You missed me! I come out looking pretty good in this system... but I don't like it for one reason:

Its not different from Global Ranking.  Really, were just using one aspect of the GR to reflect play across many boards - which is not a different score IMHO.

I like current CP's because they reflect an entirely different kind of play (and I realize the current system has it's problems, and that it needs revisiting) but I am mostly against any system that doesn't really differ from GR.  

I mean, if it's not different, why have it?  And if it's just another way of looking at the current scoring system, why not just add a column to the current stats sheet reflecting the calculation? 

So that's my 2 cents.

And you missed me...

ratsy wrote:

You missed me! I come out looking pretty good in this system... but I don't like it for one reason:

Its not different from Global Ranking.  Really, were just using one aspect of the GR to reflect play across many boards - which is not a different score IMHO.

I like current CP's because they reflect an entirely different kind of play (and I realize the current system has it's problems, and that it needs revisiting) but I am mostly against any system that doesn't really differ from GR.  

I mean, if it's not different, why have it?  And if it's just another way of looking at the current scoring system, why not just add a column to the current stats sheet reflecting the calculation? 

So that's my 2 cents.

And you missed me...

Hey ratsy, Good point - I was thinking along the same lines myself while thinking of a pros/cons list. It's just a way of combining GR on boards where a player is successful. In this sense, I won't disagree with you that it's a stat. But assuming that GR is (or eventually will be) a strong and fair way of rating play on a board by board basis, what's wrong with using that paradigm for overall achievement?  

The converse argument is that the current Championship point system, and most any other system put forward to replace them is going to be by design arbitrary and flawed, and therefore game able. ..and all btw are based on and therefore derivative of boards' individual GR scores.

IPoints represent a pure and easy to understand way to assess overall achievement not just between boards of varying popularity, but even across types of play, by directly using the base metric.  Call it what you want, but it could be the number that determines placement in the Rankings, and ultimately Rank. CPs should simply be eliminated. Now that we have Ranks, CPs really have no place. All that's necessary is a fair mechanism that determines Rank.

Edit: 5934 with 57 games >1000

M57 wrote:

smoke wrote:

. But it's also a bit of a "participation award" this way.

I'm not picking on you smoke - I'm addressing your concerns - which I think are valid.

Large number of first-time players probably lose their first few games - and on WGWF. The payoff doesn't come until they work their way into the black, so it's hardly a participation award. You have to win - and that's what champions are, right?  Winners. Yes, option 'I' would put many more players on the CP list earlier, but this can only be a good thing, it will give them their first taste of what it takes to get into the hunt. Even before they reach equilibrium, playing other boards to obtain more CPs faster should be a no-brainer. 

That said, if we want to make it less of a participation award we could simply raise the threshold.  E.g., subtract 1100 and throw out all scores below 0.  Personally, I think the earlier players start receiving CPs, the better for the site. Besides, simpler is better, but I would be OK with a higher entry threshold

I don't feel picked on.

Re, "you have to win - and that's what champions are, right?" That's true in one sense -- you don't get points if you don't win games, but not in another -- you don't have to win more than anyone else. In other words, there is no value in this system to being 1st/2nd/3rd/whatever on a board. Having 1800 cp on Castle, and first place, would have no more value than 1800 on Wargear Warfare, for 27th place. Having approximately done both those things, my strong feeling is the first place on Castle, beating out some superb players, was far more of an accomplishment than accidentally collecting 1800 on WGWF.

Nonetheless, I recognize there are a lot of what I'd consider positive incentives for the site and players in "I". I think I would rather see it start at 1100 than 1000 though.

smoke wrote:

I don't feel picked on.

Re, "you have to win - and that's what champions are, right?" That's true in one sense -- you don't get points if you don't win games, but not in another -- you don't have to win more than anyone else. In other words, there is no value in this system to being 1st/2nd/3rd/whatever on a board. Having 1800 cp on Castle, and first place, would have no more value than 1800 on Wargear Warfare, for 27th place. Having approximately done both those things, my strong feeling is the first place on Castle, beating out some superb players, was far more of an accomplishment than accidentally collecting 1800 on WGWF.

Nonetheless, I recognize there are a lot of what I'd consider positive incentives for the site and players in "I". I think I would rather see it start at 1100 than 1000 though.

I keep thinking about ratsy's argument, and I'm coming to the conclusion that if the site simply got rid of the notion of Championship Points, then the semantics of the debate go away. Now that there are Ranks (e.g. General, Colonel, etc..), why does the site need CPs?  What it needs is a fair and accurate way of awarding promotions in the ranking system.  With that in mind, I think it should start at 1000 and your very first IPoint should promote you from Private to Private First Class (remember, even this will only be about 1 in 7 first time players).  Call them BattlePoints or whatever you want, but in my mind the concept of CPs has worn out its welcome. There are just too many players now and the current system requires a player to work their butt off just to get a single pip on the boards ..and makes it all but impossible for the casual WGWF player.  The truth is, the large majority of visitors to this site all but exclusively play one and the same board, and a small handful of regulars are scooping up the lion's share of CPs.

