itsnotatumor wrote:

And a logarithmic scale :

# of plays           Top Rank CP      Min GR for top rank

0-10                          0                         NA

10-100                      5                        1500
100-1000                10                        1750
1000-10000            20                        2000
10000-100000        40                        2250
100000-1000000    80                        2500 

1000000+             160                        2750

One thing I don't like about this, is that so many boards are going to be reduced in value.    Out of all the boards I've made, only 1 has gotten 1000+ games on it.   I think the vast majority of boards are going to be in the 100-1000 range, which means they would only be worth 10 CP, which would make WGWF worth 16x any normal board.  Is holding the top spot on WGWF equivalent to holding the top spot on 16 other boards?  IMO - no.

Plus this is going to make players want to play less popular boards even more.  What's the point in playing most of these boards if the most you can get is 5-10CP even if you are ranked #1?

If we go down this route, I prefer the original scale I posted.  It still gets the top spot on WGWF to be worth 3x as much as any normal board, which seems about right to me.

Or maybe the right answer is somewhere in between.   How about something like this instead

Or maybe:

# of plays           Top Rank CP      Min GR for top rank

0-10                          0                         NA

10-100                    10                        1500
100-1000                20                        1750
1000-10000            40                        2000
10000+                   80                        2500

However we do it, I think the 100-1000 range should still be worth the same as it is now.

Admittedly, I haven't read the whole thread, or the "debate" thread, and maybe I'm dense, but I don't get why "popularity" should equate to more CP. I hope no one is asserting that it's somehow more difficult to win a game on WGWF than, say, "There Will Be Blood" (TWBB)?

So then, I assume the idea is you have to score above 2600 instead of 1600 to get the 20 CP. Which says to me, it's harder because you have to play more games, not because the games are harder. Okay, but if WGWF is trivially easy to fill a game, and they tend to fill with a bunch of average players or noobs (along with the occasional Toto), is it really harder than TWBB which frequently fills with BlackDog, the board designer (Ozy), and me?

I don't know, but I don't think anyone does. So why more points? Toto's happiness is certainly important to me, but still ...

Cona Chris wrote: Maybe the sum of the number of players in each game?  Afterall 1,000 games on a dual board is a lot different than 1,000 games with 8 players on average.

I prefer just extending from 1500 to 2500 in part due to the simplicity of extending the current structure, but logarithmic increase based on the number of players per public game played sounds interesting. 

Any thoughts on how that would affect duel maps?  Anyone wanna play with some acutal number to see what it might look like? I think Cona and Toto have already been used to represent one of the options.

smoke wrote:

Admittedly, I haven't read the whole thread, or the "debate" thread, and maybe I'm dense, but I don't get why "popularity" should equate to more CP. I hope no one is asserting that it's somehow more difficult to win a game on WGWF than, say, "There Will Be Blood" (TWBB)?

So then, I assume the idea is you have to score above 2600 instead of 1600 to get the 20 CP. Which says to me, it's harder because you have to play more games, not because the games are harder. Okay, but if WGWF is trivially easy to fill a game, and they tend to fill with a bunch of average players or noobs (along with the occasional Toto), is it really harder than TWBB which frequently fills with BlackDog, the board designer (Ozy), and me?

I don't know, but I don't think anyone does. So why more points? Toto's happiness is certainly important to me, but still ...

It's not because the individual games are harder, but that you have to win so many more of them to get in the points, and there are a huge bunch of players on a variety of boards that are over 1500 and don't have a single CP to show for it much less 20. 

I'd say its a legitimate complaint that someone with 1600 points on say Civil War, 1950 on WGWF, and 1750 on Colossal has no CP's, but someone with 4-6 wins on a very unpopular boards could have 20+.

This "flaw" in the CP is also being used by others to advocate for a whole number of different scoring systems...

Cona Chris wrote:

I do not like the CP where all boards are 2500 down to 1500 - I don't think this fixes the issue we are trying to solve.

