I agree with wanting to compete, and I like the idea of having achievements that one can be proud of.
But even if we COULD make a "super ranking" as it is being called, I disagree with doing so.
By doing so, you're trying to combine unlike skills into a single ranking.

For instance, in baseball: There's a Cy Young Award, there's Gold Gloves, there's Batting Titles, there's the 40/40 club.
All of them are great awards, and all give a sense of achievement, but that doesn't mean that one needs to somehow quantify the value of a Cy Young vs the value of a Batting Title to decide which athlete deserves the ranking of "best."
And before someone tries to bring up the "MVP" as a "best of all" category:  It has 2 major downfalls - 1) it is heavily weighted towards batting and therefore unfair to pitchers, and 2) baseball management recognizes that the game play in the two leagues is different enough that they will still only declare an MVP for each league.

I'm a firm believer that all of the above baseball categories deserve their own winner, because they measure different things, and therefore the winner of one shouldn't be compared or combined with the winner of another.

By that rationale - Though I find great joy in the argument of trying to weight the values of CP to GR, trying to make a mathematical combination of the two is a) nearly impossible to make fair to all and b) likely only to create a rift between players who fall on opposite sides of the calculation fence.
So many have strove (is that a word??) to achieve ranking on one, despite the expense of the other, so there will undoubtedly be hard feelings, and that's not what this site is here for.

So my thoughts: I'd like to surreptitiously steal any +1's that have been given in this thread, add to it the x3 +1's that I've been storing for a week now, and slide in a few other +1's that I've forged in the back of my warehouse, and give them all (a total of +12) to the people who have tried to steer this conversation back to the idea of a pluralistic Achievement System (I'm making that term up, but you know what I'm talking about).

I don't know about the baseball analogy, Boris.  First of all, it's a team sport, and any baseball player worth his spit will tell you he wouldn't think twice about trading in any or all of those achievements for a World Series ring.

But then, that's a whole lot of +1's you've got there.

Hey, I've got a fun name for the stat (though it may be doomed before it gets out of committee)

OSTRA = One Stat To Rule All.

I know this was discussed before, things would be so much simpler if tournament game were not separate, why are they separate?  It would be one less stat to incorporate.  Can someone send a link to the thread? 

Let's add dice luck to the equation since it would be a fair assumption that if I'm a highly ranked player than I have better dice luck than someone that's a lower ranked player and that should count for something negative or positive in the "super rating"!

you = mind blown!

Seriously, ^ I'm totally kidding.  This has spiraled out of all control..  We could have every letter in the alphabet rating and it's still not going to make everyone happy or be appropriately fair, balanced or any other number of complaints... 

Let's help tom think up some kick ass achievements so everyone has something to shoot for when he is able to get them implemented.

How about "Rating Maps with more than once sentence",  "Eliminate 1000 players", "Play a game on 100 different maps", "Gain 1500 rank on any map", etc, etc, so on and so forth...

Ok sorry I threw in the "Rating maps with more than one sentence" but you get the idea.

SquintGnome wrote:

I know this was discussed before, things would be so much simpler if tournament game were not separate, why are they separate?  It would be one less stat to incorporate.  Can someone send a link to the thread? 

Agree.  I never really understood why tournament games "don't count" when quite the opposite is true. It only contributes to the sense of some players that their tournament games are the throwaways - to be used to work out their strategies, etc.   I wonder how the CP standings might change if Tournament games were included?

M57 wrote:

SquintGnome wrote:

I know this was discussed before, things would be so much simpler if tournament game were not separate, why are they separate?  It would be one less stat to incorporate.  Can someone send a link to the thread? 

Agree.  I never really understood why tournament games "don't count" when quite the opposite is true. It only contributes to the sense of some players that their tournament games are the throwaways - to be used to work out their strategies, etc.   I wonder how the CP standings might change if Tournament games were included?

Interesting idea. I believe it's a good idea.

It would be also needed to do that for boards rankings. It happened to me to join a game after I looked at the ranks given by the page with the Join Game button.  Later I would discover that this newb player with 0 played game and a ranking of 1000 was in fact an expert on this board with, say, 100 games won in Tournaments and a 1800 ranking. The ranking and stats displayed are just misleading and the point calculation is unjust as it doesn't reflect the true strenght of the player.

May be doing that would also help to find a consensus on how to calculate THE site ranking, as it was BD's objection about TPs.

I believe this is a lost argument but I have always thought that Tournament games *and* team games should be calculated into each players GR and for CP's.  

Amidon37 wrote:

If we keep this discussion, and any resulting formula, to an "interesting statistic" then I see no real problem, but I really don't think this "super ranking" can or should be the ultimate ranking on the site.  It is more of a Frankenstein statistic that is attempting to put together several poorly understood and possibly poorly defined statistics (and pseudo-statistics) and somehow come up with something better. 

This is my favorite paragraph of the discussion so far. Numbers and formulae seem so definitive and authoritative that we sometimes miss how easy it is to create poorly defined statistics that are difficult/impossible to interpret.

