I found a higher board ranking, Babbalouie has 2968 on Battle of Bladensburg. 

There are all kinds of ideas out there for CPs.  Here's one I came up with a few years ago:

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 any board ratings below 1000.

Attributes of such a system.

1. The scale starts at 1 so anyone that can make positive gains on any board will immediately gain some CPs. I.e., players new to the site are immediately "in the hunt," even if they only play WGWF.
2. The direct correlation between Board Rank and CPs makes it easy to understand how CPs work.
3. CPs become a much more dynamic score, constanty moving.
4. Boards that are more widely played carry more weight because they generate more CPs across the site, yet all boards have CP parity, which will still encourage players to play other boards as they reach equalibrium on the boards they currently play.

This system would generate high CP counts for the top players, in the tens of thousands.  i don't see that as a bad thing. More is better, right? But if you wanted to put a damper on things there are ways that were discussed. For instance, award 1 CP for every GR-1000 points, effectively putting the threshold for points awarded at 1100 and putting the top CP players in with a couple hundred CPs or so.

I think it hurts the site that even good players can join and play WGWF for years and not gain a single CP.

Ozyman wrote:

Ok - here's some hard numbers for a CP system that is the same, but expanded:

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

Can someone run this against some actual boards to see how it goes?

It gives more points up to 2500 instead of just 1500.

What is the current highest score on any individual board?  Has this been going up, or do we think this # has pretty much peaked?

Wow, my doubling plan wouldn't even cut it now. Expanded proposal looks good, though with Babba and IR's numbers I think 3,000/80/top 40 (4x current) would make even more sense. That way no one has maxed any board (for the moment) and even those two would have new goals to shoot for.  On most of the popular boards even top 40 is pretty elite (1500+)

I would again agree we should keep it simple. Last time we had over 15 plans with the most complicated having the highest interest and nothing was done. Any simple, but imperfect plan that actually happens has my vote. 

I am someone who came back recently after an extended absence.

The way that I see it is that CP exists to encourage play on lots of boards.  A simple board by board CP where only people who have played recently to get considered would encourage play on a lot of currently dead boards.  There are so many boards that every 6 months would be overkill.  But an every 2 year rule would have a positive effect without being so overwhelming.

The reason to change CP rules on popular boards is to get people who currently don't think about CP interested in playing more boards.

I like the idea of the expanded proposal, but I would suggest a twist.  Rather than score+rank, I would suggest CP thresholds based on percentile rank alone.  And then we could make it a simple formula as follows:

CP = floor(10 * rank / ranked_players)

(In case of ties, round the rank down.)

So you get a CP every time you're in the top 10% of players on a board.  Another every time you're in the top 5%.  Another every time you're in the top 3.333%.  And so on.

For any given person of fixed skill, the more boards you play, the easier it is to collect CP.  But really good specialists get CP as well.

I know there are lots of good ideas out there.  Some are even captured on the wiki.  I can see the wisdom in both M57 and btilly's ideas.

But rather than debate the perfect system (which we did 2 years ago), I think we should be pragmatic and make modifications to the existing system to get a better system, even if it's not perfect.

I updated the chart based on Itsnotatumor's comments:

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

Assuming we stick with a simple modification of the current system - how does the:

Expanded Proposal to 3,000/80/top 40

look?

3000/80/top 40 sounds good to me, easy to implement and maintain (I hope), easy to understand. I'm sure it will lose me my Sergeant stripes so I don't support it just to advance myself. 

What if we kept everything the same and just added minimum CPs at a couple of thresholds. Earning a board score of 1500+ gives you a minimum of 5 CPs while 2000+ points gives you a minimum of 10 (or something similar). That way it would be easy to implement and you still get something for your efforts on the more popular maps

Those were exactly my thoughts Abishai...then we just need to agree on the min. levels and points. And I think this would be the easiest for Tom to implement.

I guess my perspective tries to be more from that of someone who has little or no CPs.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll go out on a limb and speculate 100% of us debating this have some, whereas the vast majority of members have none.  I sense that most of you want to keep it that way - after all, they are "Championship" points.   On the other hand - what exactly does that mean?

I think in General, the sentiment is:

"I want to win".  

And getting some kind of points helps a guy to know that he's winning.  

It's a system designed to give competitive players (who play an ultra competitive game) some recognition of their excellence.  Of course those at the top want to keep theirs - it tells them their good. Many have worked really hard, in a focused way, to get their points.

CP's are designed to reward broad skilled play. If you're good at alot of boards, you should have alot of CP's. 

