So we've had 15 possible options reviewed and debated everything from minor updating to account for the large point totals on popular maps to drastic systemic changes. A 3-4 seem to have more support than others, but not necessarily a consensus. 

But, maybe one thing we can agree on is that the current CP system is out of date and could use improvement.

Is there anyone out there who feels they can logically and rationally argue that the current system is the best possible. And, not just "if it's not broke"/"what I'm used to" type arguments, but true "If I were to measure ability to win over a variety of boards this is the best system because..."

Please respond by either:

1.  Posting arguments for the status quo

2.  Posting "Time to change CP" 

3.  Posting ironic witticisms indicating preference or lack thereof

OK, I'll play a little devil's advocate.

I don't think anyone thinks it's the best possible, but I'm sure there are some who feel it is adequate, ..or perhaps not worth the effort to improve upon.

Any of the proposed "improved systems" can not satisfy all needs; simple to understand systems will be derided because of their lack of sophistication, while more complex systems will be deemed inaccessible to the average player.  Systems that reward linearly scaled play will be pitted against those that more heavily favor the top players on each board. Etc..

For those that care about their CPs, all systems will result in some kind of skewing where the way players choose which boards to play is concerned. Winning 'over a variety of boards' is a subjective criterion, the definition of which will vary from player to player.

There will be a shuffling of current positions.  No doubt some will grumble, and/or accuse others of lobbying for a system that rewards their play preferences.

The above comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the poster.

M57 wrote:

Any of the proposed "improved systems" can not satisfy all needs; simple to understand systems will be derided because of their lack of sophistication, while more complex systems will be deemed inaccessible to the average player.  Systems that reward linearly scaled play will be pitted against those that more heavily favor the top players on each board. Etc..

Fair point, but I think the question is would any and all of the suggested options improve at least one or both of the biggest issues:

Statistical Unfairness to players of popular boards.
Lack of access by newer and solely popular board players to Championship points. 

On at least three boards 1800 won't even get you a single CP! 1800! 1900 on Civil War.  You can't tell me those guys aren't champs for racking up those kind of wins.  On half the boards 1500 is an auto 20 CP. 

I'd argue all of the "options" address the first one better than the current system. And a number of them also address the 2nd issue. And, I trust Tom to figure out a good balance between accessibility, feasibility and quality. 

But, if we want him to do the project we need to give him some sort of consensus that it's worth the investment in time/effort.

M57 wrote:

There will be a shuffling of current positions.  No doubt some will grumble, and/or accuse others of lobbying for a system that rewards their play preferences.

The above comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the poster.

Another fair point.  Which is why at this time I'm not advocating for any individual one, just for consensus for Tom to make a positive change. 

Also, after running my personal numbers on most of them back when we developed them I pretty much stay put (I love the small complicated designs as much as the big boys).  I just think its crazy that 2 medium size wins on one board nets me the same CP as a dozen+ large scale wins on a popular board.  =)

I vote for whatever system has the greatest chance of encouraging players to play a diverse spread of boards and to experiment with the lesser known boards.

Anything that pulls some of the masses away from WGWF to experiment, imo, is a worthy cause.  I like WGWF, but I think that when players play a diverse spread of boards we are more likely to keep them.  

I have more fun when I play a diverse spread.  I have trouble starting up a number of boards because they didn't catch on. 

I'm happy to implement a parallel running system for a while so we can see how it works in practice.

Maybe we can do a vote at the end - retain or switch?

Just need to decide which one to parallel run with. I suppose it could be a couple of different options.

Andernut wrote:

I like WGWF, but I think that when players play a diverse spread of boards we are more likely to keep them.

I think this is the most under-appreciated criterion of all, yet it may in fact be one of the most important. There are any number of reasonably good Risk-style sites out there. The range, depth and variety of not just boards, but the types of play possible is what differentiates WG from its competition.  Once a player gets hooked on their first non-traditional board, there's nowhere else in cyberspace to go.

