I agree KDicefreak but then Ryan would have to remove Awesomeness! from all the rankings because that would be impossible to do and it would be cheating

this is exactly why people despise u kdicetwat!

u are the least funny guy here and ur pressence here is bad for the game...

this was a decent proposal and u have to be a complete cum-rag...

do me a favour and dont post on threads i create cecause i dont want to read your drivel!

your suggestion makes no sense at all.....

you are trying to trun a performance statistics to something that is corelated with the number of games you play....the more you play, the higher the change you'll be on top......

what's wrong with an inactive player who gets lucky and be #1 on the chart? what's wrong with that? you think it's not fair because you played more games but a tad less luck than the chap at #1 and you think you should be there.

you are not proposing to make things more fair.

you are proposing to make things to your benefit.

it's nothing but a selfish proposal.

dude, all this is about is a luck stat!

the fucking guy in 1st luckiest has played 6games and aint played since the 13th jan...

hes clearly inactive so what the point? hes obviously played the game, dint like it so he quit! get him off the stats page...

and how the fuck am i being selfish, if u look at my luck, i am not the luckiest nor the unluckiest, my proposal was genuine and think its better than how it stands at the minute...maybe my idea needs work with figures but srsly, stop slamming all my comments and being a complete arsehole man eh?!

do something useful with ya time...play the game, learn the game, get better at the game, get laid...just do something for fucks sake!

kdicefreak i dunno what's wrong with awesomeness! proposal to put a minimum # of games to be played before your average luck% can count for the ranking. In fact the more games everyone plays, the more the luck% should all evolve towards 50% i guess so there is no real advantage in playing more games. There is only an advantage now, when you haven't played much but by chance your luck is very low or very high. The more he will play, the more his luck will even out.

So in short, I also think it is more relevant to compare each others luck% when sample size (#games) is big enough. No-one gets an advantage by doing so, we just get rid of the disadvantage for players who play regularily.

PS: just a sidenote since we are discussing ranks: Leekstep is still leader at biggest point gain but why isn't his name showing up on biggest point drop??? (he lost like 220000 points in 1 second) 8-D

awes i have a hunch he will stalk you posts from now on man ;-) you really shouldn't get pissed off so easily, some people thrive on that enjoyment

im not pissed, what annoys the fuck outa me is when he fuck my threads up when i have came up with a decent propasal...FACT IS...hes a prick who does nothing but kisses ryan ass and get up my fucking nose!

he only posts to get one up on me...cos i had a go at him for hijacking threads...guess what, hes done i a-fucking-gain

Awesomeness! you have done nothing but showed us that 1) you are not open to others opinion, it's either your way or no way 2) you are capable of a decent discussion without calling people names

if you are lucky in the 6 games that you player, then so be it, include them in the leaderboard. at least the person have played this month. i can understand if you want to exclude someone who hasn't played in 6 months.

spend some time learning to be more open to others' opinion without getting all bent out of shape.

i'll do at least one thing that will make you happy. i will never respond to your posts. you are not worth my time.

jurgen - you are right that the expected value of that luck % is 50%. so what's the point of comparing that % when the sample size is huge? it's going to move towards 50% anyway......i just don't understand.

the way it is now is fine - not taking into account the # of games you played.

ouch!

have u actually looked at the leaderboard FREAK?

if u do, u will see that the luck is 62% after 6 games...how is a player how plays regularly gona top that?

its a pointless stat if its dominated by a guy who

1) dont play
and 2) has a ridiculous luck factor

if this guys plays regularly and has 200 games under his belt and a luck factor of 62% then fine keep it...no quarms!

this is genuine the basis for a good idea and i see no flaws init, ur just being argumentative...