Game Statistics

[R.theghost]

Please remove stat bar, it takes away the cerebral aspect of the game and part of the fun was making mistakes and having others make mistakes (e.g. missing a bonus).

yea, its really fun when OTHERS make mistakes and dont break our bonus

btw we dont need a brain to count... we need fingers

pork 'n - you don't need bob to see who's winning -it's obvious.

If these guys can have more armies and actually sell it yo a 12 yr old ,that they have less, then I'm gobsmacked ,and frankly don't feel that any strategy was lost Just that the lies, that certain people,God bless them, tell, they really think that's strategy, and some people actually fall for it!
Just Wow! an double Wow! I really didnt think there was these people. Well have had an educatiinn (tks tgt)

Teks all sotts i gess - just fucking wow!

its just a surprise the amount of people like that there is :S

[the.killing.44]

Please remove stat bar, it takes away the cerebral aspect of the game and part of the fun was making mistakes and having others make mistakes (e.g. missing a bonus).

BOB! 100 times, BOB!

[nippersean]

Please remove stat bar, it takes away the cerebral aspect of the game and part of the fun was making mistakes and having others make mistakes (e.g. missing a bonus).

Why don't you just play someone that can count and have a proper game...too much of a struggle..?
I guess you being able to go 1,2,3 is too much of an advantage to give up.....

[spiesr]

As a solution, I think that the counter should be made a game option. Obviously, some enjoy it. And obvioulsy, some do not enjoy it. Making it an option would allow those who like the counter to play with it, and those who don't like the counter to play without it.

If such a game option existed would it then be illegal to use outside scripts and such to obtain the same information? Because without such a rule it would kind of defeat the point of that game option. And if there was such a rule how would you propose it would be enforced? This is one reason it can't really be a game option.

[Bruceswar]

Bruce, you've argued against this addition for about 10 different reasons now. If there was something specific that you didn't like you would be fine by now because all of the previous points you made have been addressed. Now it seems that you just want to continue arguing. If you want to help improve a feature of the site that is fine, but arguing for the sake of it is not very productive. I understand that you don't appreciate the addition and that's okay - lack will never be able to please every user perfectly, but he does listen to input and that is the reason behind the "Game Layout Discussion" in the general forum.

Sully that last statement was not my mine, I was just translating it so the poster above could understand. Having the stats available to all is nice, but some of us just do not want it on the screen. Like I said before if we could just have the option to disable it, I would be happy and those who liked it could keep it. I do not like it being in my face, and having to scroll. I said that 5 times over. Anyhow this is getting nowhere so carry on....

[sully800]

As a solution, I think that the counter should be made a game option. Obviously, some enjoy it. And obvioulsy, some do not enjoy it. Making it an option would allow those who like the counter to play with it, and those who don't like the counter to play without it.

If such a game option existed would it then be illegal to use outside scripts and such to obtain the same information? Because without such a rule it would kind of defeat the point of that game option. And if there was such a rule how would you propose it would be enforced? This is one reason it can't really be a game option.

That's one of the problems with not including the script on the site - you can't say that users can't use greasemonkey or any other automated counting method, because the information is readily available for everyone to use and access in this manner.

[niMic]

My monitor is big enough that I can see both the stats and the large map, but I still think it looks bad.

Also, the new clock is not an improvement.

how big is your monitor lmao?!?! Mines 23" and I still got scroll tonnes

Monitor size is irrelevant. What's your resolution set at? It looks great on 1440x900.

Who the hell runs a monitor at that size? Really? I know people who still use 800 x 600... Many monitors stop at 1280 x 1024... Lots of scrolling ... it burns my eyes.

I'm running at 1920x1200 at the moment

(24'' LCD monitor)

[Avenger95050]

I posted my opposition to game stats because it rewards the lazy, that was before I knew about BOB. Since then, I have voted in the poll to keep game stats as is, it only seems fair, but I still hate socialism.

The most unfair addition lately has been the reserved option. That option allows the "golden ones" to reserve a spot in games for their multies. I've been giving serious consideration to asking for a refund of my free membership.

[VectorxMan]

when there is a fog of war game the regions shown next to a person should reflect how many are adjacent to your territories, and in effect how many you can actually see. sure there is the part where a player can go into the game log to recount and reconstruct the previous player's turn; but let that be something for other people to figure out.

im not sure if this has been suggested considering there are 24 pages on this thread .

[drunkmonkey]

when there is a fog of war game the regions shown next to a person should reflect how many are adjacent to your territories, and in effect how many you can actually see. sure there is the part where a player can go into the game log to recount and reconstruct the previous player's turn; but let that be something for other people to figure out.

im not sure if this has been suggested considering there are 24 pages on this thread .

