Accounts

[Esthlos]

This is the flaw: "he may be a mild cheater, or just an unlucky player."

We know that on average fair players don't cheat. We also know that cheaters cheat more or less. Since we can't identify cheater with current architecture, that means that the score will represent not the cheat-attempts count, but a "was seen around a cheater" count. Now we can't base any sort of ban actions around that.

Yet we know that cheaters will be "seen around a cheater" way more often than non-cheaters, and this data can be safely used.
Comparing the "was seen around a cheater" count of the average player, which we can assume to not be a cheater, with that of any player can be safely used as statistical evidence for that player's honesty evaluation - the larger the difference, the more often and the more likely is that player to have cheated.

[Krom]

Honestly, I can imagine outraged players when they get these kinds of notifications from us:

"Dear player, we are banning your account. There are no proofs that you are a cheater, but our statistics distribution of your presence in games hints that you are at 87%. Sorry and farewell"

[Esthlos]

Honestly, I can imagine outraged players when they get these kinds of notifications from us:

"Dear player, we are banning your account. There are no proofs that you are a cheater, but our statistics distribution of your presence in games hints that you are at 87%. Sorry and farewell"

That player can rage as much as s/he wants, but if there's a cheater in the 87% of his/her games* then s/he is the one cheating.

The chance that s/he's been playing mostly with cheaters without being one and without playing with always the same few players that also happen to be the cheaters is very low, low enough to justify those very few innocent but incredibly unlucky players that may get banned along with the real cheaters.
This is, of course, if they can live long enough for this to happen without being struck and killed by an asteroid in the meanwhile, given their luck...

*(actually it would be more than the 87%, in case the average player meets a cheater in more than the 0% of his/her games)

[sado1]

Just make a decision to never implement statistics and finish this pointless discussion Who needs stats anyway, and for what purpose... also, what is exactly the point of statistics when TS players will still be the best players around (pretty much no matter what happens...), and we won't play random games just to boost our scores, because
1) we will keep playing TS games only, as it happens nowadays, cause games with randoms are waste of time for most of TS guys
2) anyone decent enough to beat random noobs will get overpowered scores, and to beat randoms, you don't even need to be good... some people that beat randoms all the time, are not even near TS level, yet they still win over randoms
So in the end, top players list will be exactly like with top maps list... so what that Cursed is most played map in Remake currently, when it's campy crap (and the word "crap" describes pretty well top few maps on the list, including Frozen Waters by myself)? It doesn't mean it's the best map that exists.* I guess that uselessness could be avoided a bit, if for the statistics, actual city stats would matter - like, how good economy/army/etc. a player has? Then, maaaybe the statistics would make some sense...


*treat it just as an example, of course my point of view is biased cause I'm not a random, so I hate maps that they play on.

[Esthlos]

Just make a decision to never implement statistics and finish this pointless discussion Who needs stats anyway, and for what purpose... also, what is exactly the point of statistics when TS players will still be the best players around (pretty much no matter what happens...), and we won't play random games just to boost our scores, because
1) we will keep playing TS games only, as it happens nowadays, cause games with randoms are waste of time for most of TS guys
2) anyone decent enough to beat random noobs will get overpowered scores, and to beat randoms, you don't even need to be good... some people that beat randoms all the time, are not even near TS level, yet they still win over randoms
So in the end, top players list will be exactly like with top maps list... so what that Cursed is most played map in Remake currently, when it's campy crap (and the word "crap" describes pretty well top few maps on the list, including Frozen Waters by myself)? It doesn't mean it's the best map that exists.* I guess that uselessness could be avoided a bit, if for the statistics, actual city stats would matter - like, how good economy/army/etc. a player has? Then, maaaybe the statistics would make some sense...


*treat it just as an example, of course my point of view is biased cause I'm not a random, so I hate maps that they play on.

True that; fair enough.
(Except for the TS part, which I don't really know )