Field of Glory Tabletop Rankings Live!
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
-
- Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: Scotland
I agree, if theres no time out, the volatility will be fairly high right now as theres relatively few games in the database (comapared to what we had for Glicko). But over time that volatility will reduce.
May be something to think about for the future. If there will be an 'active players' list for only those having played in the last 24mths, perhaps limit that to games played in that period. Won't make much difference now, but in 2-3yrs time it could start becoming significant.
May be something to think about for the future. If there will be an 'active players' list for only those having played in the last 24mths, perhaps limit that to games played in that period. Won't make much difference now, but in 2-3yrs time it could start becoming significant.
-
- 1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:44 am
- Location: Germany
Well Alan, if you read just a few posts back into this thread (to my posting from 5th April), you will notice we are considering just that.
I'm also pondering an option that allows to set a customary start- and endate for the rankings (i.e. show the rankings with only tournaments between the two dates counting). Problem with that is it will require the rankings to be calculated on the fly, which is pretty CPU intensive so the server might not like it.
@Marc: Ohhhkaayyy.... let's assume I only played enough DBM (1.1 & 3.0) games with a couple years between them to conclude 'that game sucks' and later 'I still think that game sucks'. So I was 'stuck' with 6th Edition and never had any contact with Glicko. Accordingly I've no idea what it offered (the current incarnation on the DBMM homepage seems not exactly feature rich). So could you elaborate a bit?
I'm also pondering an option that allows to set a customary start- and endate for the rankings (i.e. show the rankings with only tournaments between the two dates counting). Problem with that is it will require the rankings to be calculated on the fly, which is pretty CPU intensive so the server might not like it.
@Marc: Ohhhkaayyy.... let's assume I only played enough DBM (1.1 & 3.0) games with a couple years between them to conclude 'that game sucks' and later 'I still think that game sucks'. So I was 'stuck' with 6th Edition and never had any contact with Glicko. Accordingly I've no idea what it offered (the current incarnation on the DBMM homepage seems not exactly feature rich). So could you elaborate a bit?
Karsten
~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~
~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~
-
- 1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:44 am
- Location: Germany
Works fine for me. You noticed the menu bar on the top of that page? While it looks like the one on the regular FoG site, it isn't identical. To go to the rankings from the front page either click on Rankings or select 'Player Rankings' from the drop down menu that comes up if you hover the mouse pointer over 'Rankings'. You might wish to ensure that javascript is active to get the full functionality of the site.recharge wrote:Where did the rankings go?
When I click the link, all I get is "The latest results" which is Havoc
Karsten
~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~
~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 1336
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:59 pm
- Location: Government; and I'm here to help.
Fair enough. Check this page for examples of what I am talking about. Things like "Arch-nemesis" and "Never Die Wondering" were lots of fun. More fun, in many ways, than the actual rankings themselves.Ghaznavid wrote:@Marc: Ohhhkaayyy.... let's assume I only played enough DBM (1.1 & 3.0) games with a couple years between them to conclude 'that game sucks' and later 'I still think that game sucks'. So I was 'stuck' with 6th Edition and never had any contact with Glicko. Accordingly I've no idea what it offered (the current incarnation on the DBMM homepage seems not exactly feature rich). So could you elaborate a bit?
Marc
-
- Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: Scotland
-
- Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
- Posts: 3436
- Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
- Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England
Karsten,
One of the things that David Young (I think) used to maintain for DBM was 'armies not recorded as having been used in a competition'. Is it something easy to do for the FoG Rankings with the database you have - if so could I ask you to add it as an option? I would not want to have you do it if it is lots of work / load on the server.
Regards
Tim
One of the things that David Young (I think) used to maintain for DBM was 'armies not recorded as having been used in a competition'. Is it something easy to do for the FoG Rankings with the database you have - if so could I ask you to add it as an option? I would not want to have you do it if it is lots of work / load on the server.
