So why are people so serious about stat?

The only relevant stat is the number of games played. IC should just get rid of the wins and losses and stupid behavior like that along with them.

Dunno, with less than 50% games played you could tell this guy has a bad internet cable, no?

bad internet cable or bad temperspazm. he probly gets pissed easily and decides to take it on his router connection thus having lots of games with limited wins and barely a loss.

i say no to stats and have fun with the game instead of stress'n on stats. i actually played with few good players online like starhound expecting a good play out of them because of his/her stats being displayed. like everyone has said, donnot judge a person by his cover get to know them and leave it as is.

Maybe he lost 50 games also?

I wasn't even aware of that the game keept score on these things.

I'm a new player, and I prefer casual FFA - sometimes I leave a long game and just finish the save later (replacing Humans with AI), or just quit after an hour or two if it's already obvious what the outcome will be (not much point, just a grind...).

How will these things affect my wins/loss ratio, and does losing to an AI count as a loss (or even a game)?

*PS-Rant*

And why the hell doesn't "connection issue = loss", I was engaged more competively in Command and Conquer 3 and Age Of Empires 3 and they suffered from the same bullshit...

I'm willing to bet that 9 times out of 10 its deliberate, and even if it's not, the issue is a big inconvenience and the victim who's connection isn't actually broken deserves the win...

*PS*

Get rid of win loss stats altogther

replace it with Hours spent playing the game..

1-10 hours = ensign

11hours-100 hours = luitenant

101 hours - 500 hours = commander

This way if a noob wants to improve his ranking , quiting is the last thing he wants to do because he doesnt rake up the hours.

Also eliminates the problem of failed restart games giving ranks.

Sounds good. A lot better than meaningless numbers.

And how about...

500+ hours = Admiral

what if your a hard worker then what justifies the hours put in when if you have 1000 hours getting beat by someone with 20hours of gameplay? then that would really rank you as a super duuuuuuper n0000000ber right?

all of these are just there as braggin rights.. so its not really important.

"Get rid of win loss stats altogther

replace it with Hours spent playing the game.."

 

I don't know. THat might lead to people dragging out the games well after a winner is obvious, just to increase playing time. And we all know that can be annoying.

The only thing that getting rid of stats will do is not cause people to smurf (which I feel is quite ridiculous anyways).  People will still get angry when they lose and do things such as above.

I think stats can be helpful when trying to balance teams.  Because of smurfing, it's not always apparent who are the best players, especially when all I see are stats with more wins than losses.  But, still, it can be helpful.

u could always play AI and leave him with a planet. and make jump inhibators, a bunch of repair and your fleet. AI would never get a chance expand.  Guy would gain stats in hours.  Basically that idea would fail right?

How about count disconnect as lost.  Period.

Bad idea having the game count time. That rewards slower players more then fast players.

If player A can beat player C in 1 1/2 hours, but played B can only win in 3 hours, how is that better? Unless player A has a second game, player B appears to be better

how about this

each player gets two accounts only

1 for ladder

1 for casual play 

Ladder would be for ranking.

A system that tracks who you play with and against.

Stacked teams would barely gain experience while the reverse would mean huge gain in rank.

Disconnects would count as a lost.

You could even have different ranks for different types of game

Solo (random match making that would  try to even out the players skill lvls), Arranged Team (clans and friends who want to together), Random Team, ETC

i agree tough  disconnect shuld be counted as a loss

not sure,  imho displaying just the number of games played   and maybe a disconnect / crash  number is more then enough   i dont care playing vs high stat players or low stat players  becuase in the e nd it doesnt mean anything, i lost to a total new guy, and the game after that i won vs a player ranked x6 my amount of games played....

but for some apparent reason   alot of people who have high stats rly hate playing with low stat people.. i gues people who actualy draw lines between newb/pro and put emself in the pro side rly are full of themselves,  and i rly dont wanna play people that arrogant

"MOSt as in players i played  dont get any ideas if i didnt play with/vs you"

I think that people should be given a choice i actually belive that if the more experienced players set an example then we can make it so that we don't need anyone of these rules. In many cases your team abandons you mid game should that count as a loss for you?

I also think that the current system is good nothing we can do will prevent how importnat people think stats are that is purely subjective some people don't care who they play with and then there are "skilled servers" That as far as i seen judge purely on stats.

A new thing thats becoming very  annoying or something old thats gaining more popularity is smurfing basically people use stats to make teams but little do they know that the "noob" they are placing on one team is actually a smurf.

IN the end i don't think there is a good solution the only one possible is for people to gain some sense of decency and honesty but whens that gonna happen.

According to the OP's stats, there are 49 "missing" games, which means the guy he played "magically" gets disconnect when he loses (except for 1 loss) every time.

I like how Surpreme Commander does it: You can chose to play a rated or casual game; I played casual 90% of the time, if you play rated, you KNOW your going to get scored, and dissconnects are noted in your score.  So the guy above would have a 50% dissconnect rate on his score, and if you also notice he has a 99% win rate when there is no disconnect, then you know for sure it's someone to avoid. . .

