Bar/Pie charts that evolve beside a game history, showing bonuses at each step and number of units at each step. Also, a stacked bar chart that showing the attack decisions (the amount X has attacked Y, the amount X has been attacked by Y) would be useful, and fun just to watch the feuds build.

When I read the first half of your post I was going to make a crack, but after reading the end of it I just feel... shamed.

Then again: Scoreboard.

EDIT: That's Vataro's post, of course (even more shamed, now).

I would be interested in a distinct number of players played on the profile page.

Sorry that was unrelated to board stats.

I like Mongrel's idea of an evolving pie/bar chart on each board showing number times each seat won. Anyone who complains that a board is unfair and that is why they lost can piss off. Don't play a board if you don't like how board plays.

Yertle's comment about how conclusion can be drawn too early should be giving attention. For example, in Spy v. Spy, we thought black had a slight edge for a long time, but smart play by white has changed our opinion recently and we are back evolving strategies.

I'm working on some stats / charting updates at the moment... will be live in the next couple of days.

Alpha wrote: I would be interested in a distinct number of players played on the profile page.

Sorry that was unrelated to board stats.

I like Mongrel's idea of an evolving pie/bar chart on each board showing number times each seat won. Anyone who complains that a board is unfair and that is why they lost can piss off. Don't play a board if you don't like how board plays.

Sorry, I should have said that in a nicer way.

If a player believes that a board is unfair, they should bring it up in the forums or in a review of the board and most likely quit playing the map.  However, if a board is truly unfair, then by random luck, playing the board often, you should end up in the unfair seat with equal probability of ending in one of the other seats, therefore it should effectively be negated.

The idea that having information about the percentages of wins from various seats being used to state that a board is unfair is synonymous with the idea that showing the outcomes of die rolls allows players to state that they had unfair dice rolls.  This is part of the game, and the fact that players will complain is not an argument to not have the information.  Of course, in situations where only a few games have been played on a board, the information should be taken with a grain of salt and not as gospel as to the actual percentage of time that seat is expected to win.  In fact, even when a 1000 games have been played on a board, the percentage of time each seat wins should not be taken as exact, by a good gauge as to how the board plays.

You dick (Alpha not Tom).

In classic, it took 400 games before realizing there was a viable strategy from Europe. Things are discovered with many plays.

I think the only way to cry wolf with a low number of sample games is:

1.) The board has a starting scenario
2.) The n-th seat can, with repeatable effectiveness, take advantage of the starting scenario during the first turn.

Alpha wrote: In fact, even when a 1000 games have been played on a board, the percentage of time each seat wins should not be taken as exact, by a good gauge as to how the board plays.

Exactly. There is too much variation in early games (newbs) on an young site (newbs, boots).