There has been some complex discussion about deriving relative scores and while playing this evening, I thought of a possible solution.
If we want comparative scoring, then how about this:
We submit the usual time score, the average for each map is calculated and then a player's comparative score is the difference between their score and the average score, with an offset (+5,000?) so that no-one can score negative.
Tiresome to illustrate and I don't feel like writing the math, but perhaps do-able?
Then one can simply average out each player's comparative scores to derive the average comparative scores for a leader-board.
I agree completely. It is a lot like what I suggested here (http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=3496.msg15955#msg15955), only with the addition of the 5000 offset. It would still be possible to get a negative score though (i.e. when you score 2500 points for a map with an average of 8000, but that is very unlikely).
The weighted scores that Roccologic uses now are also very good; we should compare the two methods for a bunch of maps to find out which one is most fair.