Has the Leaderboard stopped working?
RedLion wrote:QUOTE (RedLion @ Aug 11 2009, 01:42 PM) It's not updating my stats; is this happening to anyone else?
It will only update your stats if
The game you were playing countedTag was running on the server (it may not after a server crash). Tag records the server stats for the ranking system.
Hi RedLion,
Games less then 5 a side for half the duration of the game won't count. Also, sometimes TAG (the system that reports stats after the game) won't be running on a serv (though I have not seen that occur for quite some time now).
More good info here: http://www.freeallegiance.org/FAW/index.php/Stats
EDIT: you were quicker notjarvis
also, this is not specified in the stats page on the wiki, but my understanding is that games played only on approved cores will count (TAG reports the core on the serv the game was played on), does anyone know if that is the case?
Games less then 5 a side for half the duration of the game won't count. Also, sometimes TAG (the system that reports stats after the game) won't be running on a serv (though I have not seen that occur for quite some time now).
More good info here: http://www.freeallegiance.org/FAW/index.php/Stats
EDIT: you were quicker notjarvis
also, this is not specified in the stats page on the wiki, but my understanding is that games played only on approved cores will count (TAG reports the core on the serv the game was played on), does anyone know if that is the case?
Last edited by jbourne on Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thanks both for the reply. The criteria on the wiki were met, and I believe the ranking system was running. You see, my rank changed in game (I had to relog for a crash and noticed it last night, also logged back today and had the new rank up) but it didn't change on the Leaderboard .... it seemed pretty strange to me hence the question here.
EDIT: Ah wait, maybe a missunderstood you there ... you were talking about the "reporting" system being offline, not the "ranking" system itself. Ok, I guess that makes sense then
EDIT: Ah wait, maybe a missunderstood you there ... you were talking about the "reporting" system being offline, not the "ranking" system itself. Ok, I guess that makes sense then
Last edited by RedLion on Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RedLion wrote:QUOTE (RedLion @ Aug 11 2009, 10:09 AM) Thanks both for the reply. The criteria on the wiki were met, and I believe the ranking system was running. You see, my rank changed in game (I had to relog for a crash and noticed it last night, also logged back today and had the new rank up) but it didn't change on the Leaderboard .... it seemed pretty strange to me hence the question here.
EDIT: Ah wait, maybe a missunderstood you there ... you were talking about the "reporting" system being offline, not the "ranking" system itself. Ok, I guess that makes sense then
Evidence yet again about the artificially inflating the ranks causing issues.
Your rank is now a five I presume in game next to your name but on the leader board it is 2.6 and you are wondering why they do not jive is my presumption. You were artificially made a five (basically by number of games played vs actually improving) to force you off the newbie server and to prevent your potentially whore on the less clued. This is automatic and not done specifically to you
MrChaos
Ssssh
MrChaos, you got that absolutely right
And from your words I gather I haven’t understood this ranking system one bit. Part of me is tempted to let it be, I don’t particularly care for ranks anyway, but I have a problem with not understanding things and a tendency to dig for answers …
So, you are saying that the ranks in game don’t match those on the leaderboard? Or perhaps, they start matching after such and such rank? What I found on the wiki explains the Mus and the Sigmas and the general idea behind the system, but nothing (unless it’s hidden s.where off course) about such rank discrepancies. Also, so we get kicked out of the newbie servers just by the amount of time spent playing? I suppose that may make sense since they are “newbie servers”, for new players, as opposed to “for those who suck servers” (afraid I would have a life long subscription to those) but then why base the ban on ranks to begin with?
And from your words I gather I haven’t understood this ranking system one bit. Part of me is tempted to let it be, I don’t particularly care for ranks anyway, but I have a problem with not understanding things and a tendency to dig for answers …
So, you are saying that the ranks in game don’t match those on the leaderboard? Or perhaps, they start matching after such and such rank? What I found on the wiki explains the Mus and the Sigmas and the general idea behind the system, but nothing (unless it’s hidden s.where off course) about such rank discrepancies. Also, so we get kicked out of the newbie servers just by the amount of time spent playing? I suppose that may make sense since they are “newbie servers”, for new players, as opposed to “for those who suck servers” (afraid I would have a life long subscription to those) but then why base the ban on ranks to begin with?