There. Rant over. I wouldn't have a strong objection to shifting the threshold to 1100, but like I said before, I don't really care for arbitrary. Simpler and more inclusive is better. The solution becomes clearer if we can cut through the semantics of the issue and simply get the metric to do what the site really needs it to do, award Rank - then worry about (re)-naming it.

M57 wrote:

Oh yeah, and M57 takes a hit in the standings for being a jerk ..for among other things by playing mostly his own boards. 

Yeah, but he's got like a dozen and is only dangerously good at about half of them so I don't think that counts as "being a jerk" 

smoke wrote:

M57 wrote:

smoke wrote:

. But it's also a bit of a "participation award" this way.

I'm not picking on you smoke - I'm addressing your concerns - which I think are valid.

Large number of first-time players probably lose their first few games - and on WGWF. The payoff doesn't come until they work their way into the black, so it's hardly a participation award. You have to win - and that's what champions are, right?  Winners. Yes, option 'I' would put many more players on the CP list earlier, but this can only be a good thing, it will give them their first taste of what it takes to get into the hunt. Even before they reach equilibrium, playing other boards to obtain more CPs faster should be a no-brainer. 

That said, if we want to make it less of a participation award we could simply raise the threshold.  E.g., subtract 1100 and throw out all scores below 0.  Personally, I think the earlier players start receiving CPs, the better for the site. Besides, simpler is better, but I would be OK with a higher entry threshold

I don't feel picked on.

Re, "you have to win - and that's what champions are, right?" That's true in one sense -- you don't get points if you don't win games, but not in another -- you don't have to win more than anyone else. In other words, there is no value in this system to being 1st/2nd/3rd/whatever on a board. Having 1800 cp on Castle, and first place, would have no more value than 1800 on Wargear Warfare, for 27th place. Having approximately done both those things, my strong feeling is the first place on Castle, beating out some superb players, was far more of an accomplishment than accidentally collecting 1800 on WGWF.

How about if the IScore also included some bonus for being in the top 10 on a map.  Like maybe being 1st on a map gives you double the IPoints for that board?

It could be a sliding scale based on how far down the ladder you want to go and still get a bump.  For example if the top 10 got a bonus, 1st place would get 2x Ipoints, 2nd place would get 1.9x Ipoints, etc. down to 10th place who gets 1.1x Ipoints.

Korrun wrote:

I think that team board scores should be factored in somewhere (especially for team only boards). I have a decent score on Tug of War, but it doesn't count towards championship points or anything else for that matter. You can't even see the score anywhere besides the ranking messages inside the games (I'm pretty sure the top 3 list is bogus). http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Tug+of+War/About

I have been arguing for this point for years.  Good luck.  Agree 100%.

Ozyman wrote:

How about if the IScore also included some bonus for being in the top 10 on a map.  Like maybe being 1st on a map gives you double the IPoints for that board?

It could be a sliding scale based on how far down the ladder you want to go and still get a bump.  For example if the top 10 got a bonus, 1st place would get 2x Ipoints, 2nd place would get 1.9x Ipoints, etc. down to 10th place who gets 1.1x Ipoints.

What is it about "top 10" that's so sacrosanct? Why not top 3 or top 25 or top 100? My point: Anything we do to inflate the value of the top x positions falls in the category of arbitrary and will have a tendency to change the way people play in their efforts to game the system.

If it's Championship Points we want, then we should keep the system that we have now, or perhaps modify it so as not to have the 1500 ceiling, etc. I would go for something other than Option I. The value of IPoints is that they even the playing field, not skew it in favor of the chosen few. 

I hate it when I look at my GR for a specific board and think, "Gee, if I win just one more game against 3 others, I'll probably move up to the 'a' slot pick up 'b' more points." I just feel like the system is manipulating my play in an unnatural way.

What is it about "top 10" that's so sacrosanct? Why not top 3 or top 25 or top 100?

I think smoke had a good point.  Getting 1500 points and being in 25th place on a board is not the same as getting 1500 points and being in 1st place on a board. 

Whether the top 10 get a bump or the top 3 or whatever, I think it makes sense to reward being in a top position.

not skew it in favor of the chosen few.

It's not a chosen few.  It's a winners circle.

Ozyman wrote:

What is it about "top 10" that's so sacrosanct? Why not top 3 or top 25 or top 100?

I think smoke had a good point.  Getting 1500 points and being in 25th place on a board is not the same as getting 1500 points and being in 1st place on a board. 

Whether the top 10 get a bump or the top 3 or whatever, I think it makes sense to reward being in a top position.

not skew it in favor of the chosen few.

It's not a chosen few.  It's a winners circle.

A winners circle it is. I may have gotten a bit creative with the word 'chosen', but not with 'skew' and 'few.'

