Win Percentage
Viewing forum thread.
Back to Game Queries.
Back to Forum List.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
18:40 Thu 21 Sep 06 (BST) [Link]
Dont know if this has been suggested in the past 2-3 weeks. Anyway i was just wondering why the win percentage is not included within the top 50 ranked players section. It seems logical to view this as it would be quite nice to see who has the best win percentage out of them all.
Also another suggestion could be at the top of the page where the wins/losses/ranking again this only involves the top 50. Create a hyperlink, you then click on this and can view who is top by wins/losses/win percentage in the top 50.
Thanks
Kev.
Also another suggestion could be at the top of the page where the wins/losses/ranking again this only involves the top 50. Create a hyperlink, you then click on this and can view who is top by wins/losses/win percentage in the top 50.
Thanks
Kev.
18:53 Thu 21 Sep 06 (BST) [Link]
This has been mentioned a lot, and i wholeheartedly agree.
Win percentage is the only real indication of a players ability. Rank is very much easy come, easy go.
However, obviously, only players who have played over, say, 100 games should be included...
Win percentage is the only real indication of a players ability. Rank is very much easy come, easy go.
However, obviously, only players who have played over, say, 100 games should be included...
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
18:57 Thu 21 Sep 06 (BST) [Link]
It would encourage alot more multi-accounting. Its already a big problem of good players starting new account to rise fast. More would be bad news.
02:49 Fri 22 Sep 06 (BST) [Link]
you missed the point that this would only apply to those who had played more than 1000 games...
However, this re-raises another subject which is that i believe the "newbie" ststus should also have a time-limit, like 6 months, and newbies shoudln't be included in stat tables.
This would help eliminate the current trend to practice on one account then get another to build up stats.
A lot fewer people would bother if they knew that to be included they had to play for 6 months and 1000 games..
However, this re-raises another subject which is that i believe the "newbie" ststus should also have a time-limit, like 6 months, and newbies shoudln't be included in stat tables.
This would help eliminate the current trend to practice on one account then get another to build up stats.
A lot fewer people would bother if they knew that to be included they had to play for 6 months and 1000 games..
13:22 Fri 22 Sep 06 (BST) [Link]
oops sorry, my bad! Yep that was a typo!
However in my defence, look back to all the other threads about this and you will see i always say 1000...
However in my defence, look back to all the other threads about this and you will see i always say 1000...
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
20:24 Fri 22 Sep 06 (BST) [Link]
its cool man i believe you. I also think its quite a good idea, but to be honest is it worth the work?
***Glances at Nick.
***Glances at Nick.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
20:35 Fri 22 Sep 06 (BST) [Link]
Newbie status should remain the same. If there were to be a Win Percentages Table then players with over 1000-1500 should be the entry requirement (other than having a high win ratio)
Even so, i'd still feel hard done by being behind some1 who's got 76% with 1000 games played when i'm on over 17000 with 75%...my own fault for playin so many tho i guess
Even so, i'd still feel hard done by being behind some1 who's got 76% with 1000 games played when i'm on over 17000 with 75%...my own fault for playin so many tho i guess
Unable to post | |
---|---|
Reason: | You must log in before you can post |
Win Percentage
Back to Top of this Page
Back to Game Queries.
Back to Forum List.