Just curious...what score are the ranking achievements (lieutenant, captain, major, etc.) based on?  I thought it was the global ranking score, but that is not jiving with my score.   Is it on championship score?

Yeah, it's done by Championship Points's.

http://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=achievements

Check that out, or the ranking section on the left there. 

Thanks.  Yep - I saw that table, but it really doesn't tell what score was used in the ranking.  I just assumed it was the global ranking score - which seems appropriate.  I guess I have to work on my championship points now!

You'll be surprised at how easy it is to build some.  Just play lots of different boards. 

With 1420 games of Wargear Warfare under your belt I think it's time to branch out - you look like you'll do ok. 

BIg Skin wrote:

 I just assumed it was the global ranking score - which seems appropriate. 

I just included this information in the Wiki on the header for that section.

M57 wrote:

BIg Skin wrote:

 I just assumed it was the global ranking score - which seems appropriate. 

I just included this information in the Wiki on the header for that section.

I fixed it to be Championship Points...

1420 games on the same map? Wow, we humans sure are creatures of habit, aren't we?

weathertop wrote:

M57 wrote:

BIg Skin wrote:

 I just assumed it was the global ranking score - which seems appropriate. 

I just included this information in the Wiki on the header for that section.

I fixed it to be Championship Points...

Oops -- thanks.

It should be based on global ranking. Championship points mean little to me. Players build up points after playing only 2 games on certain boards. You can become a General by playing boards that are not popular and are seldom played. So in other words, ranks don't mean a thing to me. I came up with a 4 rank system (5 as per Cona Chris), and it seemed popular with most players, but I am still waiting for a reply from Tom. 

Babbalouie wrote:

It should be based on global ranking. Championship points mean little to me. Players build up points after playing only 2 games on certain boards. You can become a General by playing boards that are not popular and are seldom played. So in other words, ranks don't mean a thing to me. I came up with a 4 rank system (5 as per Cona Chris), and it seemed popular with most players, but I am still waiting for a reply from Tom. 

+1

Despite I will appear to be self-centred or narcissistic, I will give my case as an example : 

I am number 1 at the tournament ranking, number 1 at Wargear Warfare, number 2 at the global ranking, and I am only a major general. Is that fair ?

The ranking seems pretty useless to me as well for the above mentioned reasons.  Whether a 4/5 rank system or an aggregate, however, I don't know if everyone can be satisfied no matter which way it's cut.  Since Tom seems to like consensus it looks to me like we might just be stuck with this status quo as it has been implemented.

berickf wrote:

The ranking seems pretty useless to me as well for the above mentioned reasons.  Whether a 4/5 rank system or an aggregate, however, I don't know if everyone can be satisfied no matter which way it's cut.  Since Tom seems to like consensus it looks to me like we might just be stuck with this status quo as it has been implemented.

The only thing that we seem to agree on is there's no way to please everyone.   I would respectfully disagree and venture there's no consensus that the current system is the least unpopular with everyone.  In fact, I would be willing to bet that most everyone would like the system to change in some significant way.  The mathematicians, for one, would like to see a more robust and up-to-date global system to scaffold all the other ranking systems and things like aggregates, whatever they may eventually be. This would be somewhat of a major undertaking for Tom, and would require a clear vision of the entire system from top to bottom.

We have engaged in quite a bit of discussion regarding many of the elements of such a retooling of the system.  If this were a truly democratic system, it would certainly never happen.  Tom has to digest everything and make a decision. (..and he already may have - the status quo).

Oh lord BIg Skin, do you know what you've dug up?  But since we're talking about it, I had a few more thoughts since that epic thread(s).

The biggest change in my opinion is due to my playing a lot more WGWF since that thread.  Despite being on WG for years now, I had only played one (public) game of WGWF.   Since then I've played 13 games, and never have I seen my GR go up so quickly.  1900 -> 2400 in a 3 months.  Granted 13 games is not that big of a sample size, but I believe that WGWF is actually much easier to gain ranking points on than most maps. 

This leads me to reconsider just how much weight should be given to WGWF.  In the previous post I was on the side of changing your rank to be based on GR instead of CP, or of changing CP calculation to allow more popular maps to get more CP.   I no longer think that GR is a better indicator of skill than CP.  I do however still think that should be some adjustment to CP to give WGWF a bit more of a boost in the CP category, but a smaller boost than I was thinking before.

Frankly, I think someone who has played almost exclusively WGWF does not have the necessary perspective to fairly discuss this.  Just as I did not have the necessary perspective, since I had hardly played WGWF.  I think more weight should be given to the opinion of players who have played a variety of maps.  They can better rate the equivalent difficulty of reaching #25 on WGWF vs. reaching #5 on some less popular map.

As for how closely Tom is following all this, my guess is that he is not following too closely.  There have just been too many posts and too much disagreement for him to really wade into it.  If we want to make a change, we need to work on consensus building and then present something to Tom and see what he thinks.

