Ozyman wrote:

Well, let's talk some example numbers:

Player A - 3000 GR,   3000 TournamentGR,  3000 TeamGR, 20 CP.

Player B - 2000 GR,   2000 TournamentGR,  2000 Team GR, 500 CP

Player C - 2200 GR, 2200 TournamentGR, 2200 TeamGR, 400 CP

Player D - 2430 GR, 2430 TournamentGR 2430 TeamGR, 300 CP

Player A = (3000/3000*3 + 20/500)/4 = .76

Player B = (2000/3000*3 + 500/500)/4 = .75

Player C = (2200/3000*3 + 400/500)/4 = .75

Player D = (2430/3000*3 + 300/500)/4 = .7575

 

I guess this is just personal bias, but I'd rather see players B,C,&D ranked above player A.

 

Earlier in this thread I had worked out a different way of doing this.  Basing it on an average of the rank position.  For instance, in your example, player A with a CP of 20 would be position 124.  Even if that person were to rank a position of 1 for GR, Team and Touney then they would get an equal balanced aggregate of (1+1+1+124)/4=31.75 (as unlikely as it would be for someone to even have such skewed ranks!) and would not even touch players who were more well rounded.

Player B, C & D for instance, would be CP ranked 1, 4 & 5 approximately, and most of those GR's based on the averages you're going at and with player A being #1 for them would still be top 20/30 ranks.  All of these players based on rank average would beat out someone who showed little interest in CP and only accrued 20.

This could further be skewed by applying weight, but, even as it it, averaging rank position makes it very simple so that anyone can easily understand what they need to improve upon to climb the aggregate ranking simply by looking at their place on the component ranks.  Furthermore, it does NOT over complicate things by diving into unnecessary math calculations and finally it naturally punishes players for falling too far down any one rank such that what you described can not occur.

Yertle, look at ratsy's post 162.  This happened to me in real life and I wholeheartedly agree with it.  In highschool, I never did homework but was really good at math.  Unfortunately, for me, my grade 12 AP math teacher decided he'd check our notebooks on a weekly basis to make sure we were doing our homework and made that worth 25% of our final mark.  I was a stubborn guy back then and just flatly didn't do a bit of homework.  At the end of the year I scored 73% overall.  Not even remotely close to head of the class.  When I went to university I was questioned on that mark as the math course I wanted to take had higher requirements.  Being stubborn I sought out the professor of the course that they were trying to deny me and told her that I wouldn't disappoint.   After she questioned me she gave me a special exemption to take her course.  University had zero weight given to homework and I scored 98%, highest in the class.

So, despite my mathematical abilities, they alone couldn't save me from a category I had no interest in participating in!  An aggregate would work the same way by placing a ceiling for non participation or a poor showing in any composite of the aggregate.

Ummm... it sounds like you just made an argument against the aggregate to me. I bet you were pretty pissed about that AP math score too. Weren't you? And, rightly so.

What is the point of grades? Despite all the BS other people say the only correct answer is to measure learning. In AP  mathematics especially when all that really matters is the exam it is ridiculous to weight HW so high. The only good reason a teacher would weight HW so highly is too benefit lower performers, but the occasional side effect is to penalize the higher.

That teacher also had the option to give alternate grades based on proficiency (test performance), or a or HW exemption percentage, and chose not too. A time and place where a dual system would have clearly addressed the needs of high and low performers. 

The majority of college students have their grades drop when they enter University.  Why? Because of grade inflated hand holding and an increasingly lowered bar designed for students to trip over with or without learning what they were supposed to, and then surprise Universities expect you to prove yourself in on demand assessments. 

But, there are a handful of others whose high school grades did not reflect their learning so much as their willingness to jump through semi-artificial hoops. 

Now if hoop jumping is what is needed most to be successful in a successful society then the system is structured correctly, but if the goal is to measure true performance and ability it is clearly not. 

Now you're advocating the same style of plan you rejected from high school that clearly mislabeled you math ability? If anything, I'm more against it now because of your analogy than I was before. 

