Slitherine

timmy1 wrote: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.

Hmmm... other browsers just adjust the size of the info box. Doesn't look great but works. Getting the info box to show up on either side as to prevent this isn't that easy so will take some time (something I don't really have right now). So it might be a couple of days before I can address that.

As a stop gap measure simply go and buy a display with a higher resolution. As the size of the graphic is fixed that will create more room for IE to display the box, hence fix the problem.

Karsten. Thank you. Nice solution. Sadly I have to get new screen approved by Financial Control. She has always found more important things to spend the money on over the past 2 years of asking...

Now that there are the results of 200 tourneys reported, seems like a good time to take stock.

Dominate Roman is now the army de la Jour. Top ranking with an ELO of near 1800 and 14 tourney wins (and 12 other places) seems to be quite conclusive. Later Seleucid is still the most popular though.

Bottom of the pile is Later Medieval Scots (Britain) - it has been used often enough not to be one fluke result.

On a personal note, I am pleased to see the S*ss*n*ds are still in negative numbers.

Of the 'used once' results, possibly the most interesting is Syro-Cannaanite used by Gerry Fallon to come 4th in an open tourney.

Things have changed. Two players are now within 50 of John Martin and the Dom Roms have been joined by the Santa Claus army at the top.

One oddity, of all the 200+ armies used once or more, the OTA is the only that has returned to exactly 1600.

Since integration of doubles is now complete and while there are still a few minor additions and changes in the pipe, we have a few questions for future development.


Splitting the (player) Rankings into an 'Eternal' and an 'Active' (main) list (better terms welcome).
Is this desirable and if yes how long should the grace period be before a player is removed from the active list (I've been considering 24 months)?


Variant ranking systems (aka national rankings). Since most national rankings differ notably from the ELO-System we could try to build them in, provided there is an interest for the national ranking systems to be included (they will either shown up if the relevant country is chosen or if selected specifically from a separate submenu).


Other ideas anyone?

Ghaznavid wrote:Since integration of doubles is now complete and while there are still a few minor additions and changes in the pipe, we have a few questions for future development.


Splitting the (player) Rankings into an 'Eternal' and an 'Active' (main) list (better terms welcome).
Is this desirable and if yes how long should the grace period be before a player is removed from the active list (I've been considering 24 months)?


Variant ranking systems (aka national rankings). Since most national rankings differ notably from the ELO-System we could try to build them in, provided there is an interest for the national ranking systems to be included (they will either shown up if the relevant country is chosen or if selected specifically from a separate submenu).


Other ideas anyone?

Karsten you have done a splendid job on the rankings - they work well and look great.

Splitting is a good idea IMO since one of the features of this (which I like) over GLICKO is no decay/memory which gives good instantaneous movement which is more interesting - the downside is that people who have not played for a long time still rank highly- so your idea of an active/non active list is good.

Personally I would not see the benefit of incorporating other systems.

A feature I would like to see is to be able to tabulate the bar graphs (perhaps on a click) so that I could see all the opponents, the armies, the scores and the movements.

It would also be good to enter two names to get a list of all games played so I can see how the big hitters have fared against each other - this latter is perhaps a little early since there may not be so many repeat opponents. This could be achieved by clicking a 'show all games vs this opponent' button and querying the result tabulations for the two players perhaps including both doubles and singles. Giving the ability to sort the tables of results by player would do it too.

timmy1 wrote: Dominate Roman is now the army de la Jour. Top ranking with an ELO of near 1800 and 14 tourney wins (and 12 other places) seems to be quite conclusive. Later Seleucid is still the most popular though.

Average points per game seems a better indication to me... which makes Later Ottoman Turkish, Seljuk and EAP very consistent performers and Principate Roman and Later Carthaginian consistently poor performers... (for over 20 tournaments).

timmy1 wrote: Of the 'used once' results, possibly the most interesting is Syro-Cannaanite used by Gerry Fallon to come 4th in an open tourney.

Bet you no one uses Early Nomad again for a while...

Ghaznavid wrote: Other ideas anyone?

Being able to filter out doubles from singles, or vis-versa, would be nice for armies. Or perhaps by army points, ie 650, 800, 900AP?

