t imagine using it is any kind of callout.

There’s a pretty big gulf between #1 and #2. 21,676 points of difference as of the moment I started typing. Their records are 1,715-16 and 1,807-86, respectively. So, fascinating: 2nd place has played 162 matches fewer than first place, but has so many fewer points! How?

Well, I did the math. I’ve attached an image that shows my work. But here’s what I found.

At my base 0.75m per game estimate, #1 has played for 21 hours and #2 has played for about 24 hours. Well within human bounds over 3 days: an average of 6.1 or 6.7 hours, respectively. When we calculate up the points per match, something interesting happens.

#1 is averaging 64.2 points per win. #2 is averaging 48.9. So #1 is making about 25% more points *per game* than #2. That explains why #2, with only about 5% more wins than #1, can have a dramatically lower score: they either haven’t optimized themselves to be getting 60+ points per match or they’re intentionally shooting for 2 trophy or lower matches to try and fit more matches in per unit time.

I’m ignoring defense wins/losses, I don’t know how to put numbers on them.

The only thing that looks also odd to me is 2 players have an identical number of wins, but everything else about them is very different. And that one particular guild is dominating the top 5. The guild I don’t find so suspicious, I have a feeling getting 60+ points per win requires something of the guild itself. The same wins I only see as odd because I swear when I checked earlier this morning, these two STILL had the same wins. Hmm. Now I’m watching that.