Abishai wrote:

What if we kept everything the same and just added minimum CPs at a couple of thresholds. Earning a board score of 1500+ gives you a minimum of 5 CPs while 2000+ points gives you a minimum of 10 (or something similar). That way it would be easy to implement and you still get something for your efforts on the more popular maps

What if just got rid of the "If 10 players have a ranking of 1500+, then the number one ranked player will obtain 20 Championship Points, number two will obtain 15, number three will obtain 12, and so on." restriction and kept the chart:  

• 1500+ score - 20 Championship Points
• 1450+ score - 15 Championship Points
• 1400+ score - 12 Championship Points
• 1350+ score - 10 Championship Points
• 1300+ score - 8 Championship Points
• 1250+ score - 6 Championship Points
• 1200+ score - 4 Championship Points
• 1150+ score - 3 Championship Points
• 1100+ score - 2 Championship Points
• 1050+ score - 1 Championship Points

Amidon37 wrote:

Abishai wrote:

What if we kept everything the same and just added minimum CPs at a couple of thresholds. Earning a board score of 1500+ gives you a minimum of 5 CPs while 2000+ points gives you a minimum of 10 (or something similar). That way it would be easy to implement and you still get something for your efforts on the more popular maps

What if just got rid of the "If 10 players have a ranking of 1500+, then the number one ranked player will obtain 20 Championship Points, number two will obtain 15, number three will obtain 12, and so on." restriction and kept the chart:  

• 1500+ score - 20 Championship Points
• 1450+ score - 15 Championship Points
• 1400+ score - 12 Championship Points
• 1350+ score - 10 Championship Points
• 1300+ score - 8 Championship Points
• 1250+ score - 6 Championship Points
• 1200+ score - 4 Championship Points
• 1150+ score - 3 Championship Points
• 1100+ score - 2 Championship Points
• 1050+ score - 1 Championship Points

 

I'd vote this and just elongate the chart values

Amidon37 wrote:

Abishai wrote:

What if we kept everything the same and just added minimum CPs at a couple of thresholds. Earning a board score of 1500+ gives you a minimum of 5 CPs while 2000+ points gives you a minimum of 10 (or something similar). That way it would be easy to implement and you still get something for your efforts on the more popular maps

What if just got rid of the "If 10 players have a ranking of 1500+, then the number one ranked player will obtain 20 Championship Points, number two will obtain 15, number three will obtain 12, and so on." restriction and kept the chart:  

• 1500+ score - 20 Championship Points
• 1450+ score - 15 Championship Points
• 1400+ score - 12 Championship Points
• 1350+ score - 10 Championship Points
• 1300+ score - 8 Championship Points
• 1250+ score - 6 Championship Points
• 1200+ score - 4 Championship Points
• 1150+ score - 3 Championship Points
• 1100+ score - 2 Championship Points
• 1050+ score - 1 Championship Points

 

I feel like that would cut out the competive nature of striving for a higher board ranking for players at the top of popular maps. Once a player got to 1500 they could move on.

Also, I don't think IRSmart would want the same distinction as the guy ranked 140th in Wargear Warfare, nor should he. In the system I proposed the top 3 players would always have a special distinction, and there would be distinction between those rated 1500 and 2000.

M57 wrote:

I guess my perspective tries to be more from that of someone who has little or no CPs.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll go out on a limb and speculate 100% of us debating this have some, whereas the vast majority of members have none.  I sense that most of you want to keep it that way - after all, they are "Championship" points.   On the other hand - what exactly does that mean?

I have two CPs. With the proposed system I'd get a bit more, but as other players would profit more than me so I'd expect to drop out of the top-500 and lose my Sergeant's stripes, as mentioned earlier. For a newcomer it would be easier to get points, more difficult to get promotions. This could ofc be amended (if it is conceived as a problem) by adding more grades. Corporal, for example.

Abishai wrote:

Amidon37 wrote:

Abishai wrote:

What if we kept everything the same and just added minimum CPs at a couple of thresholds. Earning a board score of 1500+ gives you a minimum of 5 CPs while 2000+ points gives you a minimum of 10 (or something similar). That way it would be easy to implement and you still get something for your efforts on the more popular maps

What if just got rid of the "If 10 players have a ranking of 1500+, then the number one ranked player will obtain 20 Championship Points, number two will obtain 15, number three will obtain 12, and so on." restriction and kept the chart:  

• 1500+ score - 20 Championship Points
• 1450+ score - 15 Championship Points
• 1400+ score - 12 Championship Points
• 1350+ score - 10 Championship Points
• 1300+ score - 8 Championship Points
• 1250+ score - 6 Championship Points
• 1200+ score - 4 Championship Points
• 1150+ score - 3 Championship Points
• 1100+ score - 2 Championship Points
• 1050+ score - 1 Championship Points

 

I feel like that would cut out the competive nature of striving for a higher board ranking for players at the top of popular maps. Once a player got to 1500 they could move on.

Also, I don't think IRSmart would want the same distinction as the guy ranked 140th in Wargear Warfare, nor should he. In the system I proposed the top 3 players would always have a special distinction, and there would be distinction between those rated 1500 and 2000.

I like A37's idea - but Abishai's point is well-taken.  JV's solution could solve this. Regardless, I do not like the arbitrary nature of the current system.  My solution is really not that dissimilar from A37s and JVs if you divide the score by 10 and round down to the nearest whole number ..and it scales evenly to infinity.  It's much more easily understandable and translatable. You don't need to look things up on a chart to know what you've got.

Example: IRsmarts 2959 GP on WGWF translates to 1959.  OR if 195 CPs if you prefer smaller numbers.

Abishai wrote:

Amidon37 wrote:

Abishai wrote:

What if we kept everything the same and just added minimum CPs at a couple of thresholds. Earning a board score of 1500+ gives you a minimum of 5 CPs while 2000+ points gives you a minimum of 10 (or something similar). That way it would be easy to implement and you still get something for your efforts on the more popular maps

What if just got rid of the "If 10 players have a ranking of 1500+, then the number one ranked player will obtain 20 Championship Points, number two will obtain 15, number three will obtain 12, and so on." restriction and kept the chart:  

• 1500+ score - 20 Championship Points
• 1450+ score - 15 Championship Points
• 1400+ score - 12 Championship Points
• 1350+ score - 10 Championship Points
• 1300+ score - 8 Championship Points
• 1250+ score - 6 Championship Points
• 1200+ score - 4 Championship Points
• 1150+ score - 3 Championship Points
• 1100+ score - 2 Championship Points
• 1050+ score - 1 Championship Points

 

I feel like that would cut out the competive nature of striving for a higher board ranking for players at the top of popular maps. Once a player got to 1500 they could move on.

Also, I don't think IRSmart would want the same distinction as the guy ranked 140th in Wargear Warfare, nor should he. In the system I proposed the top 3 players would always have a special distinction, and there would be distinction between those rated 1500 and 2000.

I like the back and forth nature of having people compete for top spots.

After an extended absence, I'm now #4 on Hex.  I'd like to get back to at  least #3.

My proposal addressed that by making the number of CP that you can win vary according to the board popularity, but the top player gets double the second player.  Who in turn gets 50% more than the third.

btilly wrote:

I like the back and forth nature of having people compete for top spots.

After an extended absence, I'm now #4 on Hex.  I'd like to get back to at  least #3.

My proposal addressed that by making the number of CP that you can win vary according to the board popularity, but the top player gets double the second player.  Who in turn gets 50% more than the third.

I feel the opposite; it seems unfair that the difference of a single point can have such a dramatic difference in CPs.  I  also dislike the part that makes it all but impossible for rank and file members, much less lower tier members to acquire any points.  Again, the arbitrary cut-off issue for defining a top # of points awarded rears its head. I.e., how do you propose scaling given the extremes of board popularity?

So if I was in your camp - this would be my proposal..

The top player gets 50% of available points, 2nd gets 25%, 3rd gets 12.5% etc. Total number of CPs awarded per board is based on the top player's score..

• etc.
• 1900+ score - 90 Championship Points available
• 1800+ score - 80 Championship Points available
• 1700+ score - 70 Championship Points available
• 1600+ score - 60 Championship Points available
• 1500+ score - 50 Championship Points available
• 1400+ score - 40 Championship Points available
• 1300+ score - 30 Championship Points available
• 1200+ score - 20 Championship Points available
• 1100+ score - 10 Championship Points available

This would give IRsmart 95 CPs for his #1 spot on WGWF

Pros:

• Dynamic race at the top where a point or two causes significant CP swings.
• Addresses the scalability issues
• Easy to understand.

Cons:

• Dynamic race at the top where a point or two causes significant CP swings.
• Very exclusive:  Most boards would only reward the top 5 players.

btilly, prioritizing board popularity by making it a factor would probably result in fewer plays on other boards - that should be recognized as a side effect. Would we really want that?

Sorry M, we seemed to be typing at the same time (and you type quicker than I).

Thingol wrote:

btilly, prioritizing board popularity by making it a factor would probably result in fewer plays on other boards - that should be recognized as a side effect. Would we really want that?

Well, in btilly's defense, I would argue that a reasonably progressive scale favoring boards that are played more would not have that much impact. I'll speculate yet again that 100% of the CP holders on WGWF have more CPs from other boards. If anything, a simple to understand system would highlight the advantage of playing a wider range of boards.  Players either buy into the system or don't, and once they've reached equilibrium, they either go hunting elsewhere for points or they don't.

The issues as I see them are:

• How inclusive/exclusive should CPs be?
• What is the right balance of weighting the more highly played boards against the value of diversification of play?

My vision for CPs is inclusive in that new players need to be rewarded early on. Yes, this makes it more of an aggregate than a "Championship" value, but that's what I think the site needs. Personally, if I was starting the site from scratch, I would be awarding CPs for tournament play, one per win - done. But that's not going to happen.

I think that a reasonable progressive scale of some sort is in order - based on board popularity.  I think the site needs a score that is more of an aggregate, rewarding both winning and diversification of play.

I personally don't like the idea of changing the max CPs  that you can achieve on any one board. If you want more than 20 CPs then you simply have to go out and conquer more maps. That was the original idea with CPs  right, to reward those playing a diverse amount of boards? Raising the ceiling on a map from 20 to 95+ and changing the distribition scale would drastically effect the site in ways we could not even foresee. It might even have an inflation type of effect where the value of  CPs is percieved as lower.

I think that it makes sense that gaining CPs on more popular maps is more challenging and is not something that necessarily needs to be fixed.