Forum
Advisor Blog
Reviews
Strategies
Ideas
stat I would like to see added
|
raor wrote
at 3:04 PM, Saturday February 24, 2007 EST
Sorry if I'm not the first to request this. I would like to see, in the player's profile, a stat to reflect how often that player has had good or bad rolls. The good roll stat would measure the number of times that player won as an underdog (e.g. player defends with 5 dice versus 6 dice). The bad roll stat would measure the number of times that player lost with an advantage in number of dice.
I believe this would put some more oomph behind a player's rating. For instance, two players with similar ratings could also compare their relative good/bad roll stats to determine who is the better player. After all, a true measure of skill is not just how often a player finishes well; but also what that player overcame to obtain the good finish. Let me know what you think .... |
« First
‹ Previous
Replies 11 - 15 of 15
|
Kehm wrote
at 9:39 AM, Sunday February 25, 2007 EST Truly the reply of ignorance. Thanks for proving No_wolf, Steve and I right.
|
|
Grunvagrr wrote
at 11:26 AM, Sunday February 25, 2007 EST I understand the desire for a luck-meter, but the suggestion that two players with the same rating (for example 1700) and then assuming that player A is better than player B because player B has had WAY better luck than player A (thus A has had to 'work' harder to attain the same 1700 rating) is a flawed way to look at things, solely
Because there is another crucial factor which is to say the level of opposition in Elo. If a player only ever plays vs higher ranked Elo opposition then they risk losing fewer points and have the chance to win more, whereas the reverse goes for playing vs lesser ranked opposition. Thus someone with bad luck can still get a great rating if they are a good player tactically and only ever play vs higher ranked people. I dunno, just stating a luck-o-meter would be interesting, yes. But my point is this - it's not the only factor in determining 'skill' |
|
|
raor wrote
at 12:43 PM, Sunday February 25, 2007 EST Kehm, first off, please take a nap, whack off, do something ... you have some serious stress issues. Second off, re-read your own post. A single player's INDIVIDUAL stats will only NECESSARILY approach 50/50 as the total rolls approach inifinity. We have resets, players don't play 100% of every waking moment, some players only get 10-15 rolls per game, etc, etc. Therefore, for any individual segment of statistics - while the odds are that it will be 50/50 - it is not the case that the stats WILL be 50/50.
Grunvagrr: in no way was I implying that luck was the only factor in a higher rating. Personally, I think it is only a lesser factor - but I will not suggest that it is not a factor. My point is, if tracking such a stat is not programatically difficult to implement, then why not track it? It does determine who has a higher rating to a degree and there is interest in seeing the stat monitored (talk to ppl in game about it, I have). |
|
JKD wrote
at 2:45 PM, Sunday February 25, 2007 EST If you've played 200 games your luck in your first 100+ games has barely any effect on your current rating. So this luck stat cannot accurately use luck from every game as an indicator of skill.
If there's an end game report I'd like to see it like console multiplayer fps's such as Goldeneye. "Most deadly" et cetera. |
|
|
Kehm wrote
at 3:28 PM, Sunday February 25, 2007 EST Dear Raor,
First, please know that I've never been stressed in my life, ever. If anything, the lack of it has caused me issues, not the opposite. Secondly, you only need to approach infity if you want to have the absolute odds. But every time an event occurs, you will get closer and closer to the absolute odds. Therefor, after a good few games played, everyone will have about the same stats. What you are suggesting will work for a few games, but in the end, if you actually play the game, the stats will become meaningless. Truly yours, in all civility, Kehm. |
