win %

Matty doesn't have %'s...%'s have Matty.

31.6%

average 7.06 players per game

How do we work out the average opposition numbers without the obvious way of going through my game history for 12 hours?

You now have a Statistics link on your profile page.

It has every statistic of every game played, colour used, maps played etc etc.

Interesting reading!

Wow how long has that been there? Sorry to the programmers for not recognising their great work

You're okay Syg, it's only been there about 2 years.... kidding.
About 3 months or so I think?!

25% win
72% loss
3% no result
4.7 players per game

My top 10 Standings statistics are:

Destroying ngamoh 42 150
Destroying vodkamikebid 29 85
Destroying Spamfree 28 74
Destroying Hoodlum 21 73
Destroying Simeon 21 117
Destroying emjaydee 21 77
Conquering oliver 20 48
Conquering elysium5 18 68
Conquering Clarke 17 71
Conquering madmouser 15 23

Bottom 10:

Muzthebus Conquering 15 73
momagajic Conquering 13 95
slackbatter Conquering 12 66
zukov Conquering 8 14
mdotm Conquering 8 36
Riskoholic Conquering 7 11
nikeboix69 Conquering 7 109
Koprivica (banned) Conquering 6 8
Mayba Conquering 6 12
Stratosphere Conquering 6 78

but perhaps the most surprising/ satisfying stat is;
maafi is Tied Against Sygmassacre 0 292....easily my most played against opponent

played 36
won/lost 20/16 55.6%

Wow, 292 games and an exact split . Nice stats you have there.

And yeah, the statistics page is fairly new. I added it less than two months ago.

817 games played. 414 wins 403 loses.. 51%

Games Played 480
Games (Won / Lost) 218 / 262

Sygmassacre is Beating maafi 4 296
I've pulled ahead.....for now

the only stat that is missing and would be the best measure of a player is the average points per game stat
this would encompass all the factors ,such as # of players in the games,rank,and a few more ime sure...just cant think of um now
i know the programers are just sitting around just waiting for more dumb suggestions from guys like me and i am glad to help

I think the suggestion is smart. The parameter it would be pretty easy to be calculated, even if I don't remember how many points I started with. (?)

The only problem is if you know the average points per game of a player and you know how many games he played then it's pretty easy to derive how many points he has. It's true that every couple of months Vexer shows all the stats of every active players since I don't know if it is a real problem...

Anyway at some point your growth stops when you reach your maximum level and you are not able to rank up anymore. Starting from that moment your average points per game begins to get worse and worse. Paradoxally you should stop playing if you don't want to ruin your good stats.

At the opposite, as skill points are right now they (usually) always grow so that the most you play the most you get high. It is something that propel people to play more rather than suggest them to play less.

In a similar way you can get a similar parameter using skill points per game or let's multiply it by 100 so it is more readable (skill points per hundred of games). I suppose it is good as well to understand how strong a player is.

Doing some maths... I think You and Matty are the highest with more than 12 skill points per hundred of games. Well, and slackbatter is also impressive with 10. I sit at 7.6 but I am pretty satisfied considering there are high ranks that only have 4 or 5 skill points per hundred games played. I'm not sure it is an efficient parameter though.

What his Eminence sais, you earn more points if your opponents have more points than you.

So here ppl that just start (with low nr of games and thus a low nr of points) will get more points per game on average. So this will indeed make players like killrick and me look better than we are, as we have relatively little games.


Also, about the skill points, people that beat (good) players that don't play anymore have an advantage to new players that never played against them.