Itsnotatumor - your post assumes that homework is worthless and CP is equally worthless.  Homework may be worthless for some students, but their is no reason to assume CP are worthless, so the analogy falls apart.

berickf - it all depends on how you do the math.  That's what we are talking about.  if the method puts players B,C&D above A, then it sounds good to me.  For refrence 2430 puts you around #20 currently.  2200 is around #40 and 2000 is around #75. 

The whole idea seems kind of weird to me the more I think about it, since the CP is calculated so differently from the GR scores.  It's like combining things with different units.

Funny discussion to me. All of these big stats we have, whether CP or GR or ranking on an individual board, are effort-based stats. Skill plays a role, but a minor one.

And GR depends on the choice of game you play as MB/Smoke indicated. A "well-rounded" aggregate stat will suffer the same fate.

But, it doesn't matter! It's a goofy/fun accomplishment system and there is no claim about "true skill" being made when someone wins an award like that. It would be a fun award for some people, so why not develop it? I'm all for it!

Umm...

Ozy, you got me wrong on every level.

I'm not equating CP with HW.  In fact I’m saying the opposite.  As my past posts have stated I see CP as the clearest measure of performance/learning because it shows proficiency at the most number of skills i. e. the ability to win in a variety of situations. 

I also am not calling homework worthless.  Homework has a clear beneficial effect, especially on low-middle level performers as ideally it allows them to practice the skills necessary for them to be successful. But, the weight given to homework should be commensurate with the level and content under instruction.  Also, while I (as an educator) question the 25% weighting of HW in an AP mathematics class I was specifically arguing that the instructor of such a class should have had a secondary system in place for those high performing students who clearly didn't NEED the HW.  

The purpose of homework is to formatively reinforce instruction.  If a kid can demonstrate perfect understanding of instruction without HW, the act of doing the HW becomes moot busy work. If the purpose of education is learning, and grades are supposed to be a measure of learning,  and a kid is scoring in the 99^th percentile summatively why the F! is he getting a C? Any sort of performance based HW exemption or summative option would have addressed both the needs of those who need HW and those who don’t. 

When education does not address both the needs of high performers AS WELL AS struggling students then it fails.

While I’m on a rant, why is it that universities generally don’t score homework?  Is it because they don’t see the value in it? No, it’s generally recommended that you do even more than in high school, but they expect legal adults to make their own decisions about the level of hw needed for success on the true performance tasks. 

Which brings me back to the core point that this analogy took us down, which is that a multi-track system of achievement (like we have now) recognizes individual accomplishments (like those people who are brilliant at tourneys or a single map), but holds CP as the most important by recognition because it represents ability in diverse environments is better than some aggregate apples + oranges score where individuality and difference will all get lost in the mix. 

In the current system you see majors and colonels like Harry Chest and Recon at the top of the GR. And, you see “Colonel” Yuriz and or more importantly “private” fiverocketcars sitting up at the top of the tourney rankings (something that makes me take notice and recognize areas of talent).  

Where would they all lump in under an aggregate plan?  Would they stand out as they are now or would it all get mushed together into some average? 

If we're on the subject of homework, you are aware that the published research DOES NOT support homework being generally beneficial.

The reason why is simple.  Homework is extra practice.  If that practice is done correctly, it is beneficial.  If it is done incorrectly, it is detrimental.  Therefore it goes either way.  The odds of it being done correctly strongly depend on the assistance children receive in the home, which depends on the socioeconomic status of the parents.  Therefore assigning lots of homework increases the correlation between socioeconomic status and performance.  However attempts to measure it have not found overall improvements in academic performance.

Oh, and studies show that homework is very, very strongly correlated with conflict in the home.  For very obvious reasons.

If you pick up a copy of http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/hm.htm you will find copious citations.

(This is an issue I personally care about since my son has ADHD.  Therefore homework is always far more of a struggle for us than for normal families.  And it is doubly frustrating when I know how useless it is for him.)

btilly wrote:

If we're on the subject of homework, you are aware that the published research DOES NOT support homework being generally beneficial.

The reason why is simple.  Homework is extra practice.  If that practice is done correctly, it is beneficial.  If it is done incorrectly, it is detrimental.  Therefore it goes either way.  The odds of it being done correctly strongly depend on the assistance children receive in the home, which depends on the socioeconomic status of the parents.  Therefore assigning lots of homework increases the correlation between socioeconomic status and performance.  However attempts to measure it have not found overall improvements in academic performance.