I also like the term "Frankenstein statistic"... a lot :)

I'm not opposed to some ad hoc fun and experimental attempts, so I'll throw out something constructive: Poker has these weird hybrid games like HORSE and 8-game - the champion of these games gets some well-rounded respect among their peers (the real goal!!!)

So, we could nominate a representative board among categories like: Simulduel, puzzleduel, Simulmap, Largemap, Smallmap, Fogmap, Capitalkilling, FreakUnique (parts 1-4), etc. (Not a new idea, so feel free to beat me over the head with a link to a previous post.) Anyway, the hybrid frankenstat might be CP's among those, or a combined stat taken from "official" tournaments in these maps.

I would also like to point out that team rankings came frequently up in this thread. No pressure tom, just an observation ;)

M57 wrote:

I don't know about the baseball analogy, Boris.  First of all, it's a team sport, and any baseball player worth his spit will tell you he wouldn't think twice about trading in any or all of those achievements for a World Series ring.

M57 - If I concede your point, what does that prove?
I'm not saying that we must model this after Baseball because WG is analogous to baseball.
I'm trying to justify the position that in most competitive leagues, there are generally lots of different awards given, no matter if it is team or individual.

If you'd be more happy with a poker analogy (individual game, based on both skill and luck), then:  There are currently 58 different events at the World Series of Poker, each of which grants a "world series" bracelet to the player who is the best at that particular game/configuration (type of limit).

Overarching position:  I greatly dislike the OSTRA (although the pun does greatly amuse me, bravo)
Since the way in which we have decided to calculate CP and GR is an arbitrary calculation (at best), then you're going to be hard pressed to convince me that your particular, and likely also arbitrary, calculation to combine them is the "best" way to combine.
(Hat tip to Amidon, who said it better than I...)

Since it's bounding on impossible to all agree on a good calculation for the OSTRA, let's drop the subject and go after some achievable goals, like:
- Picking a good (albeit also arbitrary) calculation for Team Rankings
- Choosing a good set of other achievements that we can dole out for good gameplay
- If you still insist on needing way to globally rank players, then let's all come up with a way to decide it on the battle field itself, as opposed to just throwing a bunch of math at it:  I propose (as done in the previous Multi-Achievement thread) a massive best of the best tournament, that ends by crowning the winner as the "2011 Best of the Best" award.

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

M57 - If I concede your point, what does that prove?

Ummmm....       ...very little?    ..nothing?

Overarching position:  I greatly dislike the OSTRA (although the pun does greatly amuse me, bravo)

How 'bout Frankenstat?  ..or F-Rating?  You know I'm still recovering from the rejection of my idea for the H-Rating being named GAWP (Game Adjusted Winning Percentage).

Since it's bounding on impossible to all agree on a good calculation for the OSTRA, let's drop the subject and go after some achievable goals..

You know you're a buzz-kill.   You do realize that would be off-topic? ..though I suppose you could say that the migration to Frankenstat was not what the original poster had in mind either.

Hugh wrote:

I would also like to point out that team rankings came frequently up in this thread. No pressure tom, just an observation ;)

Yep agreed!

Uh which thread / post gives the best outline of how to calculate this?

tom wrote:

Hugh wrote:

I would also like to point out that team rankings came frequently up in this thread. No pressure tom, just an observation ;)

Yep agreed!

Uh which thread / post gives the best outline of how to calculate this?

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1443p8/Enhancement_Requests

Page 8, post 143 by Amidon is the quickest outline.

Same calculation, but use the average ranking of a team to determine how many points are won/lost. Points won/lost are applied to each team member equally.

Hugh wrote:

tom wrote:

Hugh wrote:

I would also like to point out that team rankings came frequently up in this thread. No pressure tom, just an observation ;)

Yep agreed!

Uh which thread / post gives the best outline of how to calculate this?

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1443p8/Enhancement_Requests

Page 8, post 143 by Amidon is the quickest outline.

Same calculation, but use the average ranking of a team to determine how many points are won/lost. Points won/lost are applied to each team member equally.

Good news. I believe there will be little debate about the above calculation (unlike the previous debate we had), but I want to raise another issue.

I believe teams have to be randomized at the start of the game. Picking your partners should not be allowed. Otherwise you could find number 1 and number 2 of a board always teaming together and nobody will be able to defeat them. Same if several top 10 players (according to any of the previously discussed rankings) always team together.  If you want to be good in this ranking, you must be good whoever your partner is. Don't worry, you would still be allowed to pick your teammate, but not for ranked games.

Thoughts ?

Also I want to make sure I understand well, that this will be done in a separate ranking, with no effect on the GR or CP ?

I am NOT asking if this team ranking will be used to calculate the will-sadly-never-be composite ranking ;) 

I don't know if random teams need to be required, but it would be a fun/cool option for public games like it is for tournaments.