Yes, several times. I don't see how the "busy work" of counting through the game log is any different than the "busy work" of counting on the map. Good players do it, lazy players don't. If your "strategy" is to play on the lazy players' weaknesses, you've got more than this update to worry about.

[AndyDufresne]

As a solution, I think that the counter should be made a game option. Obviously, some enjoy it. And obvioulsy, some do not enjoy it. Making it an option would allow those who like the counter to play with it, and those who don't like the counter to play without it.

If such a game option existed would it then be illegal to use outside scripts and such to obtain the same information? Because without such a rule it would kind of defeat the point of that game option. And if there was such a rule how would you propose it would be enforced? This is one reason it can't really be a game option.

That's one of the problems with not including the script on the site - you can't say that users can't use greasemonkey or any other automated counting method, because the information is readily available for everyone to use and access in this manner.

Right, it would be extremely difficult to limit any usercreated plugins/addons/scripts --- and it would be a losing battle to probably even try. As I mentioned in a Suggestions topic a couple of weeks ago --- the real aim instead of outlawing and trying to clamp down on plugins (impossible), is to add more features to the website that those plugins have, thus bringing the playing field back to some equality.

I think it is almost always better to try to pull yourself up, than to try ineffectively bring others down.

We've appreciated all the feedback that has come---both in this topic, and in other topics in the GD/Suggestions forums. We'll see what Lack can do!


--Andy

[JoshyBoy]

I actually have faith in TeamCC

I'm sure that lack and the guys will do the right thing.

[VectorxMan]

when there is a fog of war game the regions shown next to a person should reflect how many are adjacent to your territories, and in effect how many you can actually see. sure there is the part where a player can go into the game log to recount and reconstruct the previous player's turn; but let that be something for other people to figure out.

im not sure if this has been suggested considering there are 24 pages on this thread .

Yes, several times. I don't see how the "busy work" of counting through the game log is any different than the "busy work" of counting on the map. Good players do it, lazy players don't. If your "strategy" is to play on the lazy players' weaknesses, you've got more than this update to worry about.

the point of fog of war is fighting your enemy blindfolded. that kind of information should not be readily available in this type of game. the whole idea of risk games is to analyze the map and make decisions based on what you see, not to have VIP information handed to you on a silver platter and highlighting who is the ideal player to hit.

all in all i liked it better when the only information shown was the number of cards

[drunkmonkey]

when there is a fog of war game the regions shown next to a person should reflect how many are adjacent to your territories, and in effect how many you can actually see. sure there is the part where a player can go into the game log to recount and reconstruct the previous player's turn; but let that be something for other people to figure out.

im not sure if this has been suggested considering there are 24 pages on this thread .

Yes, several times. I don't see how the "busy work" of counting through the game log is any different than the "busy work" of counting on the map. Good players do it, lazy players don't. If your "strategy" is to play on the lazy players' weaknesses, you've got more than this update to worry about.

the point of fog of war is fighting your enemy blindfolded. that kind of information should not be readily available in this type of game. the whole idea of risk games is to analyze the map and make decisions based on what you see, not to have VIP information handed to you on a silver platter and highlighting who is the ideal player to hit.

all in all i liked it better when the only information shown was the number of cards

It's not VIP information. It's always been there. Everyone here can read and add. Instead of looking at the game log and seeing "drunkmonkey received 3 troops for 9 regions / drunkmonkey assaulted ?", you can now see "drunkmonkey - 10 regions" in a different spot.

As I've said many times, if your strategy was playing people who don't take the time to read or add for themselves, you've got more to worry about than this update.

[R.theghost]

when there is a fog of war game the regions shown next to a person should reflect how many are adjacent to your territories, and in effect how many you can actually see. sure there is the part where a player can go into the game log to recount and reconstruct the previous player's turn; but let that be something for other people to figure out.

im not sure if this has been suggested considering there are 24 pages on this thread .

Yes, several times. I don't see how the "busy work" of counting through the game log is any different than the "busy work" of counting on the map. Good players do it, lazy players don't. If your "strategy" is to play on the lazy players' weaknesses, you've got more than this update to worry about.

the point of fog of war is fighting your enemy blindfolded. that kind of information should not be readily available in this type of game. the whole idea of risk games is to analyze the map and make decisions based on what you see, not to have VIP information handed to you on a silver platter and highlighting who is the ideal player to hit.

all in all i liked it better when the only information shown was the number of cards

????
actually the point of for of war is not knowing WHICH territories the enemy has not how many...

[Mr_Adams]

Don't know if anybody has mentioned this yet, but the seperations you put inbetween the statistics also makes it clear who your target is in an assassins game. Bonus! =)
Kudos

[lostatlimbo]

I very much dislike this "improvement" for many reasons stated, but mostly because I find it disingenuous to the nature of the game. Its already making me lazier. Gold Knight says it best:

This almost makes it kind of boring to look to a screen on the right and basically have the game summed up for me...