Oh, and studies show that homework is very, very strongly correlated with conflict in the home.  For very obvious reasons.

If you pick up a copy of http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/hm.htm you will find copious citations.

(This is an issue I personally care about since my son has ADHD.  Therefore homework is always far more of a struggle for us than for normal families.  And it is doubly frustrating when I know how useless it is for him.)

So as not to hijack this thread how about we move the Education portion of the discussion here:

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/3520/Education_issues

itsnotatumor wrote:

Ummm... it sounds like you just made an argument against the aggregate to me. I bet you were pretty pissed about that AP math score too. Weren't you? And, rightly so.

 

I was pissed off when he first said that it would be part of the mark, because I knew I wouldn't do it, but, I wasn't pissed off with the final mark as I knew the choice I had made.  It was like a demonstration at that point.  I just wanted to get as high a mark I could in the part I was scoring in to show the teacher what a dick he was being for making it such a large part of the final mark.

No idea how you can say that it's an argument against the aggregate though.  The point is that if someone ignores any one part of an aggregate that no matter how they do in the rest of the categories that they've put a limit on how well they can do over all, just as I did to myself in my math course.  Just as ignoring CP, GR, team, tourney, team tourney or a roving h ranking in a well constructed aggregate.  That is why CP can't be weighted too much either as that would remove the other categories from having an influence on the final rank.  An aggregate is supposed to represent well rounded play, and, in doing, it's supposed to encourage players to play all types of games and on all types of boards!

Sorry for the misunderstanding itsnotatumor.   I think I'd be better of lurking this conversation anyway.

itsnotatumor wrote:

Which brings me back to the core point that this analogy took us down, which is that a multi-track system of achievement (like we have now) recognizes individual accomplishments (like those people who are brilliant at tourneys or a single map), but holds CP as the most important by recognition because it represents ability in diverse environments is better than some aggregate apples + oranges score where individuality and difference will all get lost in the mix. 

In the current system you see majors and colonels like Harry Chest and Recon at the top of the GR. And, you see “Colonel” Yuriz and or more importantly “private” fiverocketcars sitting up at the top of the tourney rankings (something that makes me take notice and recognize areas of talent).  

Where would they all lump in under an aggregate plan?  Would they stand out as they are now or would it all get mushed together into some average? 

An aggregate would not make the above mentioned players stand out any less.  They would still have their GR, or tournament ranking, or whichever, to be proud of.  But, an aggregate might also encourage them to play outside of where they have already established themselves.  I have played with those players you mentioned, and lets face it, they're good players and should be able to put a dent in whatever ranking they see fit to chase.  So, while they would still have their great GR or tournament rankings, why not entice them to build some of their other ranks as well with a well balanced aggregate?

I can even say that I have had the honour of playing team games with 5rc as my teammate and team tourney games with YuriZ as my teammate and I don't think we lost a single one of them, so, if you're still looking for a way to bring up your team ranking itsnot, feel free to ask either of them... Or me?  I'll play team games with pretty much anyone so long as they have previously demonstrated to me that they can communicate well and will give and receive advice and discuss strategy.  Of course I will also lean towards playing boards with whom I decide to team with on boards where they have demonstrated some strength in the past and with settings they are comfortable with.  For instance, with both of the above mentioned players I played team antastic, which they are both pros on, whereas with you I'd probably suggest we play something that we're both good at like team Civil War, Colossal Crusade, Invention, or let you decide a different board you're well versed in, even if I'm not, so long as you're willing to teach me along the way!

It would be very helpful, perhaps essential, to first agree on the intention of the new rating before determining what the calculation should be.  I see a lot of disagreement on this point.

Berickf feels that the ranking should encourage 'cross play' or encourage engagement in all aspects of WG - so therefore it would make sense to include GR, CP, Team, and Tourney ratings/ranking in the calc.

I feel the ranking should reflect individual achievement - so therefore it would make sense to include only GR and CP in the calc. 

