New Stat: Points per Game = (Score-1000)/# Games

[Teutonics]

The Rank stat is good for overall standing, but can be a misleading indicator of an opponent's deadliness. The "point per game" stat would give a better indication of the player's deadliness by indicating the average number of points the player wins/loses per game. Here's an example of 5 different Captains, randomly picked (names omitted):

Player 1: 2385 Score, 692 Games, 60% Wins, Points per Game = 2.0
Player 2: 2362 Score, 760 Games, 68% Wins, Points per Game = 1.8
Player 3: 2341 Score, 466 Games, 74% Wins, Points per Game = 2.9
Player 4: 2171 Score, 1706 Games, 54% Wins, Points per Game = 0.7
Player 5: 2045 Score, 1072 Games, 54% Wins, Points per Game = 1.0

and a few other players, of lower ranks:

Player 6: 1812 Score, 1717 Games, 40% Wins, Points per Game = 0.5
Player 7: 1689 Score, 173 Games, 60% Wins, Points per Game = 4.0
Player 8: 1566 Score, 230 Games, 25% Wins, Points per Game = 2.5
Player 9: 1222 Score, 72 Games, 25% Wins, Points per Game = 3.1

During a game, wouldn't it be good to know the identities of your most lethal opponents?

[Edited to change the name of the stat]

[hecter]

Umm... No? The score is a good indication of your skill, that just tells you, well, nothing... I mean, somebody with a score of 5000 and is at the top of the scoreboard that has played 4000 games will have a skill of 1.0. Somebody with a score of 1200 and has played 50 games will have a skill of 4.0. That's just messed up. The 5000 point is obviously better but has just played lots of games so this skill stat is far more misleading than score.

[InkL0sed]

Umm... No? The score is a good indication of your skill, that just tells you, well, nothing... I mean, somebody with a score of 5000 and is at the top of the scoreboard that has played 4000 games will have a skill of 1.0. Somebody with a score of 1200 and has played 50 games will have a skill of 4.0. That's just messed up. The 5000 point is obviously better but has just played lots of games so this skill stat is far more misleading than score.

Yes, I agree... Just because you win fewer 8 player games does not make you less skilled than a person who wins more 3 player games.

[brandoncfi]

interesting but the only way to really know how good somebody is, is to break up their wins/loss into category like 1v1, 3 player 4player, ect. I think the types of games a person plays will have an effect on their score. Also higher ranks players are scared to play lower ranked players because of the points they will lose. Others (like tourney players) may be very good but play with cooks a lot so they lose a lot of there points

[brandoncfi]

Umm... No? The score is a good indication of your skill, that just tells you, well, nothing... I mean, somebody with a score of 5000 and is at the top of the scoreboard that has played 4000 games will have a skill of 1.0. Somebody with a score of 1200 and has played 50 games will have a skill of 4.0. That's just messed up. The 5000 point is obviously better but has just played lots of games so this skill stat is far more misleading than score.

Yes, I agree... Just because you win fewer 8 player games does not make you less skilled than a person who wins more 3 player games.

Agreed win % is only worthwhile if you break it down into specific types of games. Some people have a high win% but they only play 1v1 games so this does not mean a person who play 8player games but has a lower win % is any less skilled

[Teutonics]

Whoa.. Obviously "skill" was the wrong descriptive term. It hit a hot button. Call it something innocuous, non-controversial, such as "points per game"

But looking at the huge difference in the 5 captains, who would tend to play only those at their own level, I would personally want to know which of my opponents had the highest "points per game" stat.

[Teutonics]

Yes, I agree... Just because you win fewer 8 player games does not make you less skilled than a person who wins more 3 player games.

Assuming both players played against opponents of equal ranks, then the player who wins 1 out of 3 games in 3-player matches would have an exactly equal "points per game" score as the player who wins 1 out of 8 games in 8-player matches.

The "points per game" stat acts to equalize the points people win from games from 2-player matches with the 5-player matches, and the 8-player matches, and so on.

Are you saying that there is no difference between the deadliness of player 2 and player 3 in the example above? Player 2 has the higher score of 2362 and took 760 games to get it. Whereas player 3 is just slightly lower in score, at 2341, but only took 466 games to get it. It would be my belief that once player 3 plays another 300 games (to match player 2's total) that he will have a much higher rank than player 2's current rank.