How about adding in an extra line in the player stats box in teams games for Team A, Team B, totaling the team continents, territories and units, so you can see a nice team by team comparison?

Yep good idea.

I was thinking that it would be nice to have an additional leaders board based on recent performance. The idea is that it would give lower ranked players an achievable goal and a chance to get some recognition, as it is rather tricky to break into the top 10 or 20. I guess it should be rather simple, and just based on ordinary game points? Not sure how far back it should look. Probably not too far, since if it was considering the last months performance, then it is likely that most of it would just be top ranked players anyway. Maybe performance over the last week would give the desired effect. I think everyone deserves their 15 minutes of fame. ;-)

I agree with this. I have been steadily trying to get into the top 10 for the last week+ (I've really done nothing but - all the games I start are strategically designed to get me the CP's I need) and despite being one of the top players on the site I am still at least 1 (damn it's up to 2 - it was 1 this morning) C.P. away from getting there.

There's plenty of room on the home page - just call the existing Top Players "Top Players - All Time" and have an identical chart below it called "Top Players - Last 20 Days". The "New Boards" list can afford to be pushed down another 2 inches.

asm wrote: I have been steadily trying to get into the top 10 for the last week+ (I've really done nothing but - all the games I start are strategically designed to get me the CP's I need) and despite being one of the top players on the site I am still at least 1 (damn it's up to 2 - it was 1 this morning) C.P. away from getting there.

Funny thing, I got to number 3 or 4 almost without realising, simply playing games that I enjoyed.  Then when I noticed I was so close to the top, I started playing for points, with the result that I ended up dragging myself down to 7 or 8.  Then I forgot about the points, and just started joining games that I thought would be fun, and now I have a couple of wins just around the corner that will pop me back into 3 or 4.  Always seems to be the way.

So based purely on who has gained the most ranking points gained in the last x days? Sounds doable...

Yeah, could be top 5 or 10, but I guess the most important thing is how many days. My idea was giving someone who never had a chance of getting near the top 10 a chance of getting on the table, but I'm not sure what number of days would do that without making it too short. A week. two weeks?

Maybe there is a completely different metric that will give a better outcome. Maybe measuring performance improvement, for example? That might stop it filling up with ranked players.

Innovative ideas anyone?

Well, we've had the ranking metrics conversation a couple times, I'd say just use what we've got and like Tom said settle the number of days. The overall CP leaderboard will pretty quickly get out of reach for anyone new to the site. I'd say anywhere between 15 to 30 days would probably work, for most CP's gained in that amount of time.

My suggestion: get the coding in place and play with the time frame to see what kind of results you get, then set it based on whatever ends up looking good. For example if we hypothetically decide that 2 weeks is a good time, but the 2-week leaderboard ends up with a bunch of people tied with 1, bump it up a bit.

* * * * * *

One other unrelated suggestion/request: When viewing a public game, it displays the rankings of the people in the game, but not your own (until after you join). Would like to see 'Your Current Rank:' underneath the list of players already in the game.

Hmmm, CP points, or simple game points? If you use CP points, a person who plays really for a week or two, may still not get any CP points, compared to an already ranked player who only wins one game that gives them potentially 2, 3 or even 5 CP points. This means it would be stacked in the ranked players favour. If we use ordinary game points, (ie the scaled 20 points system), then this will be to the advantage of the lower ranked players who will score well if they get a win, due to the scaling factor, which is kind of the idea to give them an advantage for this.

Well, 2 things:

The overall ranking is in terms of CP's, so in a sense that's what we're competing for. There could potentially be confusion with 2 front-page leaderboards in 2 different time frames and measuring 2 different metrics.

Global Ranking Score is dynamic in a way that CP's are not. Mine's gone down quite a bit over the last couple weeks while my CP's have gone way up. Last-month global ranking score gain wouldn't necessarily favor new players over old players or really favor anyone in particular because it's a pretty immediate measure of overall talent. I guess it would favor truly new players that are beginning at 1000... but is that what we're going for? Measuring in terms of global ranking would also be subject to the small sample size problems that that metric is prone to, for example you could win one game against 7 well-ranked players and sit at the top of the leaderboard without playing another game until a month passed.

