Well... About the titles, I've been making some graphs lately from my skills. I made 3 graphs in pentagon style (which was suggested here), and I noticed something it seems nobody else here did.
The first graph is about the skills the way they are shown in the site, for each player, it's also displayed on the rankings. I named it "Classic Measurement".
http://prntscr.com/9yudjwThe second graph is about the top play from each skill. You can see the highest points by clicking on the skill link from the player. I named it "Top Measurement".
http://prntscr.com/9yufbfThe third graph is about the ranking each of your skills were. You can find it if you look on the right page of the global ranking pages (it's in descending order, so it's easy to find). I named it "Rank Measurement".
http://prntscr.com/9yuhruI noticed a huge difference from the 1st/2nd ones to the 3rd one. And by doing this, I found out that I really excel in accuracy, in relation to other players, and not in agility/tenacity, as the 1st and 2nd graphs suggest. Kert himself said we should compare our skills to other players to know if it's good or not, so I think the titles shouldn't be about the Classic Measurement, but the Rank Measurement. People would get more appropriate titles this way, like... I received Adventurous, which means best in tenacity+agility, but I should have received perceptive, which means best in accuracy (according to Defacer). I've been using the "Rank measurement" most when someone asks me to make them a graph, because I think it's more precise on the players skills.
Oh, and there would also have a bigger diversity on the titles, since now there are very rare and common titles, because agility is like almost always one of the highest skills.
What do you guys think?