![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
That's kinda what I was thinking, KodiakStar. Unless someone is being extremely productive, the gunners would only be shown for people you passed since the last update and shouldn't be all that many. But, I'm not one of those high producers, so maybe I'm mistaken.
King, I do agree that too much of that image would be (and was, at times) overkill, though, and if there are many instances where the page would be "polluted" with it, then I agree with the elimination of it. If you could find someplace to throw it in and it's not overkill, go for it!
I like your idea for 7-14-21-28 day averages and that would probably satisfy the vast majority of the people. I actually debated between saying 7 and 14, but wanted a hard stop of weekly or monthly to avoid someone saying they wanted a 9 or 18 day average for some strange reason. <thinks> Am I the only one who checks how close the estimates are every once in a while? </thinks> With the multiple choices I could probably figure out which one works best for me and then stick to that one.
As far as the potential problem you mentioned, you're right. But, those of us who really use that page would be aware of it and would be able to choose the appropriate countermeasure to avoid it, if you implemented the 7-14-21-28 options. So, if I check on the 8th and there was an issue during the last 3 weeks of the previous month, I'd know that only the 7 day average is anywhere near accurate.
Also, about the Defcon (btw, OT: I heard they're making a sequel to Wargames where they try to take apart the WOPR; God help us!)... will that be on the attack/threat page or something else? I'm just thinking that it would be appropriate for both circumstances whether someone is coming up on you or you're coming up on someone else. However, having all of that on the same page would make it very confusing.
Keep up the awesome work, King and sorry for the long response! You piqued my interest!
King, I do agree that too much of that image would be (and was, at times) overkill, though, and if there are many instances where the page would be "polluted" with it, then I agree with the elimination of it. If you could find someplace to throw it in and it's not overkill, go for it!
I like your idea for 7-14-21-28 day averages and that would probably satisfy the vast majority of the people. I actually debated between saying 7 and 14, but wanted a hard stop of weekly or monthly to avoid someone saying they wanted a 9 or 18 day average for some strange reason. <thinks> Am I the only one who checks how close the estimates are every once in a while? </thinks> With the multiple choices I could probably figure out which one works best for me and then stick to that one.
As far as the potential problem you mentioned, you're right. But, those of us who really use that page would be aware of it and would be able to choose the appropriate countermeasure to avoid it, if you implemented the 7-14-21-28 options. So, if I check on the 8th and there was an issue during the last 3 weeks of the previous month, I'd know that only the 7 day average is anywhere near accurate.
Also, about the Defcon (btw, OT: I heard they're making a sequel to Wargames where they try to take apart the WOPR; God help us!)... will that be on the attack/threat page or something else? I'm just thinking that it would be appropriate for both circumstances whether someone is coming up on you or you're coming up on someone else. However, having all of that on the same page would make it very confusing.
Keep up the awesome work, King and sorry for the long response! You piqued my interest!
