grenv:Great idea! This "average daily moves / total started games" ratio could be a part of every player's Profile page.  

AlliumCepa: Just as you fixed:"average daily moves / total started games" ratio is simple short but more useful.

TC: It's the same thing using different words.

# of moves per day (i suggest calculating the last months average rather than entire history)

divided by

number of games you are playing now

The "now" part is very important... since it will show the real time value. if someone pares down his/her games the number will go up.

grenv: Quote: "TC: It's the same thing using different words."
No offence, man, but it makes a huge difference by adding the word "average". The way you stated it the first time ("# of moves per day"), it sounds like player's moves are calculated daily and reset at server's midnight. Maybe your idea indeed was to propose the "average daily moves during the last 30 consecutive days", but you didn't make it clear. All I did was to bringten up your idea, because the "average" thing wasn't too ovbius.

Furthermore, to make the ratio more precise, there is one thing (that I can think of) to avoid. Here is an example: We have a player who had 100 running games during the last 30 days and he makes 100 moves per day. So as average, the guy has ratio=1. Now imagine on day 31st a huge tournament kicks in and suddanly there are 100 more games to play, totaling to 200. During our guy sleeps (and hasn't made any moves) his ratio will drop to 0.5, becouse "now" he has twice as much games as before. So my suggestion is: we don't make the formula "in real time", but rather a "moving average" that deals with 30 complete days in order to smoothen such peaks.

In other words, here is a sample "Activity Ratio" formula: AR=[Σ_i=1..30(M_i/G_i)]/30,
where:
i - day number, runs from 1 to 30;
M_i - moves made during day i. Calculated at server's midnight;
G_i - number of running games at the end of day i.

Of course, I don't pretend to be thorough.

AlliumCepa: I disagree... the fact he has 200 games now is vitally important. In this case he will be twice as slow because he has twice as many games... This is meant to be something indicating *current* ability to play quickly.

Also, I would argue "# of moves per day" implies an average (though I admit I needed to say over how many days - hence the mod later).

grenv: You said "the fact he has 200 games now is vitally important. In this case he will be twice as slow because he has twice as many games". I respectfully suggest that you are making a huge assumption that isn't necessarily correct. It may mean the player knows they have some time off so want some more games, or the 100 games weren't nearly enough to keep them busy. It also doesn't take into account the type of game being played. 100 new chess games is completely different than 100 new Ludo games. The player may be one who moves once a day in each game no matter what. Just because their game load doubled does not mean he will be twice as slow. There are too many variables involved to make that jump.

Oh and playBunny I had to look up outlier myself.
Outlier- a statistical observation that is markedly different in value from the others of the sample

UzzyLady: I apoligize - I thought playbunny was making a joke... outlier is a fairly common word. And as you showed the internet makes all words knowable in a few seconds anyway - why wait for me to respond?

I am making an assumption - it isn't a perfect system. It is, however, better than the one in place now - which is nothing. Come up with a better formula and I'll back it up.

grenv: I like the idea of coming up with a formula to rate how quickly players move for several reasons. It helps solve the problem of ending up in tourneys with those people who abuse the system. It also gets us away from trying to come up with a way to limit these abusers that doesn't punish the rest of us. I'm not disagreeing with what you are trying to do, just with one of your presumptions.

The only concern I have every time this conversation comes up is the desire to make a set of rules to deal with a small few abusers. I see this in many situations. You can never set the rules perfectly enough to weed them out without injuring innocent bystanders. The best you can do is inform yourself of who the abusers are and how to identify them. That is what you are suggesting, and that's why I think it's a good idea. But like anything else, set the standards too high and you pull in the innocents, set it too low and a few abusers get by. It's a delicate balance. That's why these discussions are helpful.

(BTW- I apologize if I'm rambling, I'm studying for finals and have been immersed in theology for hours and half my brain is still there.)

grenv: I second it too. That's very helpful..