Here's a long thought on how to "combine rankings" -

We have a Public Global Ranking (currently called GR, but I'll call it PGR) and we have a Tournament Global Ranking (currently called T Score, but I'll call it TGR.)  Soon (I expect) we will have a Team Global Ranking - but actually we should have a Public Team Global Ranking and a Tournament Team Global Ranking - call them PTGR and TTGR respectively.  

Each of these can be calculated separately with the standard start-with-1000-point-system, but we could also create a Composite Global Ranking (CGR) by (retroactively) starting everyone off with 1000 points here and performing the standard calculation on this at the end of every (public/tournament/team) non-private game.   

We also have a Ranking Score for each board that uses the standard start-with-a-1000     -points system.  These currently change only for public non-team games and are used to determine Board Championship points.  (There are also stats for private games calculated but we won't consider those here)  I would like to see all games (public/team/tournament) count in those calculation also, but since that probably won't happen we could also have a PRS (Public Ranking Score), a TRS (Tournament Ranking Score), a PTRS (Public Team Ranking Score) and a TTRS (Tournanment Team Ranking Score) for each board.  (Note the PRS and TRS are already calculated, and the others probably will be when Tom does Team Rankings).  Then we could also have a Composite Ranking Score CRS that is calculated at the end of every non-private game where everyone again starts with the 1000 points and we go from there.

So, at the end of every game your CGR and CRS will change and either your PGR and PRS, or your TGR and TRS, or your PTGR and PTRS, or your TTGR and TTRS will change depending on the type of game.

There are a couple of directions then we could go with the BC points, but I suggest keeping them on just the PRS as they are now, but the graphics that say what boards you are #1 on, and the rankings on the board info page be based on the CRS for that board.

Amidon37 wrote:

Here's a long thought on how to "combine rankings" -

We have a Public Global Ranking (currently called GR, but I'll call it PGR) and we have a Tournament Global Ranking (currently called T Score, but I'll call it TGR.)  Soon (I expect) we will have a Team Global Ranking - but actually we should have a Public Team Global Ranking and a Tournament Team Global Ranking - call them PTGR and TTGR respectively.  

Each of these can be calculated separately with the standard start-with-1000-point-system, but we could also create a Composite Global Ranking (CGR) by (retroactively) starting everyone off with 1000 points here and performing the standard calculation on this at the end of every (public/tournament/team) non-private game.   

We also have a Ranking Score for each board that uses the standard start-with-a-1000     -points system.  These currently change only for public non-team games and are used to determine Board Championship points.  (There are also stats for private games calculated but we won't consider those here)  I would like to see all games (public/team/tournament) count in those calculation also, but since that probably won't happen we could also have a PRS (Public Ranking Score), a TRS (Tournament Ranking Score), a PTRS (Public Team Ranking Score) and a TTRS (Tournanment Team Ranking Score) for each board.  (Note the PRS and TRS are already calculated, and the others probably will be when Tom does Team Rankings).  Then we could also have a Composite Ranking Score CRS that is calculated at the end of every non-private game where everyone again starts with the 1000 points and we go from there.

So, at the end of every game your CGR and CRS will change and either your PGR and PRS, or your TGR and TRS, or your PTGR and PTRS, or your TTGR and TTRS will change depending on the type of game.

There are a couple of directions then we could go with the BC points, but I suggest keeping them on just the PRS as they are now, but the graphics that say what boards you are #1 on, and the rankings on the board info page be based on the CRS for that board.

Brilliant presentation Amidon, although I sometimes got lost with the CPTCRSTTGPR ;) . You must be a teacher ?

Toto: you're right, there are some structural things to discuss. There aren't many, but perhaps enough to warrant a separate thread. (We'd hate to see this one go off topic!)

I basically thought that a mirror of what goes on for individual games is the simplest and best thing to do. (team global ranking, team cp's, etc.) At minimum, a starting point would just be team global ranking, but I prefer tracking rankings per board. (without cp's if people think team cp's would be weird.)

Regarding randomizing teams: In theory, this is unnecessary because the super-team gets to the point of diminishing returns. The great player would have incentive to team up with lesser players because more points are gained in a win and fewer points are lost in a loss. This is the purpose of the averaging. In practice though, people other than the duelists will see the effects of slow rating equilibrium. I could go with random teams, but I think most of the fun is teaming with people you know and like. And fun is important too.

BlackDog wrote:

But, continuing with the formula discussion:

Am I the only one here who has a big problem with tournament games being given weight here?   I feel like there is a reason that we have a separate ranking system and statistics for ranked games and tourney games (and I recall this being discussed at great length).

I play lots of games in tourneys that I wouldn't normally play, partly because I know they have no affect on public game rankings.  And although I generally try not to play to advance rather than win, it is a legitimate strategy in tournaments that has no corollary in ranked games.

BD

I don't recall a tourney on this site that just advancing is the right strategy.  Since most of the tourneys seem to be either Elimination or Round Robin.

Well for instance, if you are in an elimination tourney with 6 player games where the top two players advance to the next round, then playing for second place would be a legitimate (if lame) strategy.