swilhelm73
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
|
 Posted:
Feb 09, 2004 - 04:03 |
 
|
You can currently sort players by active, dead, retired, etc in the stat section.
I'd like to suggest another option, call it say inactive. After a certain amount of time without the player's team playing a game, say a month, the player goes off the active list and onto the inactive list. This will fix the, admittedly minor, issue where a stat leader may not have played in months, or conceivably years. |
|
|
Azurus
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 09, 2004 - 04:18 |
|
Can't say I like this idea. It simply seems like a way to take more of the good players out of the stats for no reason at all (hence making it easier to get your own players in). A player's achievement don't disappear because he goes on holiday.
It might be good if the player who has, for example, 'most TDs this month' got recognised, since this wouldn't detract from any other player's achievements while allowing the rising stars to be recognised. (Which I think was the point of swilhelm's post, if not then just ignore me). |
|
|
ClayInfinity
Joined: Aug 15, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 09, 2004 - 05:17 |
|
Records are records and if some zombie has taken 7 interceptions in his career but his team has retired, then there is no reason to reset the records...
(I have no idea if a Zombie has ever taken 7 interceptions, but thats not my point...) |
|
|
cataphract
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 09, 2004 - 05:23 |
|
I don't think swilhelm is talking about resetting the records but instead adding another filter... i for one think an active filter would be a good idea |
_________________
"the eunuch should not take pride in its chastity" |
|
bonefaith
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 09, 2004 - 05:32 |
|
would be nice have a weekly and a monthly record or a record based on average ( because one with good average but few game shouldn't feel lesser then one with 200 games and one complete or td a game ) |
|
|
swilhelm73
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 09, 2004 - 06:53 |
|
Cataphract is correct. As I specifically mentioned I'm asking for another classification in addition to the current ones for the stat screen, certainly not purging of records or something extreme like that.
Basically, when you go looking through stats it is a bit annoying to see player X with a certain record who hasn't played since september. It isn't a major issue, no. But it would be nice to see who the best truly "active" player is. Just as dead/retired players aren't removed from stats just because they are dead/retired "inactive" players would not be either.
However, just as it is nice to be able to confine your search to to only include the living, it would also be nice *to be able to* confine your search to the currently still (really) playing. |
|
|
Aequitas
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 09, 2004 - 07:32 |
|
I kinda like it how it is. Not really a fan of the active/inactive idea. As Azurus said, it's an easier method of getting your player in the top 10, etc. It really is satisfying creating a player and playing long enough to see him overcome legendary veterans who's time is long gone. I know it doesn't technically interfere with it, but more players would be checking out the Active list to see if they can get in it. For instance, Enjoyment may forever be the all time blocker, but in the active list, you'll see some silly wannabe reigning the top spot, someone Enjoyment would have easily slaughtered in his time. And switching back to top 10 all time, this player may not even be on the list. 
Unless there is some sort of massive demand for this feature, I hope Christer and Klipp keep it the way it is. |
|
|
swilhelm73
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 09, 2004 - 08:12 |
|
| Aequitas wrote: | | It really is satisfying creating a player and playing long enough to see him overcome legendary veterans who's time is long gone. I know it doesn't technically interfere with it, but more players would be checking out the Active list to see if they can get in it. For instance, Enjoyment may forever be the all time blocker, but in the active list, you'll see some silly wannabe reigning the top spot, someone Enjoyment would have easily slaughtered in his time. And switching back to top 10 all time, this player may not even be on the list. |
I don't see how this is any different from the current "Active" versus "All" sorting option, to whit;
All:
1 Enjoyment 224
2 Lightning Roots 155
3 Kabusch Ratfriend 132
4 Helium 131
5 Pikachu 128
6 Snotte 119
7 Pikachu the Immortal 116
8 Grot Teef 113
9 M'horg "The Unstopable" 106
10 Ogram 98
Active:
1 Lightning Roots 155
2 Kabusch Ratfriend 132
3 Helium 131
4 M'horg "The Unstopable" 106
5 Ogram 98
6 Homer Wiesenfeller 83
7 Solaris 80
8 Crete 77
9 Bolog 73
10 BOMBA ROCCHICCIOLI 70
Amusingly, the current "active" number two hasn't played since 2003-07-14, long before the changes to WA and Piling On.
Why shouldn't there be, *the option*, of a way to sort for the real active top ten list where, for example, Helium who scored 6 CAS just a couple days ago would be number two?
Further, if we look just at Rat Ogres,
1 Kabusch Ratfriend 132
2 Homer Wiesenfeller 83
3 Boggle 61
4 Fleshtearer 59
5 Rocket Ronnie 43
6 Smelly 37
7 Skar 37
8 Ratto the smelly rodent 37
9 Stone Eaters 36
10 Vrash the Vermin 36
We have to get all the way to number four to find someone who has played this calendar year. It is certainly possible that Kabusch Ratfriend will be the number one "active" Rat Ogre forever on FUMBBL thanks to some rule changes and a coach who has possibly moved on.
To get back to the big picture, I don't see why giving the FUMBBL stat hounds more tools and more accurate information is a bad thing if the work needed for it is not a significant problem.
With my proposal Kabusch Ratfriend would perhaps be the top living Rat Ogre forever on FUMBBL, and would be listed as such...but when searching for who the top active Rat Ogre is - a coach would actually get the top Active Rat Ogre. |
|
|
Perox
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 09, 2004 - 09:13 |
|
| Azurus wrote: | | It might be good if the player who has, for example, 'most TDs this month' got recognised, since this wouldn't detract from any other player's achievements while allowing the rising stars to be recognised. (Which I think was the point of swilhelm's post, if not then just ignore me). |
I like this idea of a monthly list. That way you will not have to play 100+ matches to get your players name mentioned...
Perox. |
|
|
cataphract
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 09, 2004 - 09:16 |
|
Why not have a top ten list and a hall of fame list?
because I'm sure that people view the list for 2 reasons.
1. WHo is the best all time whatever
2. Who is the best whatever out there now
whilst the player may be alive it doesn't mean they are active |
_________________
"the eunuch should not take pride in its chastity" |
|
SnakeSanders
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 09, 2004 - 10:57 |
|
hmm... here is another suggestion (altho it may sound silly) there could be another stat which shows spp's per game (where you have to have over 100 SPP's to get onto the list) eg an ogre who got 120 SPP's in 6 games would have a value of 20/120 showing that he averaged 20 SPP's a game and had 120 SPP's in total! this may seem a little silly to you but i think it is kinda cool and would show the most prolific scorers, most insane blockers and so on...what are other peoples thoughts on this? |
|
|
|
|
Gnomes are trash
Search
