Abishai wrote:

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 its quite easy to forsee the effects.  In the system you are talking about, there would be very few boards whose caps would be affected dramatically. There are only a handful of boards that have top scores in the 2000+ range, which would only yield about 50 points to the top scorer.  Yes, there would be higher scores in general, but I don't see how that would intrinsically devalue a CP.  It would simply alter the paradigm for getting one.

I think that it makes sense that gaining CPs on more popular maps is more challenging..

Then you should be a fan of a progressive (scaling) system.

M57 wrote:

Abishai wrote:

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 its quite easy to forsee the effects.  In the system you are talking about, there would be very few boards whose caps would be affected dramatically. There are only a handful of boards that have top scores in the 2000+ range, which would only yield about 50 points to the top scorer.  Yes, there would be higher scores in general, but I don't see how that would intrinsically devalue a CP.  It would simply alter the paradigm for getting one.

I think that it makes sense that gaining CPs on more popular maps is more challenging..

Then you should be a fan of a progressive (scaling) system.

That doesn't really address the problem that a progressive system would decrease the incentive for going and trying to become proficient on multiple maps. We've pretty much said, "hey  you can now get a fair amount of CPs on one map so try and just become really good on that."  That's  a problem I see with it.

If I had to choose one of those progressive sysytems I would be most in favor of the 2500/60/top 20 choice, except that being first on a map with 1500 points should still get you 20 points.

I agree with what Ozy said and think that a simpler modification should be made to the current system. I think minimum CPs  at a couple of levels addresses the major issue of, "I have a really high board score on a popular map, but I'm outside the top 10. Shouldn't I get something for my efforts?"

I'll admit my bias, although its likely already obvious. I don't want to see any major changes. I like how the site is. If it comes to a vote and more people want to implement one of the progressive systems then that'll be fine.

Abishai wrote:

I'll admit my bias, although its likely already obvious. I don't want to see any major changes. I like how the site is. If it comes to a vote and more people want to implement one of the progressive systems then that'll be fine.

Concur.  I don't want to see major changes either.  I think a very minor tweak to allow a small amount of CPs (capped) for folks that score well on a board but outside the top10 would be, at the very least, an incremental move towards a more accurate scoring system.  I would keep the scoring calculations otherwise unchanged.  Furthermore, I think an incremental change is the one most likely to get implemented.  Some of the other ideas, while perhaps well-founded, are not likely to be implemented.  Additionally, I think this change would encourage folks to play more boards, which would be a good side-effect.

That doesn't really address the problem that a progressive system would decrease the incentive for going and trying to become proficient on multiple maps. We've pretty much said, "hey  you can now get a fair amount of CPs on one map so try and just become really good on that."  That's  a problem I see with it.

If I had to choose one of those progressive sysytems I would be most in favor of the 2500/60/top 20 choice, except that being first on a map with 1500 points should still get you 20 points.

I agree with what Ozy said and think that a simpler modification should be made to the current system. I think minimum CPs  at a couple of levels addresses the major issue of, "I have a really high board score on a popular map, but I'm outside the top 10. Shouldn't I get something for my efforts?"

I subscribe to the belief that it is easier to get CP on lots of boards than it is to be at the top of a popular board.

I also believe that the more people you get into the CP system, the better.

btilly wrote:

That doesn't really address the problem that a progressive system would decrease the incentive for going and trying to become proficient on multiple maps. We've pretty much said, "hey  you can now get a fair amount of CPs on one map so try and just become really good on that."  That's  a problem I see with it.

If I had to choose one of those progressive sysytems I would be most in favor of the 2500/60/top 20 choice, except that being first on a map with 1500 points should still get you 20 points.

I agree with what Ozy said and think that a simpler modification should be made to the current system. I think minimum CPs  at a couple of levels addresses the major issue of, "I have a really high board score on a popular map, but I'm outside the top 10. Shouldn't I get something for my efforts?"

I subscribe to the belief that it is easier to get CP on lots of boards than it is to be at the top of a popular board.

I also believe that the more people you get into the CP system, the better.

I agree with both of these statements.

Any of the suggestions so far would be fine with me, although I would prefer something that:

Scaled well (doesn't need to be redone if scores get above 3,000).

Is simpleish/easy to understand.

And keeps CP amounts as small numbers. Not necessarily capped at 20 per board, but the current high score for CP is 703, I would prefer to not see that jump into the thousands or tens of thousands (Edit: the more I think about this one the less practical it seems).

Korrun wrote:

...I would prefer something that:

Scaled well (doesn't need to be redone if scores get above 3,000).

Is simpleish/easy to understand.

And keeps CP amounts as small numbers. Not necessarily capped at 20 per board, but the current high score for CP is 703, I would prefer to not see that jump into the thousands or tens of thousands (Edit: the more I think about this one the less practical it seems).

Just spitballing ideas. Here's a solution that is a bit of a compromise..  I was playing with fibonacci but it was too dramatic.

• 1st place CPs based on (GR-1000)/75 on a board by board basis. (GR-1000) represents the 'real' amount of GR points held.  The same idea I used in my other proposed system where CPs are simply GR-1000 ..divided by some constant.
• Successive points awarded by dividing by 1.3
• Fractional numbers count in the aggregate but only whole numbers are awarded (rounding down).  I.e., scoