Conquer Club

I love all the stats Gameknot puts on my page. It lists my rating (score), my percentile (a horrible 20%), games won, games lost, draws, and total games.

In addition, I have games in progress, my mini-tournament points, my team rating (how cool would a clan rating be?), my rating floor, timeouts, average time per move, longest winning streak, and longest losing streak (10 - ouch!)

I have my games won/lost/drawn/moves made broken down for all games, team games, playing as white, and playing as black.

Then, I have my ratings for the past 90 days, year, and all rated games: Average chess rating, highest chess rating, lowest chess rating, average opponent rating, highest rating won against, lowest rating lost against, and average moves per game, along with arrows that show if those stats are increasing or decreasing.

They're certainly incentive for improvement!

And then there's a pie chart for wins, losses, and draws, and a line graph that plots my own rating over the past year and my opponents' average rating.

Granted, my stats are pretty awful, but they're still nice to have. =)

i think it is a great idea!

betiko wrote:

maxfaraday wrote:I'll support this suggestion if you put the lowest score as well.

you must have a very impressive low score max after your christmas tilt!
yes, I think no one is against low score + medium/median score as well.

Funky, where else would you want it to be? the profile is where you can see all statistics from a player, and if you're facing someone and you want to see quickly this information, there is no place else that could be more convenient. high/median/low is part of the profile of a player.

I'm just not seeing the highest/lowest being any value other than flash, there being so many ways to artificially alter these two(battle royales, point dumps, etc.). Median I can see as being potentially useful as it gives a much more accurate impression of the overall skill of a player in respect the their entire cc career but the other two I still think are more or less useless.

so basically what you're saying is that if you're facing a caporal; it's irrelevant information for you to know that this guy is a former brig or that caporal is actually his best rank ever?

macbone wrote:I love all the stats Gameknot puts on my page. It lists my rating (score), my percentile (a horrible 20%), games won, games lost, draws, and total games.

In addition, I have games in progress, my mini-tournament points, my team rating (how cool would a clan rating be?), my rating floor, timeouts, average time per move, longest winning streak, and longest losing streak (10 - ouch!)

I have my games won/lost/drawn/moves made broken down for all games, team games, playing as white, and playing as black.

Then, I have my ratings for the past 90 days, year, and all rated games: Average chess rating, highest chess rating, lowest chess rating, average opponent rating, highest rating won against, lowest rating lost against, and average moves per game, along with arrows that show if those stats are increasing or decreasing.

They're certainly incentive for improvement!

And then there's a pie chart for wins, losses, and draws, and a line graph that plots my own rating over the past year and my opponents' average rating.

Granted, my stats are pretty awful, but they're still nice to have. =)

Sent you a friend request on GameKnot!

Also, the rating graph might be the best thing ever. Whenever I go into a losing streak, being painfully reminded of that in graph form is a serious motivation to stop sucking.

betiko wrote:so basically what you're saying is that if you're facing a caporal; it's irrelevant information for you to know that this guy is a former brig or that caporal is actually his best rank ever?

Yes, because he/she could have become brig from some sort of artificial means so it doesn't actually show you anything concrete. Besides, if you're facing a Corporal and his/her median score is above or below Corporal that's going to tell you what you really need to know right?

So, everyone likes this except Funky?

chapcrap wrote:So, everyone likes this except Funky?

Everyone who bothered to post in this thread, yeah looks that way.
Although, this has sort of turned into a suggestion for lowest, highest and mean rank, the last of which I think may have some use.

Funkyterrance wrote:

chapcrap wrote:So, everyone likes this except Funky?

Everyone who bothered to post in this thread, yeah looks that way.
Although, this has sort of turned into a suggestion for lowest, highest and mean rank, the last of which I think may have some use.

I think the real point of this is to brag and remember good times, not demean and remember bad times. So, I think the lowest is probably a bad idea.

As for mean, I don't remember reading that, but I believe it's in there. I'm not sure how that would work. Average score at midnight since the day you joined? Average score after each game finished? That's a little more hazy and probably a lot more harder to code than the highest score.

Either way, I'm going to sticky this thread for a bit.

The low and high score should at least be possible to a user to check it somewhere in the site, without needing to use maprank
Not necessarly in the profile, but in the scoreboard for ex.

chapcrap wrote:I think the real point of this is to brag and remember good times...

Precisely why I've been more or less anti from the beginning.

