|
Post by CmonYouSpurs on Jan 25, 2006 23:19:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by WAR on Jan 25, 2006 23:46:52 GMT
I play for double's...i like the challenge of attempting making two pucks at once.
|
|
|
Post by Autumn Bound on Jan 26, 2006 2:06:50 GMT
so's my shirt lol I would be more impressed at those who had their original stats acheiveing it rather than those who restart new accounts as an experienced player already of course their stats are going to better (well except me of course but I am an exception when it comes to couronne) Its not luck, well sometimes, but I know people who can get 4 or 5 doubles a game everytime. And if your good enough why not display your talents? I wouldn't want my stats to inaccurately display my skill level...
|
|
jguest
Almost a Player
Posts: 9
|
Post by jguest on Jan 26, 2006 2:34:35 GMT
I think Kerrie has a fair point Dawood - although in some sense you are right that starting over gives a more accurate picture of your stats - i think thats only if you view your stats as a snapshot of how you are playing at that moment. If you keep your stats from the beginning it offers alot more information about the player, including how they have progressed and how long (how many games) it has taken them relative to other players. In some sense the most accurate stats would include all your stats from when you first started playing.
Of course if you are using stats to compare players to other players it is ultimately useless because some people have kept their stats from the beginning and some have reset several times over - as such it is like comparing apples to oranges.
I think, though, in terms of reading skill level from a person's stats I would ultimately tend to agree with you - the person who resets their account will likely provide a clearer picture of how they are playing at that moment (although I think you need to have played some critical mass of games before even that holds true - say 200 games maybe?)
|
|
|
Post by Autumn Bound on Jan 26, 2006 2:52:52 GMT
I think Kerrie has a fair point Dawood - although in some sense you are right that starting over gives a more accurate picture of your stats - i think thats only if you view your stats as a snapshot of how you are playing at that moment. If you keep your stats from the beginning it offers alot more information about the player, including how they have progressed and how long (how many games) it has taken them relative to other players. In some sense the most accurate stats would include all your stats from when you first started playing. Of course if you are using stats to compare players to other players it is ultimately useless because some people have kept their stats from the beginning and some have reset several times over - as such it is like comparing apples to oranges. I think, though, in terms of reading skill level from a person's stats I would ultimately tend to agree with you - the person who resets their account will likely provide a clearer picture of how they are playing at that moment (although I think you need to have played some critical mass of games before even that holds true - say 200 games maybe?) I agree. It does show a more clear progression, but we need to determine what a good player is, is it developed over time, or how your playing at a certain time. So I suppose it is left to interpretation. The whole idea is somewhat blurry and confusing though.
|
|
|
Post by specialk on Jan 26, 2006 9:22:58 GMT
I think Kerrie has a fair point Dawood - although in some sense you are right that starting over gives a more accurate picture of your stats - i think thats only if you view your stats as a snapshot of how you are playing at that moment. If you keep your stats from the beginning it offers alot more information about the player, including how they have progressed and how long (how many games) it has taken them relative to other players. In some sense the most accurate stats would include all your stats from when you first started playing. Of course if you are using stats to compare players to other players it is ultimately useless because some people have kept their stats from the beginning and some have reset several times over - as such it is like comparing apples to oranges. I think, though, in terms of reading skill level from a person's stats I would ultimately tend to agree with you - the person who resets their account will likely provide a clearer picture of how they are playing at that moment (although I think you need to have played some critical mass of games before even that holds true - say 200 games maybe?) Hi jess nice to see you and would you be my lawyer should I ever need one?
|
|
|
Post by specialk on Jan 26, 2006 9:28:13 GMT
If you take out those who walk push stat fix started over many many times etc etc etc then there really is not very much left to compare atall. Otherwise newbies would not beat 3 golds or those lovely diamond players ever.