Hmm, it seems like none of the ideas suggested so far result in putting asm on the top of a leaderboard. Let's all keep working on it, I'm sure we can come up with something (though it might be a little hard). ;-)

Well I guess my initial idea was to give players who are not likely to even make into the top 100 a chance to have their moment in the sun, and if it was only the last week or so, then it would turn over fairly quickly, so yes, someone who manages a multi-player win could get on the table straight away and be there for a few days, then fall off.  That was my original thought.  Just gives everyone a chance at a moment of glory.  I just imagine that for newcomer it would be disheartening to see such a mountain of points in front of you, so it could even encourage newcomers to hand around?

Would be good if some others could chip in with their views. Not really an overwhelming majority of opinions here. ;-)

bengaltiger wrote: Hmm, it seems like none of the ideas suggested so far result in putting asm on the top of a leaderboard. Let's all keep working on it, I'm sure we can come up with something (though it might be a little hard). ;-)

seems easy enough. just invert the list.

paulharrow wrote:

Well I guess my initial idea was to give players who are not likely to even make into the top 100 a chance to have their moment in the sun, and if it was only the last week or so, then it would turn over fairly quickly, so yes, someone who manages a multi-player win could get on the table straight away and be there for a few days, then fall off.  That was my original thought.  Just gives everyone a chance at a moment of glory.  I just imagine that for newcomer it would be disheartening to see such a mountain of points in front of you, so it could even encourage newcomers to hand around?

Would be good if some others could chip in with their views. Not really an overwhelming majority of opinions here. ;-)

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/472/Home_page_rankings_display

what i basically suggested in this thread was to keep the CP ranking as is but add a few different rankings to keep it interesting for the rest of the players. Tom said it might reduce the value of the CP rankings but as far as i see if you keep the CP rankings on the front page and have the rest of the site rankings on the ranking tab it shouldn't affect the value of CP rankings.

At the very least, it would be nice if somehow there could be a finer gradation of the points used for whatever the main ranking is. Right now, a new player could win a couple games on a popular board and still end up with 0 CP's and zero impact on their ranking. I think it would be a lot less discouraging to that player if they saw an immediate reward for their accomplishments, even if it's a small jump in CP's from 0 to 0.1.

Norseman, isn't that the idea of the global ranking table? A couple of wins will give you quite a good reward on that, and just because it is not used for the top 10 leaders, doesn't mean it has no kudos. I certainly enjoy trying to stay near the top of both tables, and still admire Dud for his amazing performance on the global ranking table too. But if we had the "recent performance" table, based on only a week, and perhaps even just looking at the last 3 days performances, this would certainly allow many people to have their name under lights on the home page. The more I think about this, the more I think very short times would be best for my original table idea, as it will give maximum people a chance to be on it, and longer times will just end up being a top 20, or top 30 board, which is not much use, as you can already see this information on the CP table.

Anyway, think I've distilled my ideas pretty well now.  I'll just leave the thread to simmer, and see what happens.  ;-)

Using CPs probably wouldn't be a very good measure for this would it? Since only the Top 10 player's of a board get CPs, after a while I imagine most boards will have 10 players in the CP range, so even someone at 1100 may be at 0, even up to 1500+ could be at 0. I'm unsure how you would break down CPs to move from 0 to 0.1, unless the Ranking scale was completely redone somehow perhaps.

Suggestion: On the Rankings tab of Board pages, somehow highlight the top 10 player rows (those that get a medal) to easily show what the goal would be to obtain a medal.

Would it be possible to include the number of units on a territory in addition to the current owner of that territory in the mouse-over box? For example, when I hover over Territory A on a map, could it display something like:

Territory A
Kjeld, 12 units
Max units: 15

Not a big deal, but it might be nice, especially with the new dual-layer maps for which the textured background may make it difficult to see unit counts in some cases.

I'm hesitant to support that idea.
1) that makes for a pretty darn big tooltip. At some point things just start getting in the way.
2) Would probably be pretty irritating in fogged games.

I'd say if it's hard to see unit counts because of graphics, that's a problem in the board design that should be fixed.