[Community] SGRStats.com - Player rankings, achievements and more!

ya, ive been lurking for awhile, only a few posts so far, unfortunately ForeverZero was already taken on the forums so i had to default to a previous screen name, the really unfortunate part is the guy who got the name made the account 4 years ago and then hasn't used it . any moderator know if that account could get deleted for the inactivity so i could get that name and can match my ingame name? (doubt it but worth a try).

anyway, on topic, i agree that i have more than a little issue with the guys in the top 10-20 who dont even have 1000 kills yet, or have less then 20-30 hours played, i dont doubt that they may be good and should get the spot in time, but those of us with over 100 hours playtime have really worked for our rank and should have them till someone else proves over a period of time that they are in fact better and deserve it over us.

Edit: also on the rankings for top weapons, what exactly does the damage taken mean? how does a weapon take damage? i can understand for a turret but for the others... and how do turrets and poison clouds both have 0 damage given? speaking of damage given, is it possible to see the damage given and taken by each individual player?

Originally Posted by DarkRidley6

ya, ive been lurking for awhile, only a few posts so far, unfortunately ForeverZero was already taken on the forums so i had to default to a previous screen name, the really unfortunate part is the guy who got the name made the account 4 years ago and then hasn't used it . any moderator know if that account could get deleted for the inactivity so i could get that name and can match my ingame name? (doubt it but worth a try).

anyway, on topic, i agree that i have more than a little issue with the guys in the top 10-20 who dont even have 1000 kills yet, or have less then 20-30 hours played, i dont doubt that they may be good and should get the spot in time, but those of us with over 100 hours playtime have really worked for our rank and should have them till someone else proves over a period of time that they are in fact better and deserve it over us.

Edit: also on the rankings for top weapons, what exactly does the damage taken mean? how does a weapon take damage? i can understand for a turret but for the others... and how do turrets and poison clouds both have 0 damage given? speaking of damage given, is it possible to see the damage given and taken by each individual player?

agreed, I was 29 and now i'm 155, i think the EXP ranking system is better, or some kind of combination of how much EXP you have and K/D ... like first it looks at your K/D and then if you have varying ranges of EXP you are placed. like 0-10000 lowest 10001-20000 another ... etc

When you all come up with a formula which all agree that is fair, I will review it and make the appropriate change.

Switching to K/D probably was a bad idea, but I don't want to change it every day so I will wait until you (we) could up with a fair way to rank players

Oh and the damage taken thing is the opposite of the damage given.

Damage given = how much damage was done to other players (and I guess) objects (turrets, etc.) by this weapon

Damage taken = how much damage other players received by this weapon (excluding objects)

If you think it's only confusing people, I can remove it.

P.S. #1 If I'm wrong about anything regarding the stats, I would be happy if a dev team member could correct me.

P.S. #2 Maybe we could set a date for an "IRC meeting" where we could talk in real time about ranking issue and which formula would be the appropriate?

Well. I couldn't even find myself in the ranking list Sad bunny.

KDR & hit ratio are probably the truest benchmarks of how good a player is. Perhaps the way to go is simply to rank everyone by a stat that we can all agree means nothing, like time played or name. And just let people sort by which stat they consider most important.

Here's a pie in the sky idea: Allow people to reset their stats to 0 if they choose, or to set a "stopwatch" stat recorder to see how they do in one or more individual matches. Often times people will pick up a new game and suck at it until they get the hang of it, and still more time will pass before they get decent. The more time they spend as a "noob" the more their overall ranking will be affected by the time they spent learning the game.

Originally Posted by DeliveryKing

KDR & hit ratio are probably the truest benchmarks of how good a player is. Perhaps the way to go is simply to rank everyone by a stat that we can all agree means nothing, like time played or name. And just let people sort by which stat they consider most important.

Here's a pie in the sky idea: Allow people to reset their stats to 0 if they choose, or to set a "stopwatch" stat recorder to see how they do in one or more individual matches. Often times people will pick up a new game and suck at it until they get the hang of it, and still more time will pass before they get decent. The more time they spend as a "noob" the more their overall ranking will be affected by the time they spent learning the game.

This feature is kinda related to my long term ticket named "player history" (would be tied to player's personal profile and only visible to him).

Can't promise anything about "when" though.

Oh, while it's true that is impossible to make everyone happy and agree on the same formula, but we need to come up with something, because the players need to be ranked and sorted by some value by default (although displaying players in random order would probably be fun ).

Originally Posted by DeliveryKing

KDR & hit ratio are probably the truest benchmarks of how good a player is. Perhaps the way to go is simply to rank everyone by a stat that we can all agree means nothing, like time played or name. And just let people sort by which stat they consider most important.

Here's a pie in the sky idea: Allow people to reset their stats to 0 if they choose, or to set a "stopwatch" stat recorder to see how they do in one or more individual matches. Often times people will pick up a new game and suck at it until they get the hang of it, and still more time will pass before they get decent. The more time they spend as a "noob" the more their overall ranking will be affected by the time they spent learning the game.

i disagree witht he hit ratio... because in this game as soldier you spend half of your time spraying into corners... because of this i have over 180,000 shots

I had a short talk with my friend and we both came to the conclusion that using the experience point would be the best value to rank and sort players by default.

That fact is that all the users will never agree on something and you can always sort the table by whatever value you want.

In the future, rank will be automatically adjusted to the value you are currently sorting on and this should make everyone happy.