Hey Cona,

Could you clarify your objection the 1st proposal is to still go down to 1050, it would just cap out higher than the current bar of 1500:

• 2500+ score - 50 Championship Points
• 2400+ score - 45 Championship Points
• 2300+ score - 40 Championship Points
• 2200+ score - 36 Championship Points
• 2100+ score - 33 Championship Points
• 2000+ score - 30 Championship Points
• 1900+ score - 27 Championship Points
• 1800+ score - 24 Championship Points
• 1700+ score - 21 Championship Points
• 1600+ score - 18 Championship Points
• 1500+ score - 15 Championship Points
• 1450+ score - 13 Championship Points
• 1400+ score - 11 Championship Points
• 1350+ score - 9 Championship Points
• 1300+ score - 7 Championship Points
• 1250+ score - 5 Championship Points
• 1200+ score - 4 Championship Points
• 1150+ score - 3 Championship Points
• 1100+ score - 2 Championship Points
• 1050+ score - 1 Championship Points

Plus this is going to make players want to play less popular boards even more.  What's the point in playing most of these boards if the most you can get is 5-10CP even if you are ranked #1?

 

I think this is about balancing the system, which it seems your trying to do.  How many of the lesser board do you have to be good at to equal the top spot on WGWF?  

I mean, I want to climb a rank, so I need 20 more CP to get there (last I looked) so I would have to play 2 of my own boards that have no competition and I could have it.  Or how many games of WGWF to get em?

And are we not discouraging play on other boards, and encouraging play on WGWF if we do that?

smoke wrote:

Admittedly, I haven't read the whole thread, or the "debate" thread, and maybe I'm dense, but I don't get why "popularity" should equate to more CP. I hope no one is asserting that it's somehow more difficult to win a game on WGWF than, say, "There Will Be Blood" (TWBB)?

So then, I assume the idea is you have to score above 2600 instead of 1600 to get the 20 CP. Which says to me, it's harder because you have to play more games, not because the games are harder. Okay, but if WGWF is trivially easy to fill a game, and they tend to fill with a bunch of average players or noobs (along with the occasional Toto), is it really harder than TWBB which frequently fills with BlackDog, the board designer (Ozy), and me?

I don't know, but I don't think anyone does. So why more points? Toto's happiness is certainly important to me, but still ...

I think the games on more popular boards are harder to win because there are more knowledgeable opponents not because the board itself is more difficult.  More competition produces higher quality players.

SquintGnome wrote:

smoke wrote:

Admittedly, I haven't read the whole thread, or the "debate" thread, and maybe I'm dense, but I don't get why "popularity" should equate to more CP. I hope no one is asserting that it's somehow more difficult to win a game on WGWF than, say, "There Will Be Blood" (TWBB)?

So then, I assume the idea is you have to score above 2600 instead of 1600 to get the 20 CP. Which says to me, it's harder because you have to play more games, not because the games are harder. Okay, but if WGWF is trivially easy to fill a game, and they tend to fill with a bunch of average players or noobs (along with the occasional Toto), is it really harder than TWBB which frequently fills with BlackDog, the board designer (Ozy), and me?

I don't know, but I don't think anyone does. So why more points? Toto's happiness is certainly important to me, but still ...

I think the games on more popular boards are harder to win because there are more knowledgeable opponents not because the board itself is more difficult.  More competition produces higher quality players.

Is that true?  I would think that any one game is probably easier to win, because you have more newbs in the game.   But, climbing to the top ranks is harder, because there are also more good players overall playing on those boards.

Another way to think about it, is that it might be easier to get to 1500 on WGWF than some less popular board, but that 1500 on WGWF is going to leave you way down in the ranks and going to be worth no CP, while 1500 on some other board might be worth 20 CP.

itsnotatumor wrote:

Cona Chris wrote:

I do not like the CP where all boards are 2500 down to 1500 - I don't think this fixes the issue we are trying to solve.

