Hi,

we all know it, the performance rank system which should be seen as a ranking system for an avatar performance. However I see some issues with actually making proper use of it in crowded lobbies, since the "Very Poor" ranking does get branded onto an avatar way too quickly in my opinion, making it very difficult to find the correct avatar to hide in such cases, since I have to manually look into each ones stats to figure out who is overdoing it.

I am specifically talking about the polygon limit in this case. The "70k eat or die very poor ranking" does not reflect if the avatar is actually bad for you or not. I will attach two screenshots, where you see one medium ranked and one very poor ranked avatars of mine with their stats, where you can see that the "very poor" avatar is less demanding on the GPU.

A possible solution for this topic for example could be, that you adjust the performance rating in a manner, where you do a "Combined polygon" count and a " allowed blendshaped polygons" one, since you already mention "Blendshape separation" in your optimization guides.

While I cant name exact numbers of course and one has to look into what is actually reasonable, one could for example do something like this (abs* = allowed blend shaped), again, I just throw in numbers as an example:

Excellent:

Polys: 32k

abs*: 32k

Good:

Polys: 70k

abs*: 35k

Medium:

Polys: 100k

abs*: 35k

Poor:

Polys: 200k

abs*: 40k

This adjustment would make the polygon category of the performance rank tiered like every other category already is.

Since this post ist already pretty long, I will write about another potential category as short as I can. Since avatar's texture qualities and sizes are increasing a ton, maybe adding a "VRAM Usage" category would be helpfull as well. The shown "Very poor" avatar is running at about 120MB with everything enabled, while I saw others with far more than 500MB. (Numbers again out of thrys evaluation tool)