The ranks in game are in general extrapolated from the leaderboard rank. There is a kludge in there to stop someone perpetually staying on the newbie servers (based on time) as most games on the newbie servers don't count. i believe thats the only time they shouldn't matchRedLion wrote:QUOTE (RedLion @ Aug 12 2009, 04:28 PM) MrChaos, you got that absolutely right
And from your words I gather I haven’t understood this ranking system one bit. Part of me is tempted to let it be, I don’t particularly care for ranks anyway, but I have a problem with not understanding things and a tendency to dig for answers …
So, you are saying that the ranks in game don’t match those on the leaderboard? Or perhaps, they start matching after such and such rank? What I found on the wiki explains the Mus and the Sigmas and the general idea behind the system, but nothing (unless it’s hidden s.where off course) about such rank discrepancies. Also, so we get kicked out of the newbie servers just by the amount of time spent playing? I suppose that may make sense since they are “newbie servers”, for new players, as opposed to “for those who suck servers” (afraid I would have a life long subscription to those) but then why base the ban on ranks to begin with?
You're right - the wiki should probably be updated with this info.
Generally it's recommended you only play on the newbie servers a couple of times anyway to figure out controls etc.
The ban was based on rank, as at that time it's all the server knows about a player (or I believe it was when the system was designed).
RedLionRedLion wrote:QUOTE (RedLion @ Aug 12 2009, 10:28 AM) MrChaos, you got that absolutely right
And from your words I gather I haven’t understood this ranking system one bit. Part of me is tempted to let it be, I don’t particularly care for ranks anyway, but I have a problem with not understanding things and a tendency to dig for answers …
So, you are saying that the ranks in game don’t match those on the leaderboard? Or perhaps, they start matching after such and such rank? What I found on the wiki explains the Mus and the Sigmas and the general idea behind the system, but nothing (unless it’s hidden s.where off course) about such rank discrepancies. Also, so we get kicked out of the newbie servers just by the amount of time spent playing? I suppose that may make sense since they are “newbie servers”, for new players, as opposed to “for those who suck servers” (afraid I would have a life long subscription to those) but then why base the ban on ranks to begin with?
You hit on a pet peeve of mine is all.
Your rank is really the one you see on the leader board (the points at the end of the game are meaningless and a hold over from 10 years back when Microsoft ruled the roost). The rank you see next to your name is there to give the callus vets info on how new you are (hiders make it difficult to tell at a glance who is who) in game and offer YOU some protection from their "loving" ways. People below a certain rank (four) get extra protection from booting in game (there has to be a good reason other then you just generally seem extra attracted to rocks and crashing into them), and almost the only ones allowed in game on the rookie server, a bit of CareBearness for the gentle souls that wonder in before they get the full brunt of the community.
People being people in the past we had those who tried being an Allegiance Twink and live on the rookie server not wanting to rank up simply to whore it up on the truly new players. So to address this there is some extra bit of coding that inflates your in game rank above the protection level of a four after your Sigma hits 6.25 (someone ran some numbers and figured it equates to about 20 games or so for the average player). It also forces the shyer players into more mainstream games but that is a side benefit.
The unintended results of this where any number of sharp eyed new players noticing the immediate jump in rank, and the truly clued noticing it doesn't match the leader board. It also gives commanders the wrong information on your skill levels and at times has resulted in really new players getting treated like they at least know how to equip their nan gun. The level of four is a hold over from a prior ranking system try and has no other meaning then tradition.
So I drag out my soap box, explain the issue, and say yet again:
Stop artificially inflating ranks, just reset the no longer a rookie level to say two.
Hermit's Pal and Therefore Yours
MrChaos
Ssssh
