Radar chart

[ffm2]

I made this radar chart for fun and wanted to share it.
Left is a early state of the game and right a late state.
E.g. at the top one can see who had the best eco score at min. 5 and where it progressed at min 14.

Just some weak opinions/ideas I'd also like to share:

The eco score are just the summed up gathered res.. I think one should also account and penalize a player having unused res.

The graphs currently in the game e.g. for military score undersell the early game. A like we have 2 players, one does a well performed rush the other booms and gets into the game late. The booming one gets more credit than the other. In this diagram it's normalized for the player with the highest score.

On local ratings: I read a bit into it and think of it a bit hard to understand. On the other side the results are also weird when looking at replay-pallas . The first idea for improvement that comes to my mind is to set a threshold for required of number of matches until it starts to show the results. #1 has 1 match, ValihrAnt is #79 and glancing over the list at any level raises doubts. I don't want to throw some shade so I wont mention (IMO) over rated players. A lot players other players seem to value it and use it for their pairing so there might be something I miss.

[alre]

23 minutes ago, ffm2 said:

I made this radar chart for fun and wanted to share it.
Left is a early state of the game and right a late state.
E.g. at the top one can see who had the best eco score at min. 5 and where it progressed at min 14.

Just some weak opinions/ideas I'd also like to share:

The eco score are just the summed up gathered res.. I think one should also account and penalize a player having unused res.

The graphs currently in the game e.g. for military score undersell the early game. A like we have 2 players, one does a well performed rush the other booms and gets into the game late. The booming one gets more credit than the other. In this diagram it's normalized for the player with the highest score.

On local ratings: I read a bit into it and think of it a bit hard to understand. On the other side the results are also weird when looking at replay-pallas . The first idea for improvement that comes to my mind is to set a threshold for required of number of matches until it starts to show the results. #1 has 1 match, ValihrAnt is #79 and glancing over the list at any level raises doubts. I don't want to throw some shade so I wont mention (IMO) over rated players. A lot players other players seem to value it and use it for their pairing so there might be something I miss.

- One can watch at the consumed total resources (in the game stats), which has been mentioned before to be a better eco performance proxy.

- Player ratings should only take account of game wins and losses IMO.

[ffm2]

I agree on both.

On resources used. I made 2 radar charts for the game I mentioned challenge-to-reach-100-pop in which Decger came out as a very good result. One can see that at min. 5 eco of resources used Decger has the highest value. In the chart that uses gathered res. Effervescent comes out on top (and Decger is only #3 although he later in the game sets this eco record of my data of 2150 games, better described in the link). Also pop here is unitsTrained, thats why not more players are at population maximum.

Edited November 9 by ffm2