I was wondering if anybody thought this was a good idea:

For being number one on a board I see that there is an achievement.  Would it be feasible to make a specific badge for #1 board ranking.  For example Gunslinger could be "Top Gun" or "Baddest in the West" , Spy vs Spy "007 status", Wargear Warfare "Basic Boardmaster,"  Colossal Crusade "Rhodes Scholar,"  I dunno, just a thought.  Keep up the good work everyone!

Ras

Rasputin wrote:

I was wondering if anybody thought this was a good idea:

For being number one on a board I see that there is an achievement.  Would it be feasible to make a specific badge for #1 board ranking.  For example Gunslinger could be "Top Gun" or "Baddest in the West" , Spy vs Spy "007 status", Wargear Warfare "Basic Boardmaster,"  Colossal Crusade "Rhodes Scholar,"  I dunno, just a thought.  Keep up the good work everyone!

 

Ras

We kind of have that with the 'Top Ranked on these boards' section just below Achievements, although it is an image of the map and no title.  Could be an added perk to the Board Design, but we kind of already have the functionality.

smoke wrote:

ratsy wrote:

The rank your given, Sergeant is based on the number of Championship Points you have, not your Global Ranking score.  

So in the CP your #401, and your global ranking is #85.  Impressive. 

It's not true yet, but I have a sneaky suspicion the next thing to happen will be the creation of an amalgamated score that takes into account all of our different scores, and then our ranks will be based on that. 

-1

Not without a fight.

I really don't get why you or anyone else should have a "fight" over this Smoke?  An aggregate is just a way of saying that player A is great all around and tries to accomplish everything that WarGear has to offer, whereas, player B might only be specializing at CP or GR only... What exactly do you find unappealing about rewarding players for wanting to excel at every aspect the site has to offer for their game-play through the creation of an aggregate ranking that incorporates such?

Similar to this achievement system being implemented right now, I'd even go as far as to say that the creation of an aggregate ranking would be one of the most benefiting things that could be created as it would encourage players to be more active in all aspects of what WarGear has to offer.

The only players who might want to fight such are ones that are conservatively bent on not playing outside their niche and feel that their choice niche is all that matters... Which isn't you, so why fight against something which can only be seen as a clear benefit to the site? 

Can you explain why you'd have a fight over such, because I can't bend my mind around why there should be one at all?

Hijacked thread is hijacked - and it's my fault. 

You guys need to discuss this here: 

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1854p7/Debate:_Board_Championship_and_Global_Ranking

I'll repost berickf's quesion over there.  Thanks.

Rasputin wrote:

I was wondering if anybody thought this was a good idea:

For being number one on a board I see that there is an achievement.  Would it be feasible to make a specific badge for #1 board ranking.  For example Gunslinger could be "Top Gun" or "Baddest in the West" , Spy vs Spy "007 status", Wargear Warfare "Basic Boardmaster,"  Colossal Crusade "Rhodes Scholar,"  I dunno, just a thought.  Keep up the good work everyone!

 

Ras

The Phase Two list has an entry for playing WarGear Warfare, because it is the basic map. But it would be too difficult to create individual medals for each board.  It was also pointed out that your number one ranking in that board is right below the achievements.

Thanks for you explanation Ratsy!

So I guess the new rank badges shall incourage players to play more different kinds of games to get top scored in several boards?

btw: are you taking into account how hard it is to become a topplayer on a board? E.g. on Wargear Warefare I'm #24 / 8417; on World War Air Land and Sea I'm #6/226. I think the first should be worth more, right?

collider wrote:

btw: are you taking into account how hard it is to become a topplayer on a board? E.g. on Wargear Warefare I'm #24 / 8417; on World War Air Land and Sea I'm #6/226. I think the first should be worth more, right?

I'm pretty sure this isn't the case, though it is an interesting observation. CPs are not currently weighted. This is probably why there is somewhat of a rush by those who concern themselves about these things to get in early on new boards, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Thanks Raptor and Yertle, I was looking at the new medals and forgot to look below where top rank has always been listed.  <--duh

Ras

collider wrote:

btw: are you taking into account how hard it is to become a topplayer on a board? E.g. on Wargear Warefare I'm #24 / 8417; on World War Air Land and Sea I'm #6/226. I think the first should be worth more, right?

This is an interesting point... 1st place on any board is worth 20 CP as long as you score over 1500, but some like wgwf need over 2600 for first and 2050 just to be in the points.

How are the ranks formulated? Are they strictly by score. Some players are over 2000 points but are still privates. My rank position is 750. Where can I view that?

Apparently it should be stated that the rank is totally based on the number of championship points one has. Your SCORE is irrelevant. Is that correct? I notice that someone with a score of 875 and 25 championship points is a COLONEL while someone with 2000 points and 0 championship points is a private. Could someone explain the logic behind that? 

That's correct. There's an ongoing argument about that, though.

Babbalouie wrote:

Apparently it should be stated that the rank is totally based on the number of championship points one has. Your SCORE is irrelevant. Is that correct? I notice that someone with a score of 875 and 25 championship points is a COLONEL while someone with 2000 points and 0 championship points is a private. Could someone explain the logic behind that? 

Well, there is a current discussion (not an argument) about coming up with yet another score -- the aggregate - but the suggestion that the aggregate (if there ever is one) should determine rank is going to have to wait.

That said, I think your point is a valid one.  I may stand to be corrected on this point, but using the CP as 'the' metric for Rank is based on the perception, going back to the beginnings of this site even before I became a member, that CP's are the hardest points to achieve and therefore are the most coveted.  As it stands, good team or tournament play is not reflected in one's rank.

Even over in the aggregate thread, there are those who would weight and restrict the range of what the aggregate considers, and not surprisingly, mostly toward Championship Points.

My opinion - The problem with this is that a reasonably well-rounded player who plays a lot of boards but prefers team or tournament play a high percentage of the time will not rise much if at all in the rankings - should rankings ever become tied to the aggregate.  Yes, that's a big if. Nonetheless, and so as not to hijack this thread, you should weigh in on that thread if you have an opinion.

The tread where were discussing the ranking base:  

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1854p11/Debate:_Board_Championship_and_Global_Ranking

You should weigh in Babbalouie, we need some fresh blood. :)

ratsy wrote:

You should weigh in Babbalouie, we need some fresh blood. :)

Of course, you have to read 210 posts and maybe 50k words first. And you're liable to get a treatise in response to anything you say.

smoke wrote:

Of course, you have to read 210 posts and maybe 50k words first. And you're liable to get a treatise in response to anything you say.

Hah! +1

I just noticed that both berickf and Targo have 59 CPs, but berickf is a Brigadier General while Targo is a Colonel.  Is there something about ranks that I don't understand or is this a bug?   I thought Rank was based purely on CPs.

There's a tie-breaking factor for CP ordering. I think it's whoever got there first, essentially. Or it could be whoever got there most recently, given that I don't think Targo plays anymore.

Maybe they are on the bubble and a tie breaker is being used (H?).