Maybe we should only count the triple double.  +1000 games played, +1000 eliminated, and +1000 games won.

With the caveat that atleast 500 of the wins came from 3+ player games...?

If you want a longevity stat based on wins (not eliminations), you can go the way of the ranking system (and the H-rating). In the ranking system, the points you get for winning an n-player game is comparable to (n-1)*(something based on opponent rankings). That is, winning a 5-player game gets you about the same amount of points as winning 4 2-player games.

The original poster wanted just a longevity stat for games. Here it is true that 2-player is shorter than 4-player, but I'd say it's truly map dependent. Octagons can take longer than 4-player standard map, but clearly spy v spy is shorter. 4play is obviously a shorter 4-player game than most duels are. On average 2-player is less than 4-player, so if you want a good distinguishing stat there, you might just sum the # of players in each game or something along those lines (but I don't really think 16-player games are really like 8 2-player games).

To summarize that ramble - if you are concerned about 2-player wins not being worth as much, then you can use "number of opponents beaten" as a longevity wins stat. (Note that this is NOT # of eliminations - you only beat an opponent if you win a game with them in it.)

I'm more skeptical of "number of opponents in all games played" as a longevity stat, so I propose instead "number of turns taken".

The problem with nitpicking in this way is that the original poster had a nice "millenium club" outlined... Reminds me of baseball with its 300 wins, 400 home runs, 3000 hits marks and things like that.

I agree with Hugh that # of turns taken is the best idea for an overall longevity stat.  Although it would also be fun to see other useless stats like # of lifetime eliminations or opponents beaten, lifetime cards drawn & played, lifetime dice rolls, etc.

This all reminds me again of the idea of an integrated achievement or level system.  Since it seems kind of arbitrary which stat you track, why not track a lot of them and then roll it up into one system.   That could also be pretty easily tied into some sort of Progressive_disclosure to help keep newbs from being overwhelmed.

Lol I love the progression of threads on WG, we usually start with something simple and realize that's not good so we go to some crazy calculations to get something even better.  Do you guys do anything simple?! 

From my point of view the crazy calculations are the ones we point out as flawed and simplicity is what we achieve after dissecting and discussing in an unnecessarily winded and complicated way 

We are not sane, so thanks for tolerating us! The idea of a "millenium club" is subjective enough that it doesn't need our ratiocination, but I'm going to say I like Oz's integrated achievement system anyway.

Hugh wrote:

To summarize that ramble - if you are concerned about 2-player wins not being worth as much, then you can use "number of opponents beaten" as a longevity wins stat. (Note that this is NOT # of eliminations - you only beat an opponent if you win a game with them in it.)...

 

Fully agreed. Number of opponents beaten makes much more sense than Number of eliminations. As I already said, there is no point in eliminating players then losing the game.

Hugh wrote:

From my point of view the crazy calculations are the ones we point out as flawed and simplicity is what we achieve after dissecting and discussing in an unnecessarily winded and complicated way 

We are not sane, so thanks for tolerating us! The idea of a "millenium club" is subjective enough that it doesn't need our ratiocination, but I'm going to say I like Oz's integrated achievement system anyway.

As the original poster I reserve the right to instigate unnecessarily long-winded and over-complicated discussions :)

~ATH

So what do members get?  A medal in their trophy cabinet?  Why not have a number of these medals for different acheivements.  There was a thread about this quite a ways back..

• w Wins
• x Games
• y Turns
• z Eliminations
• etc..

Yertle wrote:Do you guys do anything simple?! 

Hugh wrote:

From my point of view the crazy calculations are the ones we point out as flawed and simplicity is what we achieve after dissecting and discussing in an unnecessarily winded and complicated way 

We are not sane, so thanks for tolerating us! The idea of a "millenium club" is subjective enough that it doesn't need our ratiocination, but I'm going to say I like Oz's integrated achievement system anyway.

In other words... "No".

Hehe, WarGear couldn't have it any other way!

is it me or do many threads boil back down to an integrated acheivement system?

Hugh wrote:

From my point of view the crazy calculations are the ones we point out as flawed and simplicity is what we achieve after dissecting and discussing in an unnecessarily winded and complicated way 

We are not sane, so thanks for tolerating us! The idea of a "millenium club" is subjective enough that it doesn't need our ratiocination, but I'm going to say I like Oz's integrated achievement system anyway.

I agreed with everything said and will refrain from being winded at the moment as you guys seem to have this one covered.

weathertop wrote:

is it me or do many threads boil back down to an integrated acheivement system?

Yes it's only you... and me ;-)

102 members now. Not so select no more.