Peter

Have you considered that the issue may be the quality of the player not the list...? :)

You beat Matteo with them so thay can't be that bad. I will have to look them out.

On a more serious note I agree with all your points. What you have requested matches my wish list.

Knowing that Later Ottomans is best really makes me happy as they are my likely next opponents...

Karsten - 24 months for the active list seems right to me.

timurilenk wrote:A feature I would like to see is to be able to tabulate the bar graphs (perhaps on a click) so that I could see all the opponents, the armies, the scores and the movements.

Afraid I'm not sure what you getting at. Basically the bar-graph is only the graphical representation of the detailed results above them. So what would such an option show that isn't already there?

timurilenk wrote:It would also be good to enter two names to get a list of all games played so I can see how the big hitters have fared against each other - this latter is perhaps a little early since there may not be so many repeat opponents. This could be achieved by clicking a 'show all games vs this opponent' button and querying the result tabulations for the two players perhaps including both doubles and singles.

That would be possible, not sure though there is sufficient interest for such a feature, but I guess we can find out here.

timurilenk wrote:Giving the ability to sort the tables of results by player would do it too.

What tables of results?

peterrjohnston wrote:Being able to filter out doubles from singles, or vis-versa, would be nice for armies. Or perhaps by army points, ie 650, 800, 900AP?

We considered the single/double options but didn't think it worthwhile as the real difference would be point values. Problem with filtering by points is... we do not have the points for most of the tournaments. Accordingly we didn't bother with including them for those few where we had the points, so the database does not have that information. If someone feels like trying to find out how many points were permitted for all the 200 something tournaments currently included we would be most happy to add that info and provide some filtering based on it. Failing that, sorry as much as I would like it, it is just not possible.



One thing I forgot earlier. The Hall of Honour starting page (where it lists all tournaments by country) is getting somewhat longish. Personally I don't mind that, but it has been suggested to apply the same 'folding list' technique to it that we use at other spots (for example the player or army detail pages). So basically the page would then just show the countries and only after clicking on a country do you get to see (and select) the tournaments played there.
What would you all prefer?

I vote to leave the HoH start page as is - not too long for me.

timmy1 wrote: Have you considered that the issue may be the quality of the player not the list...?

You beat Matteo with them so thay can't be that bad. I will have to look them out.

I don't remember beating Matteo, I'm sure we drew, better check the results! Anyway, believe me, unprotected camels armed with only bow are not a new killer troop type. I did have fun though, and even managed to take down two units of cataphracts...

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?

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?

Opportunity for you to break their duck then ...

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?

When everyone else is armoured and superior, being armoured and average sucks.

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.

nikgaukroger wrote:

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?

Opportunity for you to break their duck then ...

at the rate that I paint it wouldn't be possible until late 2012 at the earliest

Is it possible to get some of the really interesting features from the Glicko software? Say, for instance, the "Player Nemesis" ranking and so on? Those were fun ways to use the data.

Marc

I've only just had a chance to look at the rankings properly, and I'm quite impressed. One question springs to mind and I can't find an answer to it so far (apologies if I've missed it).

Is there any time limit to how long game results remain within a players ranking calculation? If not then the rankings are a measure of lifetime achievement, even if possibly limited to those who have played in the last 24mths. If old games drop out of the ranking then its more of a measure of players current form - more akin to most sports rankings.

No problem with either. Would just like to know which.

AlanCutner wrote:I've only just had a chance to look at the rankings properly, and I'm quite impressed. One question springs to mind and I can't find an answer to it so far (apologies if I've missed it).

Is there any time limit to how long game results remain within a players ranking calculation? If not then the rankings are a measure of lifetime achievement, even if possibly limited to those who have played in the last 24mths. If old games drop out of the ranking then its more of a measure of players current form - more akin to most sports rankings.

No problem with either. Would just like to know which.

Alan,

At the moment I don't think there is a time out but looking at the volatility of ratings games from a couple of years ago will have very little impact on your rating. There is no equivalent to the Glicko reliability factor so a few very bad or a few very good comps in a row will see your rating cahange significantly.