Metsfanmax wrote:It can just as equally make you look worse, if your actual attendance is 98.7%.
Yeah i was going to say "It can make you look better or worse" but i thought that, that might the suggestion not good or something...
-MajorTom 555
The lack of specificity is probably good here. It's not clear why someone with 98.9% turns taken should not be able to join a clan if the nominal cutoff is 99%.
Metsfanmax wrote:It can just as equally make you look worse, if your actual attendance is 98.7%.
Yeah i was going to say "It can make you look better or worse" but i thought that, that might the suggestion not good or something...
-MajorTom 555
The lack of specificity is probably good here. It's not clear why someone with 98.9% turns taken should not be able to join a clan if the nominal cutoff is 99%.
Thats my point... like if i want to join a clan with 99% cut off and i cant join because i have 98%... so if they say like if someone has .05% under they might be allowed to join...
Metsfanmax wrote:It can just as equally make you look worse, if your actual attendance is 98.7%.
Yeah i was going to say "It can make you look better or worse" but i thought that, that might the suggestion not good or something...
-MajorTom 555
The lack of specificity is probably good here. It's not clear why someone with 98.9% turns taken should not be able to join a clan if the nominal cutoff is 99%.
Thats my point... like if i want to join a clan with 99% cut off and i cant join because i have 98%... so if they say like if someone has .05% under they might be allowed to join...
If your profile displays 98% that means you have turns taken between 97.5% and 98.5%. The display rounds, not truncates. So the question is, would the clan still accept you if you have 98.4% and they ask for 99%? Probably not.
Metsfanmax wrote:It can just as equally make you look worse, if your actual attendance is 98.7%.
Yeah i was going to say "It can make you look better or worse" but i thought that, that might the suggestion not good or something...
-MajorTom 555
The lack of specificity is probably good here. It's not clear why someone with 98.9% turns taken should not be able to join a clan if the nominal cutoff is 99%.
Thats my point... like if i want to join a clan with 99% cut off and i cant join because i have 98%... so if they say like if someone has .05% under they might be allowed to join...
If your profile displays 98% that means you have turns taken between 97.5% and 98.5%. The display rounds, not truncates. So the question is, would the clan still accept you if you have 98.4% and they ask for 99%? Probably not.
I'm a clan leader and I'll be honest, if someone doesn't have 100% turns taken it's not really a deal breaker. What's more important is that they are a good player. If a clan is telling you that they don't want you in because of your turn percentage it's a little bit of BS. and they are saying that because you have a low rank. No offense meant, just being honest.
That being said, I'm sure there are some clans that would glad to have you. There are around 50 clans.
As far as this suggestion. I'm actually for it. So many people (the large, large majority) are between 97-100% that I do think there is merit to change the rounding spot by a decimal.
chapcrap wrote:As far as this suggestion. I'm actually for it. So many people (the large, large majority) are between 97-100% that I do think there is merit to change the rounding spot by a decimal.
I think this would only lend credence to the people who make judgments about players based on their attendance, which is not a good decision knowing that the difference between 98% and 97% turns taken could be arbitrarily small (97.49% and 98.51% are virtually the same, but a 98% cutoff would currently exclude the former). It's also not a good decision since it doesn't reflect a player's current tendencies but rather their all time attendance (and the longer a player is active, the more likely they are to have found someone to sit for them). We would only want to show the first digit after the decimal point if we thought that was really useful information for people to have.
90% of my turns missed are clan games, since I wait for team discussion, and by the time it comes around i don't have time to take the turn. whether or not my thing has 24 significant figures is irrelevant.
DoomYoshi wrote:90% of my turns missed are clan games, since I wait for team discussion, and by the time it comes around i don't have time to take the turn. whether or not my thing has 24 significant figures is irrelevant.
DoomYoshi wrote:90% of my turns missed are clan games, since I wait for team discussion, and by the time it comes around i don't have time to take the turn. whether or not my thing has 24 significant figures is irrelevant.
Maybe they can create a "Clan Attendance" then?
-MajorTom 555
What good does that do if you aren't already in a clan?
I always thought it would be neat to see the ratio of turns taken to turns, as we have with games won (x games played, y games won) where we would have x turns taken, y turns total (or even x turns missed, y turns total)
Gilligan wrote:I always thought it would be neat to see the ratio of turns taken to turns, as we have with games won (x games played, y games won) where we would have x turns taken, y turns total (or even x turns missed, y turns total)
spiesr wrote:If the stat was altered to display more figures, how many clans that use whatever % as a hard cutoff do you think would actually change it?
Shouldn't attendance rate reflect the late year instead of reflecting all time? The longer you are in CC the less this stat reflects your CURRENT attendance.
OliverFA wrote:Shouldn't attendance rate reflect the late year instead of reflecting all time? The longer you are in CC the less this stat reflects your CURRENT attendance.