Originally Posted by zainea13

i disagree witht he hit ratio... because in this game as soldier you spend half of your time spraying into corners... because of this i have over 180,000 shots

Good point, classically I suppose those two stats would be the best benchmark but this game does throw alot of curve balls. Tough call.

Originally Posted by KamiSLO

Oh and the damage taken thing is the opposite of the damage given.

Damage given = how much damage was done to other players (and I guess) objects (turrets, etc.) by this weapon

Damage taken = how much damage other players received by this weapon (excluding objects)

If you think it's only confusing people, I can remove it.

P.S. #1 If I'm wrong about anything regarding the stats, I would be happy if a dev team member could correct me.

P.S. #2 Maybe we could set a date for an "IRC meeting" where we could talk in real time about ranking issue and which formula would be the appropriate?

i have noticed that the damage taken for the P90, the Dessert Eagle, and the Claymore is greater than the damage given, is this a bug? or just because not every player has a linked account? personally i feel that having both stats is more confusing than anything, other stats that could, and i think should be added for the weapons are shots fired, hits, and the accuracy rate.
looking at the map rankings, the wins a losses should be the exact same (same as the number of game as well), im not sure how this data is acquired, but you could display number of wins based on faction to give a comparison, this would also match up with the galactic domination in game

Also, shouldn't damage given by a weapon be the same as damage recieved by a weapon? I mean, if there were only two players in the whole game, ForeverZero above me and I ... I deal him 25 damage with the P90... then he would recieve 25 damage from the P90 ... so they should equal each other

Originally Posted by zainea13

Also, shouldn't damage given by a weapon be the same as damage recieved by a weapon? I mean, if there were only two players in the whole game, ForeverZero above me and I ... I deal him 25 damage with the P90... then he would recieve 25 damage from the P90 ... so they should equal each other

this is true, but you have to consider that not every player in the game has a linked account on sgrstats, most of the people who have linked their accounts are likely to be higher level players therefore dealing more damage then they take, its the same as i mentioned for the wins and losses on the maps rankings

This are the values I get and sadly I can't tell why some of the values look a bit strange and don't add up (I also I don't know why same values are zero - for example headshots count for Ashrak and Jaffa class).

I only added them for the sake of completeness, but I will remove confusing values like "damage taken" on the weapons page soon.

I also didn't get any input from the dev team so for the most of the stuff I can only guess why it is like this.

Originally Posted by DarkRidley6

i got to be honest, im not a fan of having the rankings be based on K/D ratio, several of the previous top ten, all of whom i considered to be quite good, have now dropped considerably, look at Dr_Jackson was 4th is now 133rd. Also, there are a few people now ranked quite high who have very a low number of total kills and few hours played. personally i think the overall ranks should be based on multiple stats so that is reflects a players overall performance. example equation for this could be combining the two for: (experience * K/D ratio), then the people who have alot of exp, do really know the game very well, and preform very well are ranked high, maybe even divide this total by hours played, so that players who gain exp faster (by doing well in games you do get more exp, there is also a bonus for winning the match, im working of the exact equation) get ranked a higher. however it is done i think the overall ranking should be based on multiple stats to better indicate overall performance.

And just before anyone starts to say im only complaining because i lost a bunch of ranks with this switch, i was 12th using exp i am now 15th with K/D ratio, im one of the 8 people in the old top 20 who is also in the new top 20, more than half cant say the same, which is very significant, this is indication that neither method is good for an overall ranking.

When i first suggested this i was going off the assumtion that time played and EXP were very closely linked. However when i compared the two tables it's obvious that they aren't as linked as i thought. For example Rivalen is 10th but 30th on play time, with TheMadDoctor jumping from 11th to 33rd.

I'm now starting to work on creating a formula to hopefully rank players based on skill. I will post all results and calculations up here/ in a new thread so that the whole community will hopefully get a say in what we, as a community, define as the skill level so to speak.

Currently i'm using a variation of the formula Dr_Jackson suggested (time * k/d) only with EXP instead of time. Only problem is that excel won't accept the bloody product key so i'm having to do it on paper

Sorry for the downtime (my email box got bombarded with offline alerts ).

It was a server issue which should now be fixed.

SGRStats is an awesome site, and I am very thankful for the work gone into it!

I do have a query though. I note on the player rankings page (top player), when sorting by time played (highest to lowest), the 5th person on the list has played 221hrs but only has 5132 experience points? Is this a bug or is it real?

It seems a bit bogus to me?

Thank you

Hm, that seems a bit odd, indeed.

As far as I know you get kicked from the server if you are idle more then X minutes, so "just leaving the game running" probably can't be the reason for 221 hours of play time.

Two minor updates.

Recently online users are shown on the index page and now you can easily share your player stats via Twitter / Facebook.

Thanks for all your efforts Kami, much appreciated.

Just wondering if you plan to make a player ranking system based on class. So who is the #1 Ashrak, Sci, Jaffa etc.

Would be good to have, and perhaps will allow people to keep an eye out for the #1's in the game and aim for them a bit more

Yep, a lot more is planned and on my to-do.

But, because I have other things to work on as well, probably most of the "big" stuff won't be available before the end of April.

Cool...!
Ty kami...

Signature template voting and competition is now over and that means that I need a new question for the poll on the website.

Any suggestions?

How about: "What would you most like to do to Gary Whiting?"

Do you think cheating in SG:R is possible?!

...should be interesting poll...

I don't know black the only people i found so far that believe peole have cheated are idiots that can't take being killed or don't understand the mechanics and Baconsquad. I simply don't think it has a big enough player base to be worth hacking.