Funkyterrance wrote:

chapcrap wrote:I think the real point of this is to brag and remember good times...

Precisely why I've been more or less anti from the beginning.

funky is a non bragger....shun him!

ooooo I got a good idea! what if the lowest score was your lowest score after a month of play. That would be pretty fair. People learn after a month and usually have a score that represents some sort o skill and learning. or a long/shorter time. the lowest score ever would be kind of dumb if your lowest score is 950 after you lost 3 games when you joined and knew nothing.

Mean score isnt a bad idea just a lot harder to code id bet.

using bob after a month my score was 1500. How much I learned as a noob and where I was at score wise.
Mean after 3-4 years is around colonel I think..so 2500-3000
High is 4000

I think we should just stick with the Highest attained Rank/Score

Jdsizzleslice wrote:I think we should just stick with the Highest attained Rank/Score

well if we did this that would be great I was just trying to appeal to funky a bit. im OK with anything as are, im guessing, most people. I am actually surprised this website doesn't do it. almost every video game/ online game ever shows a high score.

lack doesn't play video games though

jsnyder748 wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:I think we should just stick with the Highest attained Rank/Score

well if we did this that would be great I was just trying to appeal to funky a bit. im OK with anything as are, im guessing, most people. I am actually surprised this website doesn't do it. almost every video game/ online game ever shows a high score.

Exactly.

There should be in fact "Show detailed statistics" of an user, where everything is listed, for start it is ok to write only highest rank/score, but there should be also lowest rank/score, graph of gaining medals over time, graph of played games over time etc... but I know I'm asking too much

dakky21 wrote:There should be in fact "Show detailed statistics" of an user, where everything is listed, for start it is ok to write only highest rank/score, but there should be also lowest rank/score, graph of gaining medals over time, graph of played games over time etc... but I know I'm asking too much

I don't know that you're asking too much. I don't think I really want the lowest score, personally, but I don't care that much.

I don't know about the graphs. What are you envisioning the axes being? Time (in days, months?) or based on games played vs medals and scores, etc.?

chapcrap wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

chapcrap wrote:So, everyone likes this except Funky?

Everyone who bothered to post in this thread, yeah looks that way.
Although, this has sort of turned into a suggestion for lowest, highest and mean rank, the last of which I think may have some use.

I think the real point of this is to brag and remember good times, not demean and remember bad times. So, I think the lowest is probably a bad idea.

As for mean, I don't remember reading that, but I believe it's in there. I'm not sure how that would work. Average score at midnight since the day you joined? Average score after each game finished? That's a little more hazy and probably a lot more harder to code than the highest score.

Either way, I'm going to sticky this thread for a bit.

I would be slightly interested to see my lowest score. I was a cook once upon a time, you know!

I really, really like the way redhotpawn.com shows you the user statistic. It shows games played, highest/average/lowest rating for each of 90 day/1 year/5 year periods. The current rating only tells part of the story. Maybe the person has been playing particularly well lately. Maybe he's been playing poorly. Maybe he's been having bad luck. Maybe good. Or maybe he's been medal hunting. Or trying to see how high he can get his rank.

Related: Win Streak Medal and stats - Highest score and Rank

I don't have any problem with highest score, and I think funky makes a good point that mean score would be something that would actually provide meaningful information. Once we get beyond high score though, I don't think that it's a great idea to continue adding to the profile. The profile currently shows a few things about you including your achievements such as medals and your current score. I think a player's highest score is as important an achievement as the medals that they've won and have no problem with that being on the profile page. So, I am in support of this suggestion.

I would love a User Stats page that has a lot of the stuff maprank has on it, but I don't see that happening nearly as quickly as just adding high score to the profiles.

agentcom wrote:....I think a player's highest score is as important an achievement as the medals that they've won and have no problem with that being on the profile page. So, I am in support of this suggestion.

I would love a User Stats page that has a lot of the stuff maprank has on it, but I don't see that happening nearly as quickly as just adding high score to the profiles.

this

It would also be useful for a few other circumstances.

If I see a Private who once was a Brigadier, I will think differently than if I see a Private who only ever made Corporal. It could be that the cook just lucked out, went up a bunch by, say, playing an unusual map a lot when folks did not understand it yet. However, a cook who used to be a Brigadier might also be a farmer or otherwise attempting to "game the system". OR, conversely, it might be a good player that went down trying to learn a new map/style