New Site

[raz_atoth]

Actually,the first player listed is the one who reports the game.
Not the first side of the scenario.

[Crossroads]

Actually,the first player listed is the one who reports the game.
Not the first side of the scenario.

:conf: :conf:

The listing lists myself as the first side player, although I was not.

I thought the practice is that the winner reports the game?

I have not win that many games (this is the third :whis: ) , but I've reported earlier one as a first and one as second side player - and they both display "correctly"?

:conf:

Or is the problem with the header of the Ladder? The header row clearly states 1st side player and 2nd side player?

I am obviously new at this. Maybe we should move to emails and stop bothering everyone with this?

[raz_atoth]

I guess the header should be renamed from 'first side player' to 'First player' or something like that.
Only those games reported since the new site went live have the reporter listed as the first player.I'm not sure about the previous ones,but i guess they might have used the first side of the scenario instead.Thus the confusion :)

[Crossroads]

I guess the header should be renamed from 'first side player' to 'First player' or something like that.
Only those games reported since the new site went live have the reporter listed as the first player.I'm not sure about the previous ones,but i guess they might have used the first side of the scenario instead.Thus the confusion :)

You are right in that the listing is correct: I played the Allied and I somehow managed to win it as well...

But regarding the issue, I am not sure I understand what you mean with First player vs. First side player ?

How come I am the First player, if my side did not move first? I definitively was not First side player?

I just checked how a result is reported
- Choose the ladder: CS
- Choose the Game: The Matrix Games version of East Front II
- Choose scenario: 4. PzDiv-Fall Weiss:1
- Your opponent was: Zap
- Your side was: Allies (which happened to have the second move in this scenario - thus I am the Second player and the Second side player as well? Edit: I checked, the first side to move is always listed first, Axis was default here, I had to select Allies)
- Game result was: Major Loss (This is always a bit confusing as well, but IIRC the result should be logged as how the scenario reports it; in this case I report a Major Loss although the result was positive for me?)

My apologies for dragging on and on with this...

Oh well, the MB reflects the Army very well. SNAFU, and got promoted for participating in it :smoke:

[raz_atoth]

What i mean is the first player listed is the one reporting the game.And perhaps the header(First side player) should be renamed not to include the 'side' part which might create confusion.
The win is relative to the player who reports the game.If you win,you select the win from the drop-box.I'm not sure how it's reported in CS but in CM(and perhaps other games) the result is displayed relative to you.

[Major BS]

[quote='Major BS' pid='313769' dateline='1263485508']
The new site looks great. A couple of quick questions though:

1. When I went to my profile, I realized I had been "promoted" one rank sooner than expected. In other words, the last time I checked the table of ranks I didn't have enough points to get to where my profile shows me. Has the table of ranks scoring changed somehow?

2. When I tried to go to the table of ranks to confirm...I couldn't find it. I'm sure I'm just getting used to the changes, but it is still there somewhere, correct?

Once again, kudos on the website. It looks fantastic and I'm sure I'll while away more time from work than usual look at all the new eyecandy!

Yeap,the rank is correct ;) The current rank works somehow different than the old one(s).In the past you would have one rank for each ladder you played.You could have been Colonel on ladder A and a captain on ladder B.Now,there is only one 'global' rank which combines all your points from all the ladders you're playing and much more.You might regard the current rank as a 'site' rank(where all your contributions are listed) rather than a ladder rank.
In your particular case,i see you have 1079 on the CS ladder and another 65 from bonuses.You need 1100 to be ranked as a Sergeant.Obviously the bonus points did the trick :)
The table of ranks hasn't been converted yet to the new format.Expect to see it in the next couple of days,though.

---

[quote='Crossroads' pid='313785' dateline='1263488471']

Actually on second look Raz, that math is incorrect. I have 1014 points from regular play + 65 bonus points = 1079 total points. So I have not reached the 1110 points necessary to acheive sgt. yet.

The explanation that the ladders combine ranks is irrelevant as I only play on one ladder.

End result: There must be a bug here somewhere, as I haven't reported a game since the new site went "live." Yet, somehow, without making any score changes, I've jumped from corporal to sergeant. Weird. No new points should equal no new rank and the only variable is the change in the site.

[Big Dawg]

Thanks Raz!!!!

I had to delete the cookies in my firefox browser. I initially did not know how to do that but figured it out.



Nice work, BTW

[junk2drive]

I have had cases where my opponent, who won, refused to post the battle or disappeared. I posted it and would then be first side. Whether or not I started, moved first, or won the battle.

[Scud]

Kudos to Raz! Fun exploring all the new stuff.

[raz_atoth]

Actually on second look Raz, that math is incorrect. I have 1014 points from regular play + 65 bonus points = 1079 total points. So I have not reached the 1110 points necessary to acheive sgt. yet.

The explanation that the ladders combine ranks is irrelevant as I only play on one ladder.

End result: There must be a bug here somewhere, as I haven't reported a game since the new site went "live." Yet, somehow, without making any score changes, I've jumped from corporal to sergeant. Weird. No new points should equal no new rank and the only variable is the change in the site.

You're right.There was a bug,the bonus points where counted twice when determining the rank.
Sorry,but you've just been..demoted ;)