Queen_Herpes wrote:I like the idea of auto-displaying each member's highest point total and highest rank held. This helps to show that the player (at some point) was really "good" or perhaps they have been consistently "bad." (good and bad in quotes on purpose.) This would help players to know that the player has potential (or not.)
This I always agreed with, I thought it would be neat to see everyone's highest rank/score held. I just don't like the fact of weighing in your highest score into points.
I will argue in the future to support weighing in the highest score/rank into points. For now, I'm happy to just see everyone's highest rank and highest points. Should a separate thread be created, or do you think the OP would be willing to amend the sug to simply show everyone's highest rank and highest score? (assuming the database carries such information on the backside...)
qwert had a thread that had support, but slowly lost interest. Maybe bringing that back up out of the depths?
Given CC now shows the point range, can we revive this archived discussion about showing a moving average or mean or median ranking ?
Pretty please?
mybad wrote:it would also be kind of like a badge for shitty cooks, like me. I could be like "hey I was a sergeant for 20 minutes once". then 10% less people on this site could laugh at me and order sandwiches.
Fewnix wrote:I like the idea. If you look at the score graph provided by BoB, you can get a rough idea of the range of scores and the progress of the players ranking, with highs and lows. So you have a rough sense of how a player ranks over the long term or in the recent period. A moving average or mean or median ranking might be doable in some hard number format.
For example, the graphical score for a player shows a range between a low of 1300 and a high of 1800 in the last hundred or so games. Is this a player who, "on average", is a career officer, ranked over 1600 . with had a few bad streaks or, is this someone who at least half the time was stuck in the ranks, below 4010 and had a couple of "lucky "streaks to bring the occasional 1700 to 1800 score?
There are three ways to calculate the "average" for a range like this:
1) add the lowest score, 1300, and the highest score, 1800, and divide by 2 =1550. 2) add up all the scores and divide by the total number of games. 3) Rank the scores from lowest to highest and identify the score that is the mid point.
Variations that might be doable and desirable might be to post both the "average" ranking over the last 10 games and the last 100 games.That should give a reasonably "true" ranking with good and bad streaks identified
I like where you're going with this. a more comprehensive stats system, instead of treating points like a wallet balance.
The point to my suggestion is because I want more activity for the site. more games. if I gave a shit about score I'd play for score instead of fun and be an elitist nerd like Mr. Adams. I just think it's more fair for everybody if #1 - people weren't threatened with the prospect of large point losses for playing new or low-ranked players, and #2 - we had a better idea of a player's actual stats, instead of simply how many points we stand to gain or lose pending elimination.