A beginner at most other games would just never stand a chance of a win. So I agree its like apples and oranges - maybe what you can measure is a level of consistency which might indicate the perfection of things such as trick shots past that I hope we never have a discussion as to who is the best at couronne as its for me not an answerable question.
|
|
|
Post by gigaloreloaded on Jan 26, 2006 9:35:37 GMT
i start over not for an improvment in stats but because i get bored of staying on 3 golds thers hardly nething to play for.now thers diamonds and i cant be bothered about that.so ill just keep starting over. yes i agree stats over a longer period shows a clearer progression of a player since he/she started.but most diamonds and quite a few 3 golds have not attained there stars by playing well but by stat fixing.so on mini there is nothing like showing the progression,rather u get to know the gd players by playing them one on one wether they hav diamonds or no stars at all.
|
|
|
Post by happy on Jan 26, 2006 9:37:32 GMT
I think, that those couronneplayers with a good stat, more doubles then games, beginners or consistent players or those that are good and started new accounts, should be treated in a good way. And I also think they should have a bigger salary then those who play badly, however good they chat, never mind the doubles. Furthermore, the good players should have a tax reduction. And more beatiful partners. And the right to stat fix. These are just my thoughts though. But at least Im honest...
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 26, 2006 9:39:52 GMT
I often find that reading stats before playing someone has a detrimental effect, as some players with really good stats play, (for whatever reason) not as well as others who have poor stats, but are far better at a tactical game. I have also noticed that a number of players who I would class as being very good.. tend to play only good players and therefore the stats will reflect this.. while others will mostly play guests and will have a far better set of stats.. I myself dont have a good ratio with either doubles nor clean sweeps, but believe I can play the better players without disgracing myself.. there are many more like me. There is yet another breed of VERY good players who simply enjoy getting doubles.. clean sweeps.. and making 'trick shots' work. These are great to watch and play against.. yet they often have poor % as they care more for the 'shots' than they do for winning the game. In essence, what I'm saying is.. that there is no formula by which any of us can say this player is better than that one purely on the stats that they show.. I have also played some very entertaining players, who either because of the chat or because they can really play well...but have no interest in scores nor stats at all, that I would rather play.. than one or two who have great stats but little flair nor personality.. Well.. thats my view and I am pleased to say that I know the members here know that everyone is entitled to their own views and we accept others views with grace..
|
|
|
Post by happy on Jan 26, 2006 9:43:11 GMT
I often find that reading stats before playing someone has a detrimental effect, as some players with really good stats play, (for whatever reason) not as well as others who have poor stats, but are far better at a tactical game. I have also noticed that a number of players who I would class as being very good.. tend to play only good players and therefore the stats will reflect this.. while others will mostly play guests and will have a far better set of stats.. I myself dont have a good ratio with either doubles nor clean sweeps, but believe I can play the better players without disgracing myself.. there are many more like me. There is yet another breed of VERY good players who simply enjoy getting doubles.. clean sweeps.. and making 'trick shots' work. These are great to watch and play against.. yet they often have poor % as they care more for the 'shots' than they do for winning the game. In essence, what I'm saying is.. that there is no formula by which any of us can say this player is better than that one purely on the stats that they show.. I have also played some very entertaining players, who either because of the chat or because they can really play well...but have no interest in scores nor stats at all, that I would rather play.. than one or two who have great stats but little flair nor personality.. Well.. thats my view and I am pleased to say that I know the members here know that everyone is entitled to their own views and we accept others views with grace.. I allso agree on this one.
|
|
|
Post by specialk on Jan 26, 2006 9:43:41 GMT
I often find that reading stats before playing someone has a detrimental effect, as some players with really good stats play, (for whatever reason) not as well as others who have poor stats, but are far better at a tactical game. I have also noticed that a number of players who I would class as being very good.. tend to play only good players and therefore the stats will reflect this.. while others will mostly play guests and will have a far better set of stats.. I myself dont have a good ratio with either doubles nor clean sweeps, but believe I can play the better players without disgracing myself.. there are many more like me. There is yet another breed of VERY good players who simply enjoy getting doubles.. clean sweeps.. and making 'trick shots' work. These are great to watch and play against.. yet they often have poor % as they care more for the 'shots' than they do for winning the game. In essence, what I'm saying is.. that there is no formula by which any of us can say this player is better than that one purely on the stats that they show.. I have also played some very entertaining players, who either because of the chat or because they can really play well...but have no interest in scores nor stats at all, that I would rather play.. than one or two who have great stats but little flair nor personality.. Well.. thats my view and I am pleased to say that I know the members here know that everyone is entitled to their own views and we accept others views with grace.. exactly
|
|