# Mythic Keystone Profile Confusion

Hiya,

I’m playing around with the Mythic Keystone Profile endpoint, and am a bit confused as to how it’s working out the overall rating.

I’m currently querying a player, gylanna, on argent dawn EU.

There’s 2 mythic + runs there (Plaguefall 11, which earned 108 rating, and Necrotic Wake 10, which earned 102 rating). However, at the end under the “current_mythic_rating” key, it lists the rating as 315. Not sure how it’s managing to work that number out, as since there’s only 2 runs which add up to 210 rating, it’s a little confusing.

Has anyone else figured this out yet?

Thanks!

Rating appears to be MAX(F, T) + AVG(F, T) for each dungeon. So a Fortified with 100, and a Tyrannical scoring 80 is MAX(100, 80) + AVG(100, 80) => 100 + 90 => 190.

In your example, as there’s no second dungeon, it’s effectively 1.5 times the run score. (108 + 54 => 162) + (102 + 51 => 153) = 315.

Now, the underlying score may be a float, as raider io reports these scores as decimals, which may be a recalculation on their side, but the web API simply returns an integer. With the ints and the overall rating at the root of the mythic node, there’s no specific need to calculate the overall rating in most cases.

As far as I know it’s actually, for each dungeon, (\$higherScore * 1.5) + (\$lowerScore * 0.5). In the example, (108 * 1.5 = 162) + (102 * 1.5 = 153) = 315 total. Not exactly the most intuitive system ever.

Mathematically, what you’re describing is the exact same thing as I was describing. I went with the way I described it as most languages have functions for returning the maximum value of an array of numbers, and one for returning the average value of an array of numbers.

If I had actually stopped and thought about it, AVG(a, b) => ((a + b) / 2) => ((a * 0.5) + (b * 0.5)) and ends up giving the exact same result. Neat, and sorry!

Hey, no worries. My initial understanding of things was based off the Wowhead guide on S6 scoring, which uses score values that are 50% higher than they should be, as they worked backwards from the rating to try and derive the run score, so then the rating is MAX(F, T) + MIN(F, T)/3, which is more awkward to work with. Then I saw someone else mention this simpler method, which aligns with the in-game/API run scores, and everything is just tidier.

1 Like