Hey Cona,

Could you clarify your objection the 1st proposal is to still go down to 1050, it would just cap out higher than the current bar of 1500:

• 2500+ score - 50 Championship Points
• 2400+ score - 45 Championship Points
• 2300+ score - 40 Championship Points
• 2200+ score - 36 Championship Points
• 2100+ score - 33 Championship Points
• 2000+ score - 30 Championship Points
• 1900+ score - 27 Championship Points
• 1800+ score - 24 Championship Points
• 1700+ score - 21 Championship Points
• 1600+ score - 18 Championship Points
• 1500+ score - 15 Championship Points
• 1450+ score - 13 Championship Points
• 1400+ score - 11 Championship Points
• 1350+ score - 9 Championship Points
• 1300+ score - 7 Championship Points
• 1250+ score - 5 Championship Points
• 1200+ score - 4 Championship Points
• 1150+ score - 3 Championship Points
• 1100+ score - 2 Championship Points
• 1050+ score - 1 Championship Points

My thought was that if we implement a system where one can still get CPs as before, just more CPs, does that really change anything?  It is simpler to understand, but I liked the log scale idea better.

Some boards would be downright impossible to get 2500 on (like dual maps, where even if you won at an 80% clip, good luck getting to 2500).

So I guess, I would propose the current CP system, just with a log modifier to weight it.  So once x games are played or players played, it'd be x2 or x3, or x4, etc.

Right now, I'm in the Log camp. and though # of games is not the perfect difficulty predictor, it's not unreasonable.  The Log system puts a nice harsh scale on the highly played boards, and creates what all but amounts to a brick wall at the top.

Just to put some #s for context.

# of Games Played

WGWF - ~160k

Antastic / ColossalCrusade- ~17k

Invention/ Micro Mission / War / World War/etc. - ~6k

Gunslinger / Civil War / Europe 1560 / etc. - ~2.5K

-------------------------------

Clicking around, I think there are probably about 20 boards total with at least 1k games played on.  Everything else (i.e. ~250 other boards) is less than 1k.

My thought was that if we implement a system where one can still get CPs as before, just more CPs, does that really change anything?

I thought the higher board GR will essentially act as a more organic proxy for # of games(*).  As a players GR gets higher it will be harder for them to pick up easy points from newbs and so would require a larger pool of competition

e.g. @ 1400 playing 4 1000s, you'd get 57 points for wins and lose 112 points for loss.   @ 2400 you'd gain 33 and lose 192. 

You'd only have to win 2/3rds of your games at 1400 to still climb, but you'd have to win 7/8th of your games to keep climbing.  

(*) But maybe that's not true.  I see that the top player on WGWF actually has a lower GR on that board than the top player on Colossal Crusade, Antastic or Civil War.

itsnotatumor wrote:

Hey Cona,

Could you clarify your objection the 1st proposal is to still go down to 1050, it would just cap out higher than the current bar of 1500:

• 2500+ score - 50 Championship Points
• 2400+ score - 45 Championship Points
• 2300+ score - 40 Championship Points
• 2200+ score - 36 Championship Points
• 2100+ score - 33 Championship Points
• 2000+ score - 30 Championship Points
• 1900+ score - 27 Championship Points
• 1800+ score - 24 Championship Points
• 1700+ score - 21 Championship Points
• 1600+ score - 18 Championship Points
• 1500+ score - 15 Championship Points
• 1450+ score - 13 Championship Points
• 1400+ score - 11 Championship Points
• 1350+ score - 9 Championship Points
• 1300+ score - 7 Championship Points
• 1250+ score - 5 Championship Points
• 1200+ score - 4 Championship Points
• 1150+ score - 3 Championship Points
• 1100+ score - 2 Championship Points
• 1050+ score - 1 Championship Points

My thought was that if we implement a system where one can still get CPs as before, just more CPs, does that really change anything?  It is simpler to understand, but I liked the log scale idea better.

Some boards would be downright impossible to get 2500 on (like dual maps, where even if you won at an 80% clip, good luck getting to 2500).

So I guess, I would propose the current CP system, just with a log modifier to weight it.  So once x games are played or players played, it'd be x2 or x3, or x4, etc.

Just to add more support to my thinking:

With the scale above, it will be very difficult to ever reach 2,500 pts on a lot of duel boards, as you would need to win a very high % of the time (Hugh has some formula for this I think) to get to 2,500 pts.  Are we okay with that - setting the bar almost impossibly high for some boards to get 50 CPs?