To that end, I have used M57s wiki page as a starting point and have started trying to organize better on the wiki:

http://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=general_features:modify_championship_point_calculations

I suggest we spend another week or two getting our arguments and options clearly laid out, then have a vote/poll of some sort to see how close we are to consensus.  Then we can send Tom a PM with an executive summary - the various positions, pros & cons of each, and where the community stands on it.  Maybe he'll agree with some of the arguments & this will get put on the todo list.  Maybe he'll decide he wants to keep it the way it is.  But at least we could lay it to rest for the time.

+1 regarding Ozy's post of weighting of WGWF and those that play that map exclusively.

Thingol wrote: +1 regarding Ozy's post of weighting of WGWF and those that play that map exclusively.

+1 +1 +1

I've been thinking this too. I did once play a lot of WGWF (and hundreds of games on the "beta map", which continues to scar my visual cortex). It's not very challenging or interesting, but tons of people apparently love it and come to the site, bless'em, to play it.

They merit recognition and stuff to compete for -- it's good for the site. But, there are so many WGWF games going, you're very unlikely to happen into a game with a Toto or someone else very good, unless you seek them out. It's just a different kind of accomplishment than dominating on 20 very different,  often challenging, boards, and so merits different recognition.

smoke wrote:

Thingol wrote: +1 regarding Ozy's post of weighting of WGWF and those that play that map exclusively.

+1 +1 +1

I've been thinking this too. I did once play a lot of WGWF (and hundreds of games on the "beta map", which continues to scar my visual cortex). It's not very challenging or interesting, but tons of people apparently love it and come to the site, bless'em, to play it.

They merit recognition and stuff to compete for -- it's good for the site. But, there are so many WGWF games going, you're very unlikely to happen into a game with a Toto or someone else very good, unless you seek them out. It's just a different kind of accomplishment than dominating on 20 very different,  often challenging, boards, and so merits different recognition.

-1, -1, -1

I do not have time now to put my thoughts together coherently on this topic.  But I can say for now that I think the popular boards are harder to be top ranked on because there are so many good players competing.  It will probably be very useful to separate the concepts of 'gaining points' from 'being top ranked on'.

Popular games will be initially easier to get points on because your games fill quickly.  You are gaining points faster because you have opponents, not because you opponents are less skilled necessarily.  But after you climb a bit on these boards it becomes comparatively more difficult to get into the top ten.

SquintGnome wrote:

smoke wrote:

Thingol wrote: +1 regarding Ozy's post of weighting of WGWF and those that play that map exclusively.

+1 +1 +1

I've been thinking this too. I did once play a lot of WGWF (and hundreds of games on the "beta map", which continues to scar my visual cortex). It's not very challenging or interesting, but tons of people apparently love it and come to the site, bless'em, to play it.

They merit recognition and stuff to compete for -- it's good for the site. But, there are so many WGWF games going, you're very unlikely to happen into a game with a Toto or someone else very good, unless you seek them out. It's just a different kind of accomplishment than dominating on 20 very different,  often challenging, boards, and so merits different recognition.

-1, -1, -1

I do not have time now to put my thoughts together coherently on this topic.  But I can say for now that I think the popular boards are harder to be top ranked on because there are so many good players competing.  It will probably be very useful to separate the concepts of 'gaining points' from 'being top ranked on'.

Popular games will be initially easier to get points on because your games fill quickly.  You are gaining points faster because you have opponents, not because you opponents are less skilled necessarily.  But after you climb a bit on these boards it becomes comparatively more difficult to get into the top ten.

I agree with all that.    It's definitely harder to get to #10 or #1 on WGWF then any other board.  But I found it much easier to get to 1500 on WGWF than any other board.  

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this proposal:

http://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=general_features:scaling_championship_points_based_on_games_played

which I think is a good compromise.  As you are reasonably highly ranked in both GR & CP, I think you have valuable insight into how these things compare.  I'd especially like your comments on the last table on that page & what you think of the current entries in the table.

Ozyman wrote:

I agree with all that.    It's definitely harder to get to #10 or #1 on WGWF then any other board.  But I found it much easier to get to 1500 on WGWF than any other board.  

Exactly - that's why GR is not "Global".  It is much easier to manipulate it by specializing.  Our ranks are based on being good across the site.*

*Lots of caveats to that also since earning CP's is much easier on boards that have larger numbers of player per game.  

So, we talk about which set of points is easier to get and how it is easiest to get em - but lets not forget the purpose of a ranking system.  It's only like 40% about ego and ranks. 

Mostly you have a ranking system on your site to encourage the players to play more - to compete and to feel like they have accomplished something.  When you have 450 Cp's you've acomplished something - without question, and your patronage to the site is without question as well. The same argument goes for when you have 3000+ GR.  Your a darn good player - and you have to have beat several other good players as well, or a massive number of terrible ones. 

So in the discussion, don't forget that whatever you reward with rank, will be the type of play that players will adopt.  Having rank based on CP's is encouraging players to branch out and try all the user generated content.