To the posters who keep making cracks about "playing 6 year olds" or "preying on weaker opponents", don't be absurd. I play plenty of intelligent players here who know how the game works and how best to employ a strategy, but everyone makes mistakes sometimes - myself included. That's the dynamic, organic nature of this game that makes it so fun. That's how you get your foot back in a game you thought was well lost or lose a game you thought was in the bag.

I find this addition is just too black and white - it lays everything out on the table for all to see. It feels too automated. Why not just add a computer strategy option next? You can click a button that calculates your best odds for attack and won't even have to come up with your own gameplan!!!

At the very least this should be an OPTION, not a default. I don't care who does or doesn't have BOB - don't force this down our throats, just let it be a Game setting.

To its credit, the stat bar does make it much much easier to scan through tournament games when you're a director. So there's value there - but that's an area I think could use improvement anyway - better tools for tournament directors.

[spiesr]

So, is your issue that you have the info, or the your opponent has it? If it is that you have it then I agree that the option to turn it off from your profile would be just fine and probably a decent idea. If your issue is that your opponent has it on the other hand, well then that is another deal. And it can't really be turned off as a game type as it is too easy to get a script or anything which would then be cheating I suppose, and nearly unenforceable...

[zgubbins]

Great stuff,keep the upgrades coming... I like!!!!

[Pat]

i read the first six pages and gave up so i hope im not repeating something previously said.

in fog games:
1.the stats give the number of territories an opponent has (something that cannot be seen just by looking at the map, but can only be read in the log)

2.the stats give a "?" for the amount of armies opponents have, and still show "?" when a player can see an opponents armies that are adjacent (something that can be seen by looking at the map, but not in the log).

why would you not include, in the stats, the amount of armies an opponent has when those armies are visible on the map? if you're going to include stats that can be counted, like territories, why not show all stats that can be counted, such as the total amount of opponent armies adjacent to your territories.

BOB calculates this, i know that, but if you are trying to improve the site and game, why not include these stats?

[Mr_Adams]

so army numbers would be >x
where x= the total number of armies on all territories you can see combine?

[Pat]

so army numbers would be >x
where x= the total number of armies on all territories you can see combine?

exactly. total number of armies per opponent. X1, X2, X3...

to me it just doesn't make sense why some stats, that are only visible in the log, are known, but stats that are visible just by looking at the map, aren't.

you could even go further and argue that neutrals should also be calculated. although they are not active players, they still function as an opponent (for example, you attack them, and you can lose armies when attacking).

its a pretty small thing, but none the less it would make the changes more complete.

[drunkmonkey]

so army numbers would be >x
where x= the total number of armies on all territories you can see combine?

exactly. total number of armies per opponent. X1, X2, X3...

to me it just doesn't make sense why some stats, that are only visible in the log, are known, but stats that are visible just by looking at the map, aren't.

you could even go further and argue that neutrals should also be calculated. although they are not active players, they still function as an opponent (for example, you attack them, and you can lose armies when attacking).

its a pretty small thing, but none the less it would make the changes more complete.

I don't see how those stats would be useful. Knowing how many territories your opponent has in a fog game can come in very handy. Knowing that he has "at least 11 troops" doesn't help much. Neutral totals don't really matter either. You don't gain anything by wiping them out. You only need to know how many lie between you and your opponent, which a program can't tell you, unless it's going to start planning out "best path" scenarios (which would be infringing on strategy).

[Pat]

I don't see how those stats would be useful. Knowing how many territories your opponent has in a fog game can come in very handy. Knowing that he has "at least 11 troops" doesn't help much. Neutral totals don't really matter either. You don't gain anything by wiping them out. You only need to know how many lie between you and your opponent, which a program can't tell you, unless it's going to start planning out "best path" scenarios (which would be infringing on strategy).

1. usefulness is subjective. i can easily argue that the number of territories in the stats is useless information (because it can be found in the log, why bother having a stat for it?). regardless, whether it is useful or not isn't really the issue. The issue is to provide statistics.

2. you do gain something from taking out neutrals. example: feudal war, Treasures Of Galapagos... etc. you don;t necessarily gain anything from knowing how many there are,i know it sounds unimportant, but regardless of its importance... if you want to have statistics of 'information already provided' (whether it is in the log, or on the map), include everything, not just a portion of it.

[Pat]

and to add on that, it could help someone if the statistics generated the number of territories neutrals held. if i should, for whatever reason, wanted to know how many territories neutrals held on a fog game, i should be able to. if the number of territories held by opponents is made available, why shouldn't neutrals?