"All time" rankings incomplete?

[Miwarre]

I was perusing the Bobail "all time" ranking and I noticed that some peoples I used to know as strong players no longer appear in the list. I looked at their personal pages and I found that:

• "some player" is ranked 801, so "it" should go between the current second (850) and the current third (698)

• "some other player" is ranked 617, so "it" should go between the current third (698) and the current fourth (606)

Neither has any penalty /suspension / etc listed in their personal page. So, what is happening?

It is not the first time I notice something of this kind, in other games too, but I did not collect specific data; this time, I did. Also, other peoples may lack in these list who should rather appear, so perhaps some investigation would be worth the effort?

(To err on the safe side, I omitted all player real names, but I can provide them, if necessary)

[dschingis27]

I think you only appear in the rankings if you played one game in the last 3 months.

[Miwarre]

@dschingis27: Thanks for your quick reply.

One of the player played the last game of this game on 2021-07-25 and "disappeared" quite recently; the other on 2021-07-06, so probably it is the last 2 months.

I do not see any reason for a time limit (and I may be biased), but if a time limit is really necessary, should not it be longer? Say, 6 months, 1 year?

[Ze Monstah]

If a player gets to nr. 1 in a game, and after that, he/she abandons playing that game completely, simply to "park his/her car" in the nr. 1 place, so others can't get that trophy... do you find it fair or nice to let him/her there for a year or 6 months?

I personally find the 2 months too long as they are, but that's just my opinion.

There is really no reason for someone to be in a certain top in a game, if that player isn't an active frequent player.

[Jellby]

Why would a player who doesn't play prevent anyone else from becoming 1st? Other players can keep playing and gain ELO and surpass the old 1st. On the other hand, if inactive players are removed from the ranking, then the ranking is not "all time", but something else (I'm not against it, but the constraints should be explicit).

[Ze Monstah]

Why would a player who doesn't play prevent anyone else from becoming 1st? Other players can keep playing and ghain ELO and surpass the old 1st. On the other hand, if inactive players are removed from the ranking, then the ranking is not "all time", but something else (I'm not against it, but the constraints should be explicit).

Because in some luck-based games, it might be tricky for someone to get in the top.
Nr. 1 is just an example, the idea is for anyone in top 20 all-time.

I see no reason for inactive players to be in a top, if they haven't played for a certain time.

Just as you say that others can surpass a certain player, those inactive players can also play 1 game in a while, to get back in the top; you know... if that game is so important for them in the first place.

This is my logic, and i am against "parking" in all-time tops.

I agree though, that the way BGA uses words, can sometimes be vague.

[Miwarre]

While agreing that other may prefer a more "dynamic" approach, in my perspective a cumulative ranking should last "for ever" (literally).

Once someone achieves some score (or ELO, if you prefer), I fail to see how anybody else can be ranked higher than him (or, even worse, instead of) without achieving a higher score, be it 20 days or 20 years later.

But, as i said, perspectives can be diverse.

[Ze Monstah]

But, as i said, perspectives can be diverse.

Bingo, different perspectives.

Before, in 2018-2019, before Arena, there was a time-limit of 1 month in the top, after which... Vanish.

But because then, the gained trophies could be lost if ELO dropped, the NEW SYSTEM CHANGE brough un-removable trophies, to make people not interested anymore in "top parking", and encourage them to play even when they reach new heights, because they can't lose the trophies gained on the way.

I find the new system better, and the time limit of 2 months, decent.

You gave examples of 2 players who should be 4th. and 3rd. place. And I assume they gained some trophies on the way, but then ceased to play for at least 2 months.

Since they obviously lost interest or whatever, why should they stay in the top and occupy that place in the top, making the jobs harder for other players in top 20, behind them? (players who perhaps play more, show more interest, etc.)

I understand your point, I respect it, but I disagree with it 100%.

*this is the least of the problems BGA has, anyway, with all the cheating, other critics, and all.

[GeraldineMerida]

The 'all time' ranking isn't based on arena performance, it's based on ELO. In fact, I am in the top 10 for a game I've never played in arena.

I totally agree with the OP that 'all-time' non-arena rankings should include ALL players' performance. If I am the best, I want to be the best ever, not just the best of those who played in the past 60 days.

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.

[Ze Monstah]

The 'all time' ranking isn't based on arena performance, it's based on ELO. In fact, I am in the top 10 for a game I've never played in arena.

I totally agree with the OP that 'all-time' non-arena rankings should include ALL players' performance. If I am the best, I want to be the best ever, not just the best of those who played in the past 60 days.

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.

My Arena mention from above has nothing to do with This Post, it was time-wise, in context with the System Change from a while ago.
So Arena is not the issue here, no one brought it up as a comparison to All Time.

If you, as a non-Arena player, let's say... have like 10 accounts (there are people with more accounts), and occupy the first 10 places in a game (10 is an example, you may have only 1), then you don't play that game for years, and even don't enter BGA, or die or whatever...

Again... WHY would you forever be there, in the top? I don't get it.
Perhaps they should replace "All time", with "Elo ranking" or "Non-Arena ranking" and keep a time limit of inactivity.

This is the point of a time-limit, to forbid people hogging a game like that, then disappearing.
All a player has to do to be in the ELO Top is to play 6 games/year... Why such a big deal about that? I honestly don't get this pro-hogging thing.

It's incredible... no one agrees with me on anything, around here; not to mention that most of you seem to not comprehend certain details - perhaps language barrier.