What do others think?  If we can agree on the intention of the rating it would bring great clarity to the discussion and make the solution much easier to attain.

ratsy wrote:

...as the purpose of the aggregate score is to give a big picture representation of all the individual strengths combined, not to tell us which one is most important.  Because in different situations, different info is going to be important to players and those that look at their scores. And we track that now fairly effectively.

The big picture, all rounded all star player, that you can expect to beat you at most games, no matter what the format should be #1. 

The purpose of the aggregate score is to get the "big picture" of a players overall performance. Not their skills.

We are bound to disagree but in the aggregate there can be agreement. Yes, it's babel that makes no sense but it inspired this idea..

What if there could be an interactive page that computes an aggregate based on percentages provided by the viewer of the page. This way, the only thing to arg.. uh, I mean discuss is what the default settings should be.

Additionally, if there were a number of schools of thought that are consistently contrarian, like 'even weighting including GR' vs. 'well-rounded featuring nothing but CP and Team Play CPs', then a handful of presets could be included or added over time so that folks could brag and compare to their heart's content. Perhaps most importantly, for those who wish to actually use the stat for their own devious informational purposes, it would be customizable.

Well, I think the big question is "what is your rank going to be based on?"

SquintGnome wrote:

It would be very helpful, perhaps essential, to first agree on the intention of the new rating before determining what the calculation should be.  I see a lot of disagreement on this point.

Berickf feels that the ranking should encourage 'cross play' or encourage engagement in all aspects of WG - so therefore it would make sense to include GR, CP, Team, and Tourney ratings/ranking in the calc.

I feel the ranking should reflect individual achievement - so therefore it would make sense to include only GR and CP in the calc. 

What do others think?  If we can agree on the intention of the rating it would bring great clarity to the discussion and make the solution much easier to attain.

 

Just because my conception of an aggregate should/would promote cross play does not mean it would not be an individual achievement as well!  I'd be more proud of being number 3 on a well constructed aggregate then number 1 in CP...  So, more aptly, I think you're asking if the intention should be ONLY for individual achievement as CP and GR are already as well, or, if an aggregate should try and accomplish more then its constituent parts?

berickf wrote:

itsnotatumor wrote:

I think you just supported my argument again "to show the teacher what a dick he was being for making it such a large part of the final mark."  Because you did not feel that what you did for hw reflected your TRUE ability since you "knocked it out of the park" when it came to performance time.  And, that's what the debate is about. 

What abilities/performance people most value?

What is the best/most fair way to represent that value?

From your perspective you want to include everything fairly equally, including things others might consider the equivalent of "Homework" and represent an unfair reflection.  For me public team play is now the same as homework, unlike private or tourney you have limited/to no choice in partners, and I don't find playing with an unreliable partner fun, nor the losses a fair reflection of my ability.  I'm not sure how to make the parallel any clearer.

Others like Squint still want an aggregate of just the CP and GR because while it's apples & oranges they feel each is a fair reflection of individual achievement.

Some might want to toss tourney record in that as well. But, aren't the trophies their own reward, and aggregating them in take away an unstated practice realm for many players?

And, lastly there are people (who I am now one) who don't want any aggregate at all. For me it’s because I disagree with two basic tenets of your argument.  

Number one:  “It will push people to increase diversity of play” I’m betting some will react the same way you did and just say F! to HW and be the best in other areas while still maintaining a lower aggregate.  Or, see that they have to jump through even more hoops to excel and be discouraged.  First time I broke top 20 in the GR I was ecstatic and doubled my game count, and encouraged me to start shooting more for CP.  To hit the same number with CP took me an extra year, to get it in the aggregate would be at least that long if not more.  Long time for notable “success”.

To be honest I think the CP being the ranked, GR the other measure home paged, tourney trophies, and the new achievements will encourages diversity quite nicely. 

Number two:  “That it will not diminish individual accomplishments.”  Once there is an aggregate why even look at the others.  Based on Squint’s examples I personally would end up ranked even higher than I am now.  Yay me! But, what about the one board masters who would disappear in the shuffle.  Or, for that matter those ranking CP’s that have played dozens and dozens of boards who went from a general to a major because in the new system because it’s the aggregate that matters.  Or even worse, when Fiverockets aggregate drops to something no one looks at twice? Just like how you had to go personally argue acceptance into certain classes because the admissions looked at your lovely aggregate and said PFFFT!

