At 9/27/03 08:00 AM, jonthomson wrote:At 9/27/03 07:30 AM, gfoxcook wrote:So anywho, what does everyone think, already? I know I'm being impatient, and that the BBS was down, but there's been at least 1.5 hours during which Wi/Ht was readable and postable, but after I'd posted the lists, in which no one's said a peep about them! I want feedback, damnit! :::pouts::: #;-}>Well, apart from the obvious absence of me, the lists look great - seems a lot more informative, although I think the percentages would look better if you list them as a percentage, not as a ratio (ie. I'd have a 69% blam rate, and not a 227% rate if I've done my sums right on the second figure).
And here I was complaining in your list thread about the only guy posting aside from me being the one guy who wouldn't comment on my lists because he's not on them! Now, aside from us thinking quite similarly as your comment about not being on the list up there shows (heh! I'm sorry, man. I'd fudge your blam or save number to get you on the list if I could, but I think in your case people would DEFINITELY notice #;-}>)
Anywho, yes, I've already debated the merits of saves/blams vs. saves/total b/p with Dogma in the chiefy-%-based list he posted a month or so ago.
While you're absolutely correct in terms of column alignment, and while some people's brains probably think better in terms of saves/b/p or blams/b/p than in terms of saves:blams ratio or blams:saves ratio, the reason I stand by my method is simply summed up:
Toocool, under the % of total b/p method, would simply have 99.something %. And while this is impresive, it's the same number of digits as me, who has like 48% or something, and even TheJoe, who has like 30%
BUT... with the way I do it, you can truly see the massive difference between his saves and his blams with that 7300%, and not just the amazing percentage of his total b/p that are saves, which is a nice number but doesn't LEAP at you, if you know what I mean, like 7300% does.
And since the man is never going to get on the top 50 blams list and earn his ***, the least I can do is let him remain themost impressive person on EITHER top 50 list in the % column. #;-}>
Personally, I think they look freakin' kick-ass. The boldface helps a lot, the extra data isn't as "bad" as I had always thought it would be (and thus hadn't introduced before now).Lists do look good, I have to admit.
Mmmmm. lists.
I'm thinking that in future updates, I may enforce a xxx.xx% on the % (well, actually, a xxxx.xx% on the % on the protectors list, because of toocool, but one less on the blammers list since no one has a 1000.00% or greater blam-to-save ratio, thank goodness)...If it makes it look better, do it.
and I may enforce a xx,xxx on the b/p
That's the thing, I don't know if it will. The columns will look smoother, but I don't personally like to see:
10,111
09,200
08,322
when
10,111
9,200
8,322
looks more natural. Then again, the digits themselves are more aligned with the 0s in place. Okay, that settles it, I'm going to do it the 0's way. In fact, I'll go ahead and post (just the lists themselves) again right now to see how much better they look.
I think the %s wouldn't look so bad with an enforced digit amount, but I'm not so sure a vast majority of b/p counts being 09,000 or 05,555 or whatever is going to look so hot. Thoughts? I can always give it a spin, assuming I can get excel to agree to do thatYeah, it's easy enough to get excel to put leading zeroes in. I just forget how to do it :-)
I'll go remind myself right now. Thanks for the tips. Even just hearing from one person is enough to spur me into action, obviously. #;-}>
gfox // wi/ht?#9 // defunct PentaList (final update: 3/15/2008) // Cyberdevil's HexaList!
a long, long time ago: 60000 b/p (#2) // 36000 blams (#3) // 24000 saves (#1)
