"All time" rankings incomplete?

[Ze Monstah]

Keep the arena rankings as they are, to discourage players from 'hogging' a top spot by refusing to play further, but list all players in the all-time ranking - something for everyone.

And sorry, but whaaat?

According to all the complaints, there are a lot of players who hog Arena, in many games, with how it is set now...
A lot of them create "smurfy" accounts, a lot of them involve in kingmaking, get in top then don't play for the rest of the season and so on...
A lot of them RT the best players, in order to get to play only with players who they can defeat or who are kingmaking them, etc.

So sorry, but whaat?

[Jellby]

The issue is that an "all time leaderboard", an "active players leaderboard", and a "last x months leaderboard" are different things and we've got them kind of mixed up. Also, different people (and probably the same person at different occasions) want to see different things.

[Ze Monstah]

The issue is that an "all time leaderboard", an "active players leaderboard", and a "last x months leaderboard" are different things and we've got them kind of mixed up. Also, different people (and probably the same person at different occasions) want to see different things.

They shoud change the name of the top and leave it like this.

[Miwarre]

Ok, I am kind of sorry to have opened a can of worms. But...

Just an example of why one (perhaps not myself only...) may want a R E A L all-time ranking, including all times ("all", not "some" times).

I am a fan of Tibetan checkers or maybe Namibian chess (I'm not, I'm making them up, but maybe somewhere something similar really exists! ), which happen to be played only or mostly on BGA (which, for some games, is actually quite near to reality ). I want to collect games of the best players to study them, I do not care if they played during the last 60 days or are dead since 20 years; once upon a time they reached top ratings and are, presumably if not certainly, among the best players; or, if nothing else, at least a reasonable starting point.

There may be noise among the data? This is almost certain, but, in most contexts, it is a fact of life one has to live with and studying will possibly clean the data to some extent.

Question: how could I do this on BGA? there are other means I ignore? then, please enlighten me!

[ufm]

Well, how about checking the recent list of Expert/Master/ELO/Arena trophy and then starting from there?

btw, it won't be implemented. BGA had a full list of ranking above 100 rating before but now restricts it to top 100 due to server limitation.
All-time ranking... As Ze Monstah mentioned you'll probably find a bunch of unused accounts there. Nope. It is not that useful.

[Miwarre]

@ufm : thanks for your reply.

I know about Arena summaries, but I did not find any list of Expert / Master players of a given game beyond the all-time ranking itself in game page. Am I missing something obvious?

EDIT:

By inspecting the HTML sources of several pages and some trials and errors, I found the pages you probably refer to:

100 ELO: https://boardgamearena.com/award?game=< ... >&award=35
200 ELO: https://boardgamearena.com/award?game=< ... >&award=36
300 ELO: https://boardgamearena.com/award?game=< ... >&award=25
500 ELO: https://boardgamearena.com/award?game=< ... >&award=26
700 ELO: https://boardgamearena.com/award?game=< ... >&award=27

I agree with you: a quite useful starting point!

(P.S.: As I said before, "unused accounts" are not an issue in my perspective: if at some time a player reached a high rank, it does not matter to me if he does not play anymore, chances are he was a strong player and therefore potentially relevant. In games like Chess or Go, games of players dead since decades (occasionally, even since centuries!) are a topic for study, even from times when the rules were more or less different; two months are nothing!)

[Silene]

Question: how could I do this on BGA? there are other means I ignore? then, please enlighten me!

Another thing to consider is that ELO is in motion. So skill of a ELO 300 player 5 years ago might not be the same as skill of a ELO 300 player today. A drastic shift was the ELO-"reform" ~2016 where starting elo dropped from 200 to 0 (simply spoken) which lead to deflation of elo where all active players dropped in ELO even if skill improved while inactive players did not drop.

That's a drastic example but nevertheless - small adjustments are being made from time to time (and also player base changes and might bring/steal from the pool) and you can't reliably compare those numbers over a long timeframe.

IMO 60 days is a bit short - while for others it's too long - but I think you can't keep and compare the numbers forever.