Erick your arguments as usual are intelligent, insightful, and well thought out.  But, in the end it’s going to come down to personal opinion.  You might prefer an aggregate 3^rd to a CP 1^st, but I don’t.  You believe that an all-encompassing aggregate will accomplish more than its constituent parts all ready do.  I don’t. 

That is where I think people are going to end up agreeing to disagree.  And, why I don’t see this 2+ year old thread and the others like it hitting consensus anytime soon.  But, that’s just my opinion… 

itsnotatumor wrote:

And, why I don’t see this 2+ year old thread and the others like it hitting consensus anytime soon.  But, that’s just my opinion… 

No one responded to my customizable aggregate post.  Was it that bad of an idea?

No M57, it wasn't that bad of an idea, but it really is more of a data manipulation reporting system than a score.  Also, it requires some bit of effort on the users part.  Lazyness knows no bounds within my domain.  

ratsy wrote:

. it requires some bit of effort on the users part. 

Not if the Default is the setting everyone here agrees on..  Like a 50/50 CP/GR   From there, depending on how the page looks, and along with a few 'presets,' users don't even need to know that it's customizable.

itsnotatumor wrote:

berickf wrote:

itsnotatumor wrote:

I think you just supported my argument again "to show the teacher what a dick he was being for making it such a large part of the final mark."  Because you did not feel that what you did for hw reflected your TRUE ability since you "knocked it out of the park" when it came to performance time.  And, that's what the debate is about. 

What abilities/performance people most value?

What is the best/most fair way to represent that value?

From your perspective you want to include everything fairly equally, including things others might consider the equivalent of "Homework" and represent an unfair reflection.  For me public team play is now the same as homework, unlike private or tourney you have limited/to no choice in partners, and I don't find playing with an unreliable partner fun, nor the losses a fair reflection of my ability.  I'm not sure how to make the parallel any clearer.

Others like Squint still want an aggregate of just the CP and GR because while it's apples & oranges they feel each is a fair reflection of individual achievement.

Some might want to toss tourney record in that as well. But, aren't the trophies their own reward, and aggregating them in take away an unstated practice realm for many players?

And, lastly there are people (who I am now one) who don't want any aggregate at all. For me it’s because I disagree with two basic tenets of your argument.  

Number one:  “It will push people to increase diversity of play” I’m betting some will react the same way you did and just say F! to HW and be the best in other areas while still maintaining a lower aggregate.  Or, see that they have to jump through even more hoops to excel and be discouraged.  First time I broke top 20 in the GR I was ecstatic and doubled my game count, and encouraged me to start shooting more for CP.  To hit the same number with CP took me an extra year, to get it in the aggregate would be at least that long if not more.  Long time for notable “success”.

To be honest I think the CP being the ranked, GR the other measure home paged, tourney trophies, and the new achievements will encourages diversity quite nicely. 

Number two:  “That it will not diminish individual accomplishments.”  Once there is an aggregate why even look at the others.  Based on Squint’s examples I personally would end up ranked even higher than I am now.  Yay me! But, what about the one board masters who would disappear in the shuffle.  Or, for that matter those ranking CP’s that have played dozens and dozens of boards who went from a general to a major because in the new system because it’s the aggregate that matters.  Or even worse, when Fiverockets aggregate drops to something no one looks at twice? Just like how you had to go personally argue acceptance into certain classes because the admissions looked at your lovely aggregate and said PFFFT!

Erick your arguments as usual are intelligent, insightful, and well thought out.  But, in the end it’s going to come down to personal opinion.  You might prefer an aggregate 3^rd to a CP 1^st, but I don’t.  You believe that an all-encompassing aggregate will accomplish more than its constituent parts all ready do.  I don’t. 

