Oolite Bulletins

TGHC wrote:

It was 9800 on ArcElite, but most other versions were 6400


Here are the classic rankings from jades excellent site


And to top it all the wiki is wrong

I'm sure there was a "Below Average" in C64 Elite - I don't remember going from Poor to Average - but I guess I did - it was a long time ago.

Looking at that wording "Average" = 24 kills, what would the distribution curve look like if the average number of kills a pilot gets before he's killed or retires is 24...

I assume the score in the original Elite was stored as sixteen bits. In an eight-bit assembly language, that’s two separate eight-bit variables. The first five values all have the high byte at zero, while the last three have the low byte at zero (i.e., they’re multiples of 256). This will have saved a few bytes of code.

I don’t know why B&B chose the specific high-byte values they did (2, 10 and 25), though. Presumably they felt right.

Oolite’s thresholds are 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 512, 2560 and 6400, so the first two are harsh, the next three match Frontier and the last three match “original” according to the jades page.

Well that was a <facepalm> moment - 8-bit, how could I forget original Elite was 8-bit! C-64 Assembler was the only time I ever tried any kind of Assembly language programming - definitely put me off forever!

Thanks for the info on the thresholds for OOlite though!

Congrats CM. I know you have pointed me on the right path a few times. But did you lose a few of your posts with the hacker attack? If so this might be your Elite x2!

Fatleaf wrote:

But did you lose a few of your posts with the hacker attack? If so this might be your Elite x2!

No, I didn't, because I joined the boards relatively late. And the posts themselves were lost long before the hacker attacks. The loss was due to the original preferences of the board, which would auto-delete any thread if no new posts were made for a certain period of time (6 months, 24 months). Aegidian may have first used this setting because of a concern for server space. Later the thread storage restrictions were removed. Thus there are relatively few surviving threads which were started 2004 till 2006. The auto-deleting of old posts didn't reset the post counts of the posters, though. This only happened due to the hacker attack, when the database had to be re-installed, and the post counts were re-calculated on the basis of actual existing posts. (Perhaps it happened in conjunction with the upgrade to phpBB 3.0; I don't know any details, I'm just making an educated guess.) Anyway, the oldest guys here were the most affected, notably Aegidian himself and Ahruman. It's also the reason why so many of the early members now have a '0' post count on their names.

Actually I was the one who discovered the auto-deleting back in 2008. That was 18 months after my first post, therefore it is entirely possible that some of my earlier posts in the Expansion Pack forum were lost as well. But not as many as for others.

Oh, and thanks for the Congrats!

TGHC wrote:

And to top it all the wiki is wrong

It isn't wrong as such, the box is only missing the 'Poor' rank. It's only the ranking for FE2/FFE anyway.

The  wiki got it right for Oolite's ranking (as does the Reference Sheet).

He he.. congratulations! Perhaps the numbers *should* be reset to match the game! Though at that rate it would take me another 20 years to get to Elite!

Cheers,

Drew.

Commander McLane wrote:

TGHC wrote:

And to top it all the wiki is wrong

It isn't wrong as such, the box is only missing the 'Poor' rank. It's only the ranking for FE2/FFE anyway.

The  wiki got it right for Oolite's ranking (as does the Reference Sheet).

We're both right, we are looking at different pages on the Wiki, yours is entitled Elite Ratings, the one I am referring to here is entitled Elite Rankings, and is wrong so I suggest it should be deleted since they are duplicating each other.

TGHC wrote:

I suggest it should be deleted since they are duplicating each other.

I'd agree, but it's not only an Oolite Wiki... as I understand it, it's an Elite/Frontier/Oolite Wiki.

TGHC wrote:

Commander McLane wrote:

TGHC wrote:

And to top it all the wiki is wrong

It isn't wrong as such, the box is only missing the 'Poor' rank. It's only the ranking for FE2/FFE anyway.

The  wiki got it right for Oolite's ranking (as does the Reference Sheet).

We're both right, we are looking at different pages on the Wiki, yours is entitled Elite Ratings, the one I am referring to here is entitled Elite Rankings, and is wrong so I suggest it should be deleted since they are duplicating each other.

No, they're not duplicating each other, which was exactly my point. Please keep in mind that the Elite Wiki is dedicated to all things Elitey, and Oolite is only a small part of it. The [wiki]Elite Rankings[/wiki] page is part of the FE2/FFE-sections of the Wiki, and is only supposed to display the rankings for these two games, which it correctly does, except that the 'Poor' ranking is left out. At the bottom of the page it is marked as being in the categories 'FE2' and 'FFE', not in the categories 'Elite' or 'Oolite', therefore it is solely concerned with the rankings as they were in FE2 and FFE. And the rankings given are indeed a perfect match with the 'FE2/FFE'-column on Jades' page you linked to before (except the missing 'Poor' rating).

The [wiki]Elite Ratings[/wiki] page, however, refers to the rating system of Oolite ('the current system'), which it again captures correctly.

What could be done, perhaps, is to combine these two pages into one single page, which would contain the ranking systems for all versions of Elite/Frontier/Oolite.

There is a template which uses the right values (http://wiki.alioth.net/index.php/Templa ... nks_Oolite).

Anyway, congrats CMcL .-)

Your right Commander. I didn't look at the bottom of the page.
Thanks for the correction.

And back to the original subject:

Right On, Commander!

Svengali wrote:

There is a template which uses the right values (http://wiki.alioth.net/index.php/Templa ... nks_Oolite).

Anyway, congrats CMcL .-)

The template actually hid the "poor" rating. I corrected that.