Also, it's not always the case, but often the harder or more difficult a board is, the easier it is to rack up wins.  My logic is that a good/experienced player on a hard board knows all the "tricks" very well, and will get to play against lots of noobs or people who will be more inclined to make a blunder because of their unfamiliarity.  So it could be the case with this scale that the problem we are trying to solve is actually compounded.  I can rack up wins on boards like Remember, where I am certain to win against a noob every time, while it would be hard to ever get a 2,500 score on something like Spy vs. Spy, a popular board, where getting a win rate over 85% would be amazing (which I think would keep you short of 2,500 - I think - someone I'm sure will correct me if I am off here).

So, to sum up - in my simple example above (which may not be what ends up happening), I can more easily get 50 CPs on a board no one plays than one of the most populat boards.  I think we want the opposite to happen?

I think Cona Chris and the other arguments have convinced me in favor of a log scale, as long as the 100-1000 games played range stays at 20CP.

Still playing around with the actual scale to find something that seems right (to me).

How about something like this:

# of plays       Top Rank CP      Min GR for top rank     # of ranks that get CP
0   -   10          --                 --                        --
10  -  100          10                1250                        5
100 -   1k          20                1500                       10
1k  -  10k          35                1750                       20
10k - 100k          55                2000                       35
100k-   1M          80                2250                       55
1M  - 10M          110                2500                       80

The CP is a compromise between exponential growth & linear growth.  It goes up +10, +15, +20, +25, etc. between categories.  # of ranks lags one category behind to allow top ranks to have a difference >1 between ranks.

Most boards keep the 20/1500/10 that we currently have. Popular boards get 35 CP.  Very popular boards get 55 CP, WGWF gets 80CP, and in a few years will bump up to 110CP.

Okay, I understand the calculation.  Now in really simple terms, this means what?

That the current system will be improved because it will now reward more points to more players for boards that get played alot, while still doing what it did before - which was encourage diverse play.   ---right?

ratsy wrote:

Okay, I understand the calculation.  Now in really simple terms, this means what?

 

That the current system will be improved because it will now reward more points to more players for boards that get played alot, while still doing what it did before - which was encourage diverse play.   ---right?

I think so.

I like Ozy's latest log table!

Thanks Ozy, I'm liking the work that you are putting into this.  I think that it would make CP a lot more accessible, especially for the more popular boards, while still retaining the point of CP, board diversity.  Great Job!

I like the idea that most boards stay at the 20/1500/10 but think the upper end of 80 and 110 is too high.  It doesn't seem like WGWF should be worth 4X - 6X the CP of other "normal" boards.  Maybe instead of 10, 20, 35, 55, 80, 110 just go with simple 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, etc.  This still gives WGWF 2.5X the weight of a normal board and is a simpler progression to follow.

This is a somewhat radical thought regarding updating the CP.  It’s based on the premise that we keep trying to drive square pegs into round holes (or is it the other way around).

Simply calculate CPs by taking a player’s board rating and subtracting 1000.

If you have a 1750 rating on a board - that’s 750 CPs

negative ratings are thrown out - So no score is generated from a board ratings below 1000.

Attributes of such a system.

1. The scale starts at 1, so anyone that can win on any board will gain some CPs and a corresponding  promotion.
2. Players don’t have to wait until they climb into the top 20 on a given board to see results.
3. The top players will have large scores. Certainly in the 10s of thousands.
4. The direct correlation between Board Rank and CPs makes it easy to understand how CPs work.
5. CPs become a much more dynamic score.
6. Boards that are played more carry more weight (though it is linear and not logarithmic - I suppose logs could be employed)
7. a much larger number of players (especially on boards like Colossal and WGWF) get a piece of the pie.
8. An aggregate between Team, Tourney, Normal, etc could be normalized or not.   I like NOT - again, let market forces decide what’s important.
9. It wouldn’t be necessary to use GR in an aggregate because the GR and CPs are so closely aligned.

Just throwing it out there.   It was generated on two cups of coffee and a bagel.