Old Rankings Table

[Shards]

Hi,

In order to test our rankings system, we'd be collecting data from existing order of battle multiplayer games (both tournament and standard pbem). We've deleted this data now, but I thought that you might be curious to see the Top 50 players from that test period:

1 Pinkelephantis
2 BigMack
3 spionkop
4 AdmiralYamamoto
5 Celeborn
6 SagsGames77
7 blondus
8 JHeim
9 urfin3
10 rm116
11 rth
12 omistaja
13 PeroMrak
14 stevefprice
15 Retief2
16 dinkydou
17 brokegnarf
18 Vatutin21
19 Shards
20 LynxCom
21 amenhotep13
22 Netballman
23 dolphin0810
24 Wookie0606
25 nero156
26 jlgarcialopez84
27 Immortality
28 weizhinaihe
29 muppetmuppet
30 Ranger65
30 dragons2010
32 Theodulf
33 ZhugeLiangOne
34 Erik2
35 mkultra
36 wikman
36 psampson10
38 roywfw
39 Usakan
40 Rousik77
41 Bobster66
41 Redhorse6
41 Sim_The_Sor
44 Parriego
45 slim00
46 Shards3
47 Epykure
48 boycer
48 samspade73
50 Ramo159

[Celeborn]

Many recognizable names though don't think I have never seen BigMack in a tournament.

Mostly just annoyed that AdmiralYamamoto is ranked ahead of me

[pupski]

I didn't make it to the top 50, what a shame

[Erik2]

As pupski beat me several times in mirrored games I would not trust this list totally.

[pupski]

Probably because I never played a normal non tournament mp game before the mp beta, I did only tournament play.

[rth]

Hallo
I think the introduction of the Elo rating is very good, and I've known it for a long time from my chess history.
more precisely devinated: Elo is the international playing strength rating, "every country ?" but also has a national for example Germany DwZ
Question: what happens if a player in a free multiplayer game stops playing the game that has started?
is there a time limit like in a tournament?

[Shards]

Hi,

Your question prompted me to go and test some edge cases around game endings, and there is actually a bug in there around Claiming Games, so thanks for that

But yes, it should be the case that if a game is Claimed due to inactivity or the server cleans up the game due to prolonged inactivity, then the player who was left waiting will be given the Win

[rth]

Now we have the case: My opponent took longer than 14 days several times to make the next move in a free multiplayer game,

I claimed victory

and ELO points were deducted from me?

If I were worse off, I would have accepted that,

but I was ahead on both maps and I claim victory due to inactivity but get the minus points...

It can only be a mistake, right?

[Netballman]

Now we have the case: My opponent took longer than 14 days several times to make the next move in a free multiplayer game,

I claimed victory

and ELO points were deducted from me?

If I were worse off, I would have accepted that,

but I was ahead on both maps and I claim victory due to inactivity but get the minus points...

It can only be a mistake, right?

Morally, yes. Computer say no.

There is something very rotten in the state of this Denmark's algorithms. The whole issue around how things are dealt with where games are unfinished is in desperate need of thorough, open and transparent review.

I'm sure it's little comfort, but you are not the first to suffer...

[rth]

I know you probably have other worries and more important problems to solve,
but that the player who is leading in points and is also very faster is punished,
if he presses the switch "claim victory" after the opponent has been inactive for over 14 days, losing the game is not possible,
that would mean:
Whenever I'm about to lose, I stop playing and wait until my opponent loses patience and presses, then whoever doesn't finish the game is rewarded,
In my opinion it has to be exactly the other way around

[Netballman]

I know you probably have other worries and more important problems to solve,
but that the player who is leading in points and is also very faster is punished,
if he presses the switch "claim victory" after the opponent has been inactive for over 14 days, losing the game is not possible,
that would mean:
Whenever I'm about to lose, I stop playing and wait until my opponent loses patience and presses, then whoever doesn't finish the game is rewarded,
In my opinion it has to be exactly the other way around

There's a deeper issue here about players who "give up" games when they are losing. Of course there is part of me who can recognise why this happens, but it should be a matter of honour to always try to finish playing - particularly in tournament games, and I feel there ought to be some sort of sanction against those who stop playing without good (real-world) reason. We certainly must try to find a way to minimise the occurrences of this happening

Since tournament games usually run to very tight timescales (another debateable issue) I would imagine the problem rth describes would be very rare in that context, but regardless (and nevertheless) I certainly agree that the principle must of course be that the offending player be punished and the innocent party not penalised in any way. I'm sure the majority would agree as this is surely only being fair in the light of principles of natural justice.

[FrancoisPhilidor]

would be cool if one could see the rankings at all times.
Or a list of active games for the matter, to see what maps are being played etc