litehoof wrote:
We can make the statistics more meaningful by win vs #games in the last 100 days or some interval like that. I remembered it took me quite a few games to start winning.
Yeah, but, stats are mostly for interest sake and fun. I don't agree with more meaningful. I realize the solution to that is to make even more stats, and that is ok, and can be fun.
Examples where the logic breaks down.... One obvious one is there are those who play 1 on 1 in BM or the other games, where, they may indeed cream the other guy more often than not. However, there are others who play solely or mostly in multi player games, and for those, they won't win as often no matter how good they are.
In WS&IM, most of my wins are 1 V 1. In BM, 95% or more of my game are > 2 players. I am definitely a better player in WS&IM than BM, but, I know the BM stats are understated as well.
After all, they are just stats!
One thing I don't like about the current ones is at least for WS&IM, you have more than 30 players now with 100% win ratio. Sure, I could create a new user and win the first 5 games, and show up as 100% winner. But it is very misleading. I would suggest changing those to require at least a certain number of games to make them more useful. Plenty of very very good players are not even on the first screen any more due to all the 100%. |
Donate
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