If top 10 recognition is important to members then we should continue to have Championship Points, but whatever system is used to determine CPs will likely be arbitrarily constructed.  I can't say I would be excited about seeing that merged with an IPoint system, the design of which is all about linearity and even dispersement of recognition for achievement.  My vote would be to keep them separate, and that IPoints determine Rank. 

"I-Score" is cute.  How about I for independent to distinguish it from T-score.  (Team).

Giving a bonus for top X spots makes some sense.  Combines the "play as many boards as you can" with "be the best on a board".

M57 wrote:

...  I can't say I would be excited about seeing that merged with an IPoint system, the design of which is all about linearity and even dispersement of recognition for achievement.  My vote would be to keep them separate, and that IPoints determine Rank. 

M, I'm picking on you ...

So, "I" was a proposal for calculating CPs. As put in the voting thread: 

"Option I

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

Me, I think rank should be a more generous honor. Achievable via team, tournie or individual play. But that's a totally different thread already hundreds of posts long.

--

I like what Amidon says "Combines the "play as many boards as you can" with "be the best on a board"." 

--

This whole discussion seems to be that much more reason to improve GR; i.e., Option K.

Amidon37 wrote:

"I-Score" is cute.  How about I for independent to distinguish it from T-score.  (Team).

Well the triumvirate is Independent/Individual - Team - Tournament.  Add 'em up and you have an aggregate, which I think is a very if not perfectly fair and balanced way to include all the stats in one overarching score - Pick your acronym.  ITT, TTI or TIT-Score. With that on the table, I would add that if you're going to work some kind of CP bonus into the IScore, you would necessarily have to do it for the other scores to keep the aggregate balanced.

Cripes ..and don't forget TeamTournment scores.

M57 wrote:

Amidon37 wrote:

"I-Score" is cute.  How about I for independent to distinguish it from T-score.  (Team).

Well the triumvirate is Independent/Individual - Team - Tournament.  Add 'em up and you have an aggregate, which I think is a very if not perfectly fair and balanced way to include all the stats in one overarching score - Pick your acronym.  ITT, TTI or TIT-Score. With that on the table, I would add that if you're going to work some kind of CP bonus into the IScore, you would necessarily have to do it for the other scores to keep the aggregate balanced.

Cripes ..and don't forget TeamTournment scores.

I basically like this everything plus the kitchen sink approach.    Call it your "Comprehensive Score" maybe?

My only complaint is that I like the option of Tournaments for learning boards "unranked".  But that's really a separate matter of getting unranked games.

Amidon37 wrote:

"I-Score" is cute.  How about I for independent to distinguish it from T-score.  (Team).

Giving a bonus for top X spots makes some sense.  Combines the "play as many boards as you can" with "be the best on a board".

A bunch of different options do this.

Ozyman wrote:

smoke wrote:

M57 wrote:

smoke wrote:

. But it's also a bit of a "participation award" this way.

I'm not picking on you smoke - I'm addressing your concerns - which I think are valid.

Large number of first-time players probably lose their first few games - and on WGWF. The payoff doesn't come until they work their way into the black, so it's hardly a participation award. You have to win - and that's what champions are, right?  Winners. Yes, option 'I' would put many more players on the CP list earlier, but this can only be a good thing, it will give them their first taste of what it takes to get into the hunt. Even before they reach equilibrium, playing other boards to obtain more CPs faster should be a no-brainer. 

That said, if we want to make it less of a participation award we could simply raise the threshold.  E.g., subtract 1100 and throw out all scores below 0.  Personally, I think the earlier players start receiving CPs, the better for the site. Besides, simpler is better, but I would be OK with a higher entry threshold

I don't feel picked on.

Re, "you have to win - and that's what champions are, right?" That's true in one sense -- you don't get points if you don't win games, but not in another -- you don't have to win more than anyone else. In other words, there is no value in this system to being 1st/2nd/3rd/whatever on a board. Having 1800 cp on Castle, and first place, would have no more value than 1800 on Wargear Warfare, for 27th place. Having approximately done both those things, my strong feeling is the first place on Castle, beating out some superb players, was far more of an accomplishment than accidentally collecting 1800 on WGWF.

 

How about if the IScore also included some bonus for being in the top 10 on a map.  Like maybe being 1st on a map gives you double the IPoints for that board?

It could be a sliding scale based on how far down the ladder you want to go and still get a bump.  For example if the top 10 got a bonus, 1st place would get 2x Ipoints, 2nd place would get 1.9x Ipoints, etc. down to 10th place who gets 1.1x Ipoints.

 

 

That's one of the options.

If it's Championship Points we want, then we should keep the system that we have now, or perhaps modify it so as not to have the 1500 ceiling, etc. 

 

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)

 

itsnotatumor wrote:

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)

Of course, this could be as short-sighted as the what we have now, and it would be rife with many of the same problems.  Were there votes for C?

I kind of like Option C, although I didn't vote for it.  One thing I like is that it is simple and similar to the current setup.

I also thought "C" would best address the main issue of rewarding those who play the over-popular boards. But thought, and think, nothing should be done until "K" is done or rejected by the power that be.