Regards
Tim
-
- Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
- Posts: 3436
- Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
- Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England
NOT TO BE READ BY PHIL POWELL
One of the things that is interesting to me is that the rankings seem to have a validity based upon the expected faces being at the top of the rankings. For the UK seeing Pete Dalby and Graham Evans as the top UK ranking UK players is no surprise to me and suggests that the method has validity. There are some surprises lower down the UK rankings but I would not want to bore people by mentioning who they are or where they start as it seems I post too often... :)
One of the things that is interesting to me is that the rankings seem to have a validity based upon the expected faces being at the top of the rankings. For the UK seeing Pete Dalby and Graham Evans as the top UK ranking UK players is no surprise to me and suggests that the method has validity. There are some surprises lower down the UK rankings but I would not want to bore people by mentioning who they are or where they start as it seems I post too often... :)
You can already get that information. Just order the list of all armies by number of games and find the ones with a 0 next to themtimmy1 wrote:Karsten,
One of the things that David Young (I think) used to maintain for DBM was 'armies not recorded as having been used in a competition'. Is it something easy to do for the FoG Rankings with the database you have - if so could I ask you to add it as an option? I would not want to have you do it if it is lots of work / load on the server.
Regards
Tim
-
- 1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:44 am
- Location: Germany
To start with, you need Javascript enabled.
Then on the Army rankings page almost on the top there is a field 'Click here for more option' if you do that a box should open where you can select from which army books you want armies shown and if you wish to see only armies with 50+ games, all armies that have been played so far or all armies in the Database (i.e. currently all armies with an official published list).
Then on the Army rankings page almost on the top there is a field 'Click here for more option' if you do that a box should open where you can select from which army books you want armies shown and if you wish to see only armies with 50+ games, all armies that have been played so far or all armies in the Database (i.e. currently all armies with an official published list).
Karsten
~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~
~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~
-
- 1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:44 am
- Location: Germany
That are two separate animals actually. The ranking list is as you put it 'livetime achievments' and will stay that way. We will just remove players that did not play in any (reported) tournaments in the last 24 months and add an option to include them on demand.AlanCutner wrote:Karsten - fair enough. I saw the post about active players list. Didn't realise you intended to only include games for that period too.
Choosing the period from which tournaments are counted for the ranking is separate from that and nothing I can guarantee to put in (or keep in) should it turn out to place to much stress on the server. I hope I can make it work though.
Karsten
~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~
~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:51 am
-
- 1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:44 am
- Location: Germany
I see, can probably be done, question is how to define the Arch-Nemesis most ELO-Points lost in fewest games maybe?babyshark wrote:Fair enough. Check this page for examples of what I am talking about. Things like "Arch-nemesis" and "Never Die Wondering" were lots of fun. More fun, in many ways, than the actual rankings themselves.
I've more problems with the 'Never Die Wondering' it's technically just a list view of the decisiveness rating we include on the army-details page. It would have been very easy to include that for players as well, but I dislike the thought of putting a label on someone based on nothing but a limited statistic.
Last edited by Ghaznavid on Fri Apr 09, 2010 11:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Karsten
~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~
~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~
-
- 1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:44 am
- Location: Germany
I considered it but thought it is sufficient to add it to the tooltip on the graphics. It is no problem to include it with the details as well, just the lines will go longer, making them less readable (and more likely to actually take up two or more lines with low resolutions). Up to you folks if you think the gain is worth that.peterrjohnston wrote:Just a thought, but would it not make sense to show the ELO change next to each game as well (in the click here for details)?
Karsten
~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~
~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~
African Vandal, Amazonian Forest Tribes, Amorite Kingdoms, Apulian, Lucanian or Bruttian, Axumite, Beja, Nile Valley, Blemmye or Early Nobatae, Campanian, Cañari, Central Asian City-States, Chanca, Chichimec, Chimu, Chinantec, Communal Italian, Cuman, Early Bulgar, Early Elamite, Early Highland Raiders, Early Lithuanian or Samogitian, Early Medieval French, Early Medieval Frisia and other Free Cantons, Early Ottoman Turkish, Early Plantagenet English, Early Polish,
Early Republican Roman, Early Russian, Early Slavic, Early South Slav, Eastern Han Chinese, Eastern Woodland Culture,
Erlitou-Shang Chinese, Feudal Polish, Gepid or Early Lombard, Ghurid Afghan, Great Moravian, Hatun-Colla, Inca, Italian Hill Tribes, Ko Choson Korean, Kofun-Nara Japanese, Kushite Egyptian, Late Tang to Five Dynasties Chinese, Later Bulgarian, Later Hebrew, Later Hindu South Indian, Later Horse Nomad, Later Medieval Feudal German, Later Medieval Frisian or Dithmarschen, Later Moorish, Later Pre-Islamic Bedouin, Later Scots-Irish, Later Welsh, Latin, Liao, Mapuche or Araucanian, Mayan, Medieval Burmese, Middle Anglo-Saxon, Middle Serbian, Mochica, Mound-Builder Culture, Nanzhao, Navarrese, Neo-Hittite and Aramaean, Northern Dynasties Chinese, Olmec, Pacific North-West Culture, Papal Italian, Parhae Korean, Pecheneg, Plains Culture, Pre-Islamic Arabian, Pueblo Culture, Qiang and Di, Samnite, Song Chinese, South-Eastern Woodland Culture, Tarascan, Teotihuacan, Thematic Byzantine, Tibetan, Timucuan, Tlaxcalan Confederacy, Toltec, Vietnamese, Wendish Prussian or Estonian, West Mexican, Yayoi Japanese, Zapotec or Mixtec
Early Republican Roman, Early Russian, Early Slavic, Early South Slav, Eastern Han Chinese, Eastern Woodland Culture,
Erlitou-Shang Chinese, Feudal Polish, Gepid or Early Lombard, Ghurid Afghan, Great Moravian, Hatun-Colla, Inca, Italian Hill Tribes, Ko Choson Korean, Kofun-Nara Japanese, Kushite Egyptian, Late Tang to Five Dynasties Chinese, Later Bulgarian, Later Hebrew, Later Hindu South Indian, Later Horse Nomad, Later Medieval Feudal German, Later Medieval Frisian or Dithmarschen, Later Moorish, Later Pre-Islamic Bedouin, Later Scots-Irish, Later Welsh, Latin, Liao, Mapuche or Araucanian, Mayan, Medieval Burmese, Middle Anglo-Saxon, Middle Serbian, Mochica, Mound-Builder Culture, Nanzhao, Navarrese, Neo-Hittite and Aramaean, Northern Dynasties Chinese, Olmec, Pacific North-West Culture, Papal Italian, Parhae Korean, Pecheneg, Plains Culture, Pre-Islamic Arabian, Pueblo Culture, Qiang and Di, Samnite, Song Chinese, South-Eastern Woodland Culture, Tarascan, Teotihuacan, Thematic Byzantine, Tibetan, Timucuan, Tlaxcalan Confederacy, Toltec, Vietnamese, Wendish Prussian or Estonian, West Mexican, Yayoi Japanese, Zapotec or Mixtec
-
- 2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
- Posts: 705
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:55 pm
Thematic Byzantine is the only dark ages army I own so will do so at soem point. Its just that for Fog I need to paint up a lot more Cav to form the back ranks of Bow and a lot more troops overall as its a pretty big army compared to the standard dbX army.peterrjohnston wrote:When everyone else is armoured and superior, being armoured and average sucks.LambertSimnel wrote:204 tournaments and still no one has taken a Thematic Byzantine army to a tournament. OK, so they aren't the greatest army known to man, but it's not as if they are Early Anglo-Saxons or Early Nomads, right?
They're not that bad, just the other Byzantine armies do it better.
Abbasid has just about disappeared as well, although I'm trying to rescue it.
I took Thematic Byzantine to Rampage last year. I guess that competition isn't in the database then? I did fairly badly - one problem is that the Lance makes your cavalry Impetuous (...err, sorry, Shock) so a cunning opponent can make sure you don't spend much time standing around shooting before your cav fails a CMT and impales itself on a wall of spear (or whatever nastiness he has)expendablecinc wrote:Thematic Byzantine is the only dark ages army I own so will do so at soem point. Its just that for Fog I need to paint up a lot more Cav to form the back ranks of Bow and a lot more troops overall as its a pretty big army compared to the standard dbX army.peterrjohnston wrote:When everyone else is armoured and superior, being armoured and average sucks.LambertSimnel wrote:204 tournaments and still no one has taken a Thematic Byzantine army to a tournament. OK, so they aren't the greatest army known to man, but it's not as if they are Early Anglo-Saxons or Early Nomads, right?
They're not that bad, just the other Byzantine armies do it better.
Abbasid has just about disappeared as well, although I'm trying to rescue it.