Transparent Alliance Metrics

Idea/Suggestion

Make publicly available, retroactively if possible, the following information, in the Player Profile:
1. # of alliances player accepted, # alliances accepted/game (average)
2. # of alliances player broke, # alliances broken/game (average)
3. Name of player alliance was broken with.
4. # of alliances other players have broken with player
5. Names of players who broke alliances with player.

Bring the wolves.

Support, seems good. I hope admins implement more stats and forums changes in the future. Player profiles still seem kinda "incomplete" to me.

Eshkruar nga zombieyeti, 07.02.2014 at 12:34

Make publicly available, retroactively if possible, the following information, in the Player Profile:
1. # of alliances player accepted, # alliances accepted/game (average)
2. # of alliances player broke, # alliances broken/game (average)
3. Name of player alliance was broken with.
4. # of alliances other players have broken with player
5. Names of players who broke alliances with player.

Could be interesting! But names are not necessary, no need to point a finger at them.

Eshkruar nga VRIL, 07.02.2014 at 13:03

Eshkruar nga zombieyeti, 07.02.2014 at 12:34

<edited for readability>

Could be interesting! But names are not necessary, no need to point a finger at them.

The raw data (# alliances made, broken, and where other people broke alliances) averaged with # games played in the period the data was made is useful, absolutely.

I suppose names are not necessary, but they'd be easy to code for and would give the Alliance data more usefulness.
Is there a ToS/Rules/"bigger than my noob head can think of on my own" reason for eschewing names, assuming no additional burden to implement?

Eshkruar nga zombieyeti, 07.02.2014 at 13:19

Eshkruar nga VRIL, 07.02.2014 at 13:03

Eshkruar nga zombieyeti, 07.02.2014 at 12:34

<edited for readability>

Could be interesting! But names are not necessary, no need to point a finger at them.

The raw data (# alliances made, broken, and where other people broke alliances) averaged with # games played in the period the data was made is useful, absolutely.

I suppose names are not necessary, but they'd be easy to code for and would give the Alliance data more usefulness.
Is there a ToS/Rules/"bigger than my noob head can think of on my own" reason for eschewing names, assuming no additional burden to implement?

Trolls

If by 'trolls' you mean knowing who breaks alliances, and who alliances are broken with, I think that would be information that would be useful/reduce trolling, yes?

Eshkruar nga MarkedRyan, 07.02.2014 at 14:09

Eshkruar nga zombieyeti, 07.02.2014 at 13:19

Eshkruar nga VRIL, 07.02.2014 at 13:03

Eshkruar nga zombieyeti, 07.02.2014 at 12:34

<edited for readability>

Could be interesting! But names are not necessary, no need to point a finger at them.

The raw data (# alliances made, broken, and where other people broke alliances) averaged with # games played in the period the data was made is useful, absolutely.

I suppose names are not necessary, but they'd be easy to code for and would give the Alliance data more usefulness.
Is there a ToS/Rules/"bigger than my noob head can think of on my own" reason for eschewing names, assuming no additional burden to implement?

Trolls

What VRIL said. Support.

Support all except the ammount of alliances sent :s

Has data like that even been recorded? I hope not

I reckon it's good, though I think that having the names of players will be a bit overboard. This might discourage ally fags to ally fag. Also lower the amount of backstabbers.