It works pretty well, because somebody who happens to have "real" disconnects (because of a bug or tech problem) usually has about the same number of wins/loses reguardless, and/or they play casual because they know they have DC problems, and so don't have to worry about a DC on their score.

But this goes back the original topic why do stats really matter? many peoplel have 300+ games and still play like they just got the game.  But then again does any of this really matter just play the game and enjoy it for what it is ignore stats if you want, or don't ignore it really is subjective.

Unfortunately, Entrenchment beta players can get similar stats legitimately - I've only been playing compstomp games with 1-2 friends and my record is something along the lines of 20-6-0 (played-won-lost).  It's surprisingly difficult to finish a game without running into a disconnect/desync/complete-ICO-downtime. (unrelated: anyone else play entrenchment online? we'd like to play some actual MP sometime)

More on topic - if you don't care about stats, why would you care if the other guy plug pulls? Just pretend he forfeited normally, call it a win, and give yourself a pat on the back

So create a seperate account for entrenchment

e.g. instead of XXX, use a XXX_Entrenchment or something similar....

i resent this statement in total i have 300+ games but if i lose i dont quit i always surrender as do most of my friends if i just quit its because i have to go or it is not intentional <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> like my computer wigs out and i hit quit instead of surrender

but overall i hit surrender so my record is pretty solid but i have had many games where host left and game ended

and if you ignore records than you could end up on a bad team which has happened me where i have done more than my fair share getting 2v1ed with one bad ally and my last ally fighting for his life against the guy 2v1ing partial fleet and one other guy all decent players

so if you ignor records than you could end up with one of the many new players that have come along since sins has won stratgy game of the year

Ratio of disconnects should simply be made part of the score which is abstract. Wins/loss not even shown. The best systems for multi are always abstract and part of calculation includes how many started games are completed. Everyone even at high levels will occasionally have uncompleted games but once you get to that level people usually more serious and will stay to finish a game if disconnect count against them like even half a loss or less.

Smurfing will never go away... I know lot of good player who sometimes just want a relaxing game where they can play with half a mind and still stomp on other player. I played online multi since I was 10 years old and mid twenties now. Most games I can't go on and play with noobs even the very first game because most of the concepts of games are same; map control, take initative, dominate. Only things to learn from game to game are unit counters most of the time. I get insulted by noobs in very first game that I'm smurfing.

Experience matters- doesn't even have to be the same game always. In more complex games than most rock paper scissors like Age, SC, CoH etc which I hope Sins turns out to be it takes a bit longer to learn most efficent build paths and etc but I know what I am looking for whereas most player who only play casually a few different games go slow and explore all the options which is fine and they should be allowed to- just don't expect such player to ever compete on even playing field with people who play games a long time or like I did when I was a teenager I played new games 72 hours in a row sometimes.

I wish some developer would be brave enough to set up a system where player with many losses/low rank get compensated with higher resources or special units when played people of higher rank. Would keep game much more interesting and playing on servers longer. As it stands now most games outside of a few ultra popular ones have short multi life because the core pro gamer scare off the noobs and have only each other to play with and server get very empty.

Artificial solution, that can be abused easily. And its contrary; the worst you are (or you started on a fresh account), the more rewarded you are.. while being good and played for a long while makes you weaker..

How about changing nothing and learning for our own mistakes, and asking for advices, and getting more experienced?

Those "hardcore" gamers started as newbs too you know, and had to learn. If you want to be competitive in an online game you gotta work for it, not be given an unfair advantages cuz your new. Practice with friends or something..

IMHO, Stats are meaningless, and ppl worry too much about it, its fun to watch and brag in your own time.. but otherwise it serves no usefull purpose...

The current stat system is soft, it means nothing solid. Stats would matter only in a Big tournament and there are judges looking at it.

A proper ladder system or experience system would work better.

In Ladder, any disconnected game counts as a loss, with NO exp. I propose instead of tracking wins/losses, have a few EXP algorithms that determines an EXP gain depending on how good you are vs your opponents (according to their EXP). ANd the only way to actually gain EXP is to stay in the game, and even if you lose you gain exp but just not as much.

This would encourage people to play to the last second, or at least not care about the loss.

That sounds a lot like the way Warcraft III works, and it worked pretty well for them. Honestly though if ICO wants a quick fix, a disconnect should = a loss. I don't think they've addressed because it really doesn't matter that much, a disconnect by an opponent still = a win for you, right? Also, the earlier versions of the game were a bit buggy and disconnects, crashes and minidumps happened quite often, I'm sure ICO didn't want the backlash of angry players whose records were awful from no fault of their own. Either way, I'd rather play against someone with a bunch of losses on their record, it means they accept when they've been bested and will surrender, rather than pull the plug to avoid a blemish on their record. It kinda makes losses not so bad because there is something worse.

Also the current ranking system only seems to serve as a filter for players to choose who they play a game with, which is to say it's not entirely useless, but this also has it's own pros and cons.