One of the most interesting things about it, one that Letmelose also used and highlighted, was the way it ranked its players:
+ Show Spoiler +
As you can see, it uses 8 separated critera to judge each player's skill. These are:
Sense, Control, Attack, Harassment, Strategy, Macro, Defense, Scouting
It is very interesting for 2 reasons:
-it's an unusually high number of statistics (old radar charts made by OGN for SC2 usually had 6)
-it divides the skills into decision-making-related and strategic abilities instead of mostly mechanical prowess
Now, both of these can be explained simply by ease of using these statistics in a simulator; certain of these stats are map-dependant and some of them have better matches vs other (attack vs defense, etc.) which creates interesting dynamics between players, making it more into a rock<paper<scissor<rock affair instead of just a Gwent-like game where you have distribute your power players properly.
However, I began to think that this actually might be a better method of judging players' skills than simply ranking their macro, micro, strategy and preperation. How do you rate a player's ability to deal with harassment? Is it multitasking? Then why does Nerchio fall apart to drops versus top Korean Terrans and then whacks down Protoss players with 3-pronged attacks? What about micro then? How does it come that ByuN has excellent target firing, but he can't split his marines for shit?
I thought about these things and came up with this radar chart:
As you can see, it divides the skills involved in a competitive starcraft game into 8 categories:
-micro - player's mechanical prowess in controlling their units
-macro - player's mechnical prowess when it comes to executing their build order, spending money, etc.
-offence - how much damage a player does relative to how few units he uses, the ability to cause damage and chaos
-defence - how well a player can stop any harassment or timings coming their way, the ability to respond to aggression
-tactics - a player's ability to find way for their offence to go through, be it through smart army positioning, approaching enemy's units on the map or well thought out multipronged attacks
-strategy - how well the player choses their build orders, if he keeps up with the metagame, how well they recognize and respond to the opponent's build order and playstyle
-preparation - how well player can come up with new build orders for important matches, change up their playstyle, surprise their opponent
-game sense - the x factor of this chart, the ability to respond to strategies not seen before, make bold calls, read the game at a level beyond the usual metagame and normal strategies. The broader meaning of star sense.
You probably noticed that I used only SC2 players as examples in this blog. That is because I considered SC2 when designing this chart, as it is the Starcraft I have the most competitive experience watching and the one game where I feel people need to obsessively rank players and argue about.
As a closure, I decided to try and draw radar charts in this system for some of the players in last SC2 power rank (which obviously was very very hard as most of the progamers break 40 out of 50 in at least half of the criteria and it takes an expert to judge them precisely):
+ Show Spoiler +
I feel like these above were horribly misjudged by myself, but they were only examples and I believe this system has some merit. I think radar charts are a tad more interesting and a billion times more precise than normal power ranks.