It really depends on the game.
Aquatuca has one player over 400, so, 400 is good enough for the top spot.
Some games of high skill and no luck have people rated 950 or even occasionally 1000.
Terraforming Mars has a LOT of players, and so 350 would be nowhere near the top. When I was 540ish (I might never reach that again sadly), I was amazed how many pages I had to scroll just to find my name.
In Spades, 272 Elo has me in the top 75, but in Hearts, 272 would have me 536th. I had thought Spades was more popular than Hearts, but I guess not.
AT Pente, my 415 has me 12th on the site, but in Azul, Race for the Galaxy, Splendor, my 300+ Elo has me buried behind probably thousands of players. (And rightly so, because I struggle a lot against anyone rated over 400 in those games.)
And even if your profile shows you as being "top ___", that still doesn't answer the question of percentile, which I think is what people are more likely to care about. And that is difficult to determine unless you are okay with scrolling through endless pages of ranked players, which only displays 10 at a time.
Knowing you are 132nd all time means nothing without knowing how many total ranked players there are.
In Aquatica, I was curious how many ranked players there were, so I clicked, and clicked, and clicked..... 230 clicks until I got to page 230 of the rankings, which means 2300 unique players.
And only 5100 games have been played total, which means more than half those players only played 1 game. And it means the 30th place person overall, or 40th overall isn't really truly in the top 1%.... not if you restrict it to "players who have actually played mor than 5 games". Then, the person in 30th or 40th might not even be in the top 10%.
For a game that has had a tremendous number of games played, there might be tens of thousands of unique players in the rankings.
I think I once scrolled far enough along in the Terraforming Mars rankings to definitely conclude that 560 would put one in the top fraction of the top 1%. But I have no idea what fraction of the top 1%, because there could have been thousands more ranked players after I stopped clicking. I saw that 575 would put a person in, let's say 114th place. For that to be top 1%, there would need to be 11400 ranked players. And there are. But there might be a lot more, who knows.
I wish there were more stats. "Total number of ranked players", and "percentile rank" for each game. And, "percentile rank among players who have played more than x games." And, "total number of players who have played more than x games".
Speaking of Rankings! ThothTheRaven's TFM rating is so far off the charts, the gap between 1st and 2nd place is greater than the gap between 2nd and FIFTIETH place.
Well done; that is true mastery of a game that is difficult to control all the variables in
