Now it appears there is the potential for a player to reach a high ranking on a board and not have to play any more games on that board to maintain the ranking.  This would happen if the player achieves a high level and then doesn't play any more games on that board, thus making it nearly impossible for all other players to overtake him.

Does it therefore make sense to have an "attrition" rate for rankings that would entice the top players to keep playing on those boards?  For example, each day that goes by w/o being in an active game on that board would be -2 to the board ranking...

Discuss

dude you dont have to play the top ranked player to overtake his ranking.

Viper wrote:

dude you dont have to play the top ranked player to overtake his ranking.

For most boards I agree with you.  However there are several where the top player hasn't played a public game in a long time because they know they don't need to.

You can still get ahead of them by defeating other players.

I do agree with the basic idea of your post Attila - I think it would be nice to have different ranking boards - something like "all time" (which is what we have now) vs "active players" (those who have completed a game in the past 6 months or something like that.)

AttilaTheHun wrote:

Viper wrote:

dude you dont have to play the top ranked player to overtake his ranking.

For most boards I agree with you.  However there are several where the top player hasn't played a public game in a long time because they know they don't need to.

This is because they put a lot of time into getting that score up there.

Does an Olympic athlete who has won gold consider coming back in four years if they know they have almost no chance of medalling?

Think of it like a world record waiting to be broken.

Besides, what's the fun of being #1 on a board (that you presumably enjoy) and not being able to play it for fear of bringing your score down?

I'm #1 on several boards and still play frequently on all of them, mostly to my detriment haha, but I enjoy playing on those boards anyway.

M57 wrote:

Besides, what's the fun of being #1 on a board (that you presumably enjoy) and not being able to play it for fear of bringing your score down?

The system I mentioned before would be an incentive to keep playing, rather than not play the particular board.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying.

Let's say I play a particular map a lot and win a lot and my ranking is #1.  If I stop playing that map and everyone else keeps playing it and winning, eventually they are going to get a higher score on the map than I have and overtake my ranking.  The system works.  Just because I stop playing doesn't mean that anyone else can't get a better score.

Exactly. In fact, that's how I got my #1 in Gauntlet - BlackDog stopped playing Gauntlet games while I won a bunch of them. That said, it's because I played a bunch of them that I'm not playing any right now - I'm burnt out on the board.

Then again, I'm in a Gauntlet tournament right now, and I can definitely tell I'm several shades of rusty, so I might take it up again... maybe. *shrug*

The system is fine and doesn't need a fix. As it was said above, a number one ranking is some kind of record waiting to be broken. If the player doesn't want to play for fear of taking his score down, then he restricts himself and loses some fun cos he presumably likes the map.

But the difference is that when youre trying to break your own record, you're not putting in jeopardy the previous one if you fail, while your wg score will drop after a lost game.. So there's a little difference here.

Still, players should be able to overtake the #1 anytime by playing between each other. Even if the #1 has gone inactive.

I wouldn't mind seeing a set +5 CP if your score is above 2000 on a board.  This +5 would not be taken away as long as you were above the 2k mark and anyone above the 2k would receive the +5 (the other 20/15/12/etc CPs would still be distributed as current). I think that could be a good bonus for playing a board a bit longer but actually be a bit tough to do as I think there are probably just about a handful of players/boards that have a score above 2k.

I'm not a fan of losing scores over time due to not playing.  I think it would be cool a 6 monthish time frame CP/Global Ranking system in addition to the "All Time" current system.

Which I'd tie all this in with a massive "Achievements" system. :)

Yertle wrote:

I wouldn't mind seeing a set +5 CP if your score is above 2000 on a board.  This +5 would not be taken away as long as you were above the 2k mark and anyone above the 2k would receive the +5 (the other 20/15/12/etc CPs would still be distributed as current). I think that could be a good bonus for playing a board a bit longer but actually be a bit tough to do as I think there are probably just about a handful of players/boards that have a score above 2k.

I'm not a fan of losing scores over time due to not playing.  I think it would be cool a 6 monthish time frame CP/Global Ranking system in addition to the "All Time" current system.

Which I'd tie all this in with a massive "Achievements" system. :)

This seems like a good idea, but since I have played a lot of 1v1 boards, I can say that it is near impossible to break 2000, whereas I broke 2000 on Wargear Warfare relatively easily (not suggesting easy wins).  I have played well over 100 games of spies and not come close to 1500 let alone 2000 and cannot say that I have seen many players with a +1500 score on a two player map.  With all of that said, I support the proposal of a +2000 guaranteed +5 cp.

Also, I support a cp system where only active points are considered (must have played games on cp board within last 6 months for points to count), but would like the all-time to stay around.

I actually think it's good for 1v1 boards to not being able to easily hit that 2k mark, which is one reason I think it would work better than something lower (ie 1800 or something).  1vs1 boards can at times become "unfair" when a veteran of a board is playing a new player to the board and thus have somewhat of an advantage, that's not all 1vs1 boards, but I would think it's a majority of them.

fair enough, still support the +2k is 5cp regardless.  Would this replace 4, 3, 2, 1 if 10 players were over 2k; just making sure I understand.

It sounds like it is just an extra bonus on top of the regular champ points if I am reading Yertle correctly?

My reservation is it would act to dissuade players who had achieved a 2k+ score from replaying the board. One of the main aims of the championship point system was to encourage continued competition between the top ranked players by allowing players to knock someone else off the top perch and take their points. Would this weaken the incentive to replay (until you had lost > 5 points)?

In case it was meant to be an additional +5, then I am not so sure about this.  I thought Yertle meant that everyone above 2k would get 5 points but that the normal top ten would still be in place so with 11 player over 2k the top eleven would look like:
1st - 20
2nd - 15
3rd - 12
4th -10
5th - 8
6th - 6
7th - 5
8th - 5
9th - 5
10th - 5
11th - 5

If it is an additional +5, then with eleven over 2k it would look like:
1st - 25
2nd - 20
3rd - 17
4th -15
5th - 13
6th - 11
7th - 9
8th - 8
9th - 7
10th - 6
11th - 5

I don't know that either will discourage replay as there is still a difference between #1 and #2.  However, for the bottom prospective, I guess that with both, a player who has just reach 2k will be discouraged from playing again and getting a loss as a 5 points loss is rather significant so you are probably correct.

I was thinking this:

1st: 20 + 5 bonus for over 2k
2nd: 15 + 5 bonus for over 2k
3rd: 12 + 5 bonus for over 2k
4th: 10 + 5 bonus for over 2k
5th: 8 + 5 bonus for over 2k
6th: 6 + 5 bonus for over 2k
7th: 4 + 5 bonus for over 2k
8th: 3 + 5 bonus for over 2k
9th: 2 + 5 bonus for over 2k
10th: 1 + 5 bonus for over 2k
11th: + 5 bonus for over 2k

You still have the battle over the +20/+15/+12/etc., but award at least some base for hitting that 2k mark and give incentive to go for that tough 2k mark.  Of the top 10 CP ranked players I only see 3 players with a 2k score, so right now it seems fairly rare, although there isn't really an incentive to go for the 2k spot either sooooo, I dunno

I'm not sure I would predict more people stopping at 2k anymore than people currently stop at 1500 and ranked #1.  Although one deterrent would be a new person seeing #1 at 2k+ and seeing that as not even worth trying to overtake, again soooooo, I dunno

I'm still leaning towards it being kind of cool, or the idea could be rolled out with an Achievement-like system.

Yertle wrote:

I'm still leaning towards it being kind of cool, or the idea could be rolled out with an Achievement-like system.

I think I like this idea better.