Hey Everyone,

Been meaning to get back to this for a while, but RL has been a bit too exciting the last few months. 

In a previous thread there seemed to be a fairly big consensus that the way CP is calculated could use some updating.  Especially, since it is the determinant of ‘official’ rank. 

The biggest issue being that CP doesn’t take into account popularity/difficulty of getting into the points WGWF (Top Score 2670, 10^th 2062), Antastic (Top Score 2806, 10^th 1825), Civil War (Top Score 2724, 10^th 1933), and others take 1500+ just to get in the points much less achieve the top score where others only need a few wins.  But, everything is worth the same CP. 

A secondary issue was the accessibility of CP points by newer players.  Unless playing a seldom played board it can be difficult to get into the points at all.

At that point we generated tons of ideas from simplistic and easily executable by Tom to a major revamp of the entire system.  But, with all the other requests Tom gets he’s not going to make a move at all until he sees at least some consensus of direction. 

So to help move that forward I’d like this to be a VOTING THREAD, based on many people’s suggestions, where people just put in order their TOP THREE choices, NOTHING ELSE (except maybe a SUPER BRIEF explanation of your vote).  If people want to start a parallel thread for chit-chat or review/comment on the original to see the arguments for each: http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/3542p1/Updating_CP  that’s cool too.

 

Option A:

+1 CP to every player over 1500 for every player over 1500 (current threshold).  

It would make everyone over the mark "in the points" and would make 1st place on wgwf/Civil/etc. worth 120­+ CP's for first place.

 

Option B 

+ X% to each player over 1500 for each player over 1500.

 

Option C

Basic scale expansion extending the current threshold to 2500 or 3000 and pay out the top 20-30. (3000 would put the points above ALL current scores)

 

Option D

Regressive system such that the uber-popular boards are not too influential.

E.g., give the top 16 boards extra CPs linearly:

WGWF top player = 100

Colossal Crusade top player = 95

..90, 85, 80,..   ..30, 25, 20, 20, 20,..

 

Option E

Logarithmic scale (example):

# of plays	Top Rank CP	Min GR for top rank	# of ranks that earn CP
0-10	10	1250	10
10-100	20	1500	20
100-1000	30	1750	30
1000-10000	40	2000	40
10000-100000	50	2250	50
100000-1000000	60	2500	60

 

Option F

A system for factoring in difficulty, such as:

CP x Difficulty factor x Popularity factor

 

Option G

The current CP system with a log modifier to weight it.  A compromise between exponential growth & linear growth.  So once x games are played or players played, it'd be x2 or x3, or x4, etc. Most boards keep the 20/1500/10 that we currently have. Popular boards get 40 CP.  Very popular boards get 60 CP, ultra popular (Colossal, wgwf, etc.) gets 80CP,

 

Option H

Same as Option G but with a LOW log modifier to weight it.  1.5x, 2x, 2.5x

 

Option I

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.

 

Option J

Expansion of Option I with Bonus CPs awarded to the top X players where each position gets an additional straight percentage of their current Rating for that board. For instance,

#1 = 100%, #2 = 95%, #3 = 90%, #4 = 85%, etc..

 

Option K

A Trueskill ‘like’ ranking algorithm that replaces both current GR & CP systems. (Possibly the most accurate, but complicated for non-math people to understand).

 

My Vote:

1 Option C (Seems simple yet 'fair')

2 Option I (Seems simple yet 'fair')

3 Option K (I don't get it, but Hugh says it's good )

My understanding was that True-Skill method (or something True-Skill-like) is a solution to replace the Global Score system, not the Championship point system.

My vote is for option I and no others. This seems very sensible.

I'm probably alone here but is there an option for leaving things as is? That would be my vote. I like the current system. It is easy to understand and to figure out. I don't want to have to take out my calculator to figure out CP's.

If there is going to be a change, though, I am against any system that would give more CP's to some boards. All boards should be equal.

CK66 wrote: 

If there is going to be a change, though, I am against any system that would give more CP's to some boards. All boards should be equal.

So you're saying that a board like Antastic! or Colossal Crusade, which is played by 100's of players and is very difficult to get any CPs on, should be valued the same as a not very popular (possibly because its new or of low quality) board, which only gets played by a handful of people ..and on which it is pretty easy to get CPs?

If it's cool let's just keep this to voting, so it doesn't get bogged down. For debate/discussion please use:

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/3542p1/Updating_CP

1. Option K or

2. Option G or H (we can discuss the details of weight when we decide on a system)

Obviously a trueskill system would engage players faster, get them placed more comparatively and be able to reward the difficulty of a board. 

In the absence of that, I think we should keep the current system but weight the boards for their difficulty "i.e number of players and plays". This will greatly improve the relevance of Champ Points. 

K - trueskill like system.  Especially if it makes gaining CPs on duel boards easier/fairer to obtain.

I'd also like to see a system/table where we rank recent scoring vs. all time scoring. 

K first.

i can't even see the first two posts...(i'm in work mode)...i have to highlight to read

#1) K  (although, like M57, my understanding is that this would only replace GR, not CP)

#2) Option G or H (we can discuss the details of weight when we decide on a system)

#3) Option A (not sure I understand this one, but it seems simple & an improvement)

 

 

OPTION L: elimination of CPs

I like it the way it is.

Sure it is not perfect but I feel like the top players are justified.

I would however like to see a persons rank or score be separated. so that it was more consistant  boards, number of people in games ect.

I really don't know but imo, I don't belong 71 in champ. points. I am a mediocre player..... At best!

I will just stop talking now. Not sure why I even responded to this thread.

Ozyman wrote:

#1) K  (although, like M57, my understanding is that this would only replace GR, not CP)

Yeah, but this would then be how we rank people on boards and that would change CP totals.

1. C

2. H

3. K

1. D

2. A

3. K

1. D

2. G

3. A

I don't know enough about option "K" to vote on that, but it sounds good in theory. I like the idea of only having the most popular boards ranked significantly, so with my "D" and "G" I'd have the least played boards worth close to zero.

I'm just going to say - I don't care too much how the system ranks people, I personally care more about ways to encourage more people on wargear to play a diverse set of boards and how to fill some of the more obscure titles.

I've been thinking about this and agree with Andernut.  

Along those lines I think that I would encourage diverse boards the most - since that is more likely to get implemented then K I am switching my vote to 

1) I

2) K