That is where I think people are going to end up agreeing to disagree.  And, why I don’t see this 2+ year old thread and the others like it hitting consensus anytime soon.  But, that’s just my opinion… 

Hey Tumor,

For me getting CP is the closest to being "homework", if I must stick to the ill used comparative example, because to collect CP you really have to play a lot of boards that otherwise might not interest you!  I don't find team play to be homework at all because those are some of my most enjoyable games and, of course, do most my team play on my favourite boards, and with a great success rate by selecting competent and communicative teammates! = fun and doesn't give that "homework" feeling at all to me!  It sounds like the problem you're having is finding reliable and communicative teammates to play with, to which I extended you an olive branch, to which you have kept silent about... So, maybe you're just not interested in that, just as I find it difficult to get interested in my CP.  Truth is though, for me, I don't see your correlation at all between my grade school homework example and the aggregate components.  Truth be told, this is a game and I come here to have fun!  While collecting CP seems to me to be the most tedious (which consequently makes it the most difficult to get on board with - for me - and probably why many think it is the most difficult ranking) it is still not actually homework because it is a game!!!! For fun!  I have collected a few CP, but, the aggregate would encourage me to do so more.  WarGear is already vacant of homework, so, while CP might be the final exam, the others are all midterms, and in an aggregate their is nothing that is actually comparable to homework that might otherwise be "skipped" in compiling your final mark for being a good all around player!

It saddens me though to hear that you are not keen on an aggregate and instead defer to the achievement system for achieving the same.  To me, as far as cross over play goes, the achievement system encourages people to dip their toes, whereas an aggregate would encourage people to dive on in!  And, like you say, for you ranking happened in stages... GR, then CP.  An aggregate is an extension of this process that you yourself encountered.  GR, CP, then aggregate, and to accomplish a good standing in this final rank you'd have to overcome your fears (like yours for finding good teammates), and do it all!

Your "Once there is an aggregate why even look at the others" statement doesn't even make sense to me because that's like saying, since there is CP, why even look at board rankings?  Whereas I have seen posts of people so proud that they achieved a number one ranking on board x, y or z, even though CP is an aggregate of all boards (and, come to think of it, weights them all equally according to how high the top scores are)... Be it any of the constituent parts of an aggregate, people will still chase the ranks because a) they are still individual achievements and b) to do well on the aggregate you'd still have to follow the individual ranks to see where you'd need to improve the most, which would keep all discerning eyes following them even more closely.

This might be about to get a bit wordy, but, You really made me think when I realized that CP is itself a board aggregate, and thought about how it is constructed.  Since CP gives weight to each board based on how high the scores get on it, the GR portions of an aggregate could be weighted based on how high the top scores are as well.  For instance if CP is given a guaranteed x% of the aggregate then the rest is 100-x=y%  At the moment of writing this the top GR is 3424, tourney is 2809 and team is 2364. As of such GR would be 39.8% of y%, tourney would be 32.67% of y% and team would be 27.5% of y%.  The more people participate in any area and drive the top score up in it, the more weight it attains.  Team tourney is tracked in Tom's database, I believe, but their is no way to look it up on the ranking page (it can only be seen in each player's individual player stats page - mine is 2125 but no idea on the highest? - plus, I'm about to lose a team tourney game I'm playing so it will drop in the near future), but, if it were ranked, tabled and included into the aggregate, it could be cut into the GR portions as well.  Ideally then the weighting would then be applied to the rank position of the player, instead of Squint's calculation so as to avoid what Ozy was fearing by making any rank too low down the list a deaths blow to one's aggregate ranking even if their other ranks are quite good. Many pages ago in this thread I discussed h-ranking with M57.  Since it loses variability with games played, and hence, loses it's ability to fluctuate and be relevant in a contemporary (what have you done lately) fashion, we discussed the possibility of a roving h-ranking which essentially would calculate one's h-ranking based on the previous however many games.  If this were sought after as another component of an aggregate then it would have to be given its own slice of the pie outside of CP or GR's, because it is its own beast.  Personally, I might glance at a player's h-ranking for a general guideline on their general ability as a player, but, due to its inherent problems and susceptibility to small sample size, I definitely do not follow it as a rank.  So, I'm not entirely sure if it belongs in an aggregate, but would gladly submit to the consensus... Let the people rule!

Cheers mate,

Erick