Field of Glory Tabletop Rankings Live!

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:55 pm

Short notice: We've mostly completed the work on the Double rankings. Double tournaments are now completely live and included in the Hall of Honour, the Army- and Playerdetails and have their own ranking page.

Currently only the separation of single and double medals in the player details is still missing as are some double tournaments (mostly those of the Northern League as they present the double challenge of only two rounds* and a non-standard scoring system, so inclusion of these tournaments will take some time.)

* I didn't anticipate anyone ever running a two round tournament. So both the input and output routines expect a minimum of three rounds for a tournament.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:23 am

Karsten / Martin

Request for one small change to the wording. Army is one of those English oddities where the plural is not the singular with 's' appended. Could I request that 'Armys did see use at those tournaments' be changes to 'Armies did see use at those tournaments'?

I am impressed with what you have done in a second language so please do not take this as a criticism, it is not intended as such.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:30 am

On the doubles rankings page I choose a player who has played both singles and doubles, say Bruce Brown. It then states

'
Please click here to jump directly to the double tournament details.
'

I click here but it seems not to go there. (I can get there be scrolling down.)

I am using Windows Vista Home Premium and IE 8.0 (oh that I were not), if that matters.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:33 am

I know that it is cheeky to ask as I am not the one having to do the work but would it be possible for the Army Rankings to be split by doubles and singles? Army choice MIGHT be different between 600-800 point singles and 900-1000 point doubles.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:36 am

One final request.

Could 'armyranking' be changed to 'army ranking'? For example on the Early Hungarian page

'
So far 13 different players used this army at 7 Tournaments and played 52 games with it. 42 of those are included in the armyranking.
'

Martin0112 · Post by **Martin0112** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 9:17 am

timmy1 wrote:I know that it is cheeky to ask as I am not the one having to do the work but would it be possible for the Army Rankings to be split by doubles and singles? Army choice MIGHT be different between 600-800 point singles and 900-1000 point doubles.

We thought about this, but this would require a big rework again.
Honestly, the reason why we have not splitted it is, that we cannot se a difference for the army ranking is used on a single or a double tournament.
The remarks about having them splitted because of the usage of different army sizes (600-800 for sinfles and 900-1000 for doubles) will lead into another issue.
We do very often not know the army size of a tournament.
Taking as example the tournaments in Germany.
All were single, but we have one of 600, one of 900 and all the rest of 800 points.
Second example: Doubles:
Shieldwall 2009 were played with 650 points, other ranged up to 1000.
You can see there is not really good reason to split the armies in our opinion.
If we do so, there may be the next request saing: We have to split by sub-armylists (e.g. Swiss, being before 1400 or after 1476....)
We have to do a decision on this and we agreed on stopping the granularity on army list ranking on the armylist-level itself.
another point for the armylists is that the game is more driven by player quality than by armies.
I consider roman armies being not too bad, but if for example you look for principate romans, it's lose to the very end of the list.
My opinion here is that the reason for this is having lots of starter player using a roman armies (drilled, very standard, easy playable), but loosing anyhow as the players are not that skilled.
So it's really hard to take this ranking as a real army qulaity ranking.
For me, it will be that in the future, the more games are played, the more these differences are being eliminated. And for this we need for sure also the double results for the armies in a single ranking.

I know it's worth lots of discussions, but I'm pretty sure we will get the really best ranking this way over the time

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 9:23 am

Martin

Thank you for the explaination. I am happy for it to remain as is with all armies in one ranking set.

Regards
Tim

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:20 am

timmy1 wrote:On the doubles rankings page I choose a player who has played both singles and doubles, say Bruce Brown. It then states

'
Please click here to jump directly to the double tournament details.
'

I click here but it seems not to go there. (I can get there be scrolling down.)

I am using Windows Vista Home Premium and IE 8.0 (oh that I were not), if that matters.

Hmm, yes, another of those IE bugs, it does not like empty anchor tags. I forgot about that one; should be fixed now, thanks.

timmy1 wrote:Karsten / Martin

Request for one small change to the wording. Army is one of those English oddities where the plural is not the singular with 's' appended. Could I request that 'Armys did see use at those tournaments' be changes to 'Armies did see use at those tournaments'?

I am impressed with what you have done in a second language so please do not take this as a criticism, it is not intended as such.

I knew that ... in theory.

It's easy to miss though, especially if making repeated changes in both the German and the English version at the same time (as I usually do to make sure they are both working the same). So all spelling corrections and suggestions for better grammar and what not are welcome.

As for splitting the armyrankings ... as Martin said. Personally I would have loved to include the points for a Tournament (and even more the number of BGs a player used), but sadly these are informations we lack all to often.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:27 am

Karsten

Tags thing fixed and works ok now. IE 8 still does some off the wall things but I just have to live with it.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:32 am

Anglo-Irish is now the clear leader and the only army with an ELO of 1800 or above.

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:43 am

timmy1 wrote:Karsten

Tags thing fixed and works ok now. IE 8 still does some off the wall things but I just have to live with it.

Wall things? Sorry, has that come up earlier? Afraid I've no idea what you are referring to (unless you talking about the odd way in which IE tends to render the Graphs before they are complete).

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:49 am

Karsten

That is exactly what I am talking about.

I should not have used the term 'off the wall', it is a very poor piece of American slang. A more accurate statement would be behaving in a way that makes no logical sense and which renders the product sub-optimal.

Regards
Tim

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:58 am

Afraid there isn't much I can do about that. It's an IE oddity and the only solutions would be not to show the page until it has been fully loaded. On slow connections that would result in a white page for quite a while. So the cure might be worse then the disease (not to mention that I really dislike pages that do not show anything until completely loaded).
Anyway at least everything looks OK, once the page has completed loading (right?).

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:42 pm

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:23 pm

We now have John Martin of the USofA as a player with a score over 2000. He has placed in 11 of his last 12 tourney, including 7 wins, using 4 different armies (none of them Anglo-Irish). Impressive I must say.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:28 pm

Karsten, one further IE8 oddity, if I look at the ELO-History for a player such as John Martin, and position the mouse pointer over the righthand most bar, the details about this game appear on the right which makes IE8 want to extend the window to the right. However as soon as I move the mouse the screen scrolling disappears. I can move the screen window using the keyboard arrows but it is not ideal. Not a big issue for me, just thought I would let you know.

devilforrest · Post by **devilforrest** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:08 pm

I enjoy being temporarially at the top but Ricky J and Hilton like to whisper in my ear that it will be fleeting and that the tournament results where I lost badly to them were never sent in.

John Martin

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:47 pm

And you believe what Hilton says exactly how much...? If the answer is lots, can I sell you the Golden Gate Bridge?

devilforrest · Post by **devilforrest** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:22 am

I see you know the movie star as well.
If we meet the first round will be on me.

Hilton is one of the best things going in the GCC and all of our tournament lives are richer because of his efforts and enthusiasm.

I look forward to seeing him again and just wish his wife would let him out more.

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:34 am

devilforrest wrote:I see you know the movie star as well.
If we meet the first round will be on me.

Hilton is one of the best things going in the GCC and all of our tournament lives are richer because of his efforts and enthusiasm.

I look forward to seeing him again and just wish his wife would let him out more.

Who'd have thought it? Two people called Hilton in the same area....

Field of Glory Tabletop Rankings Live!

Double Rankings go live