This is sort of a counter-argument to INATs point that it takes 1800+ points to get a single CP on WGWF, the counter-argument being, if you want points - play other boards.  On the other hand, I feel there should be a way to subtly introduce even exclusive WGWF players to the system.  At this point, option I is an example of a system that does this by giving the lions share of points to WGWF player, but spreading them out - and it has received the most attention and debate - with a fair amount of positive comments and support.  Of course, it does have its detractors.  I would vote for Option I, with my only concern being that it would be wasted effort if the current underlying Global rating system ever changes to one of the True-Skill variety.

This is sort of a counter-argument to INATs point that it takes 1800+ points to get a single CP on WGWF, the counter-argument being, if you want points - play other boards.  

Lol, I hadn't even counted WGWF when I made that post. I was looking at Colossal, Civil, and Ant.

Another fair point about playing other boards, but when you run the numbers someone half decent on 6 smaller boards will still outrank a one board champ.  It just won't be as bad.  Like dozens of CP points vs 0.   

tom wrote:

I'm happy to implement a parallel running system for a while so we can see how it works in practice.

Maybe we can do a vote at the end - retain or switch?

Just need to decide which one to parallel run with. I suppose it could be a couple of different options.

Cool. I think Op I stood out because it was simple and new players with wins can get ranked right away.

But, you could also run Op C, which is the same system except a higher threshold and more places getting points. 

i just did a tally of the Voting thread. 

K came out (by far) the most desired.

I came out next (D & J are essentially add-ons to I, just different scalers) 

G & H were next in line (also tied with L - "leave it alone")

tom wrote:

I'm happy to implement a parallel running system for a while so we can see how it works in practice.

Maybe we can do a vote at the end - retain or switch?

Just need to decide which one to parallel run with. I suppose it could be a couple of different options.

Given this, I think we should come up with something for two or three parallel options:

- K  (with whatever's coming out of that thread; i haven't digested that thread yet)
- I   (by itself)
- I+ (I + some scaler for the top ten.  personally i like a form of D; find where the break point is on the really popular boards and give those extra points linearly)

option I could be ported equivalently into an individual as well as team, where (i'm assuming) k would take into account both (leaving tourneys as they are?)

itsnotatumor wrote:

This is sort of a counter-argument to INATs point that it takes 1800+ points to get a single CP on WGWF, the counter-argument being, if you want points - play other boards.  

Lol, I hadn't even counted WGWF when I made that post. I was looking at Colossal, Civil, and Ant.

Another fair point about playing other boards, but when you run the numbers someone half decent on 6 smaller boards will still outrank a one board champ.  It just won't be as bad.  Like dozens of CP points vs 0.   

I think anyone seriously interested in winning/competing in CP is aware they cannot do so by focusing on a single popular map.

This would be a case where the jack of all trades beats the specialist.  This can be true in life and work and love.  You can't always do one thing to the exclusion of all else.

I don't see a problem with tweaking, but many would admire the athlete who wins 6 bronze medals over the one who grabs a single gold.

To be honest I have not waded too far in the tweaks, I think there is room for more positions to have ranking points in the hugely popular boards - but not necessarily for one of those ranks to be worth more points.

There is probably an option that allows for maps that lends itself to players > x,y,z number of ranks is w,p,q.  So perhaps instead of a top 10 there is a top 25 (ONLY in the case of boards that getting to these spots is very difficult). 

20
15, 15,
12, 12, 12,
10, 10, 10, 10,
6, 6, 6, 6, 6,
3, 3, 3, 3, 3,
1, 1, 1, 1, 1,

Andernut wrote:

itsnotatumor wrote:

This is sort of a counter-argument to INATs point that it takes 1800+ points to get a single CP on WGWF, the counter-argument being, if you want points - play other boards.  

Lol, I hadn't even counted WGWF when I made that post. I was looking at Colossal, Civil, and Ant.

Another fair point about playing other boards, but when you run the numbers someone half decent on 6 smaller boards will still outrank a one board champ.  It just won't be as bad.  Like dozens of CP points vs 0.   

I think anyone seriously interested in winning/competing in CP is aware they cannot do so by focusing on a single popular map.

This would be a case where the jack of all trades beats the specialist.  This can be true in life and work and love.  You can't always do one thing to the exclusion of all else.

I don't see a problem with tweaking, but many would admire the athlete who wins 6 bronze medals over the one who grabs a single gold.

To be honest I have not waded too far in the tweaks, I think there is room for more positions to have ranking points in the hugely popular boards - but not necessarily for one of those ranks to be worth more points.

There is probably an option that allows for maps that lends itself to players > x,y,z number of ranks is w,p,q.  So perhaps instead of a top 10 there is a top 25 (ONLY in the case of boards that getting to these spots is very difficult). 

20
15, 15,
12, 12, 12,
10, 10, 10, 10,
6, 6, 6, 6, 6,
3, 3, 3, 3, 3,
1, 1, 1, 1, 1,

That's sounds similar if bit different from 2-3 of original 15 proposed options.  

M57 wrote:

Andernut wrote:

I like WGWF, but I think that when players play a diverse spread of boards we are more likely to keep them.

I think this is the most under-appreciated criterion of all, yet it may in fact be one of the most important. There are any number of reasonably good Risk-style sites out there. The range, depth and variety of not just boards, but the types of play possible is what differentiates WG from its competition.  Once a player gets hooked on their first non-traditional board, there's nowhere else in cyberspace to go.

For me personally the thing that most keeps me from trying out new boards is that there are no unranked games.  I know this has been discussed before, but I can't remember what the result was.  Is Tom philosophically opposed?

It seems like it ought to be a relatively minor change to the website, and IMO would do more toward promoting diversity of play than any CP formula would.

I'm curious if I this is a common thought?  Would the rest of you play more new boards if you could play unranked games more easily?

Ozyman wrote:

I'm curious if I this is a common thought?  Would the rest of you play more new boards if you could play unranked games more easily?

We're hijacking the thread - but yes.

M57 wrote:

Ozyman wrote:

I'm curious if I this is a common thought?  Would the rest of you play more new boards if you could play unranked games more easily?

We're hijacking the thread - but yes.

That's the same reason there's some opposition to including tournies in a grand ranking; people, like BD, like to use them to learn a game. Me too. Especially true if you're not playing very many -- you've got only so much time, so many slots. Sometimes you can't tell whether you want to bother with a game until you've played it. I found Dnaleri that way, which I really like now but looked too simple to bother with before. If I could play even 3 unranked games on a game, for instance, I'd explore more. (Of course, no plays it, and you could never get a game going.)

[It's okay to hijack this thread. Important to cure Tumor of his optimism that we might reach agreement.]

[Re-reading my post, it almost looks like Mad Bomber wrote it.]

Ozyman wrote:

I know this has been discussed before, but I can't remember what the result was.  Is Tom philosophically opposed?

We have unranked games, they're called 'private' games. NOW, if we could open up private games to more than direct invites...

The introduction of an aggregate (especially one that affects "military" rank) might meet with opposition with those who have systemically used tourneys to learn boards - in essence, throwing away points. I have long been a proponent of un-ranked 'public' games.  Right now, the only way to do that is to play a game in Dev.

That said, and in an effort to bring things back OT, an aggregate system has little to do with a CP system as it relates to ranked public games.

[It's okay to hijack this thread. Important to cure Tumor of his optimism that we might reach agreement.]

Bwahaha!  

just know I'm coming for your spot no matter we're ranking it!  =D

To continue the hijack what's wrong with devs, privates, and the occasional tourney? Devs are how I always learn M57's boards in order to start winning when it counts.  And, privates seem totally underutilized. Only a few people ever invite me and half the time they're full before I get around to joining.  

Oh and down with the old CP system and up with a new one! Read, but don't post if you agree!

FWIW, speaking as one who plays tourneys almost exclusively, I don't like the fact that non-team tourney games don't count in general and board rankings.  It makes no sense to me.  If it's really just a back-door way to provide unranked public games for board learning, then foo on that.  Provide a front-door way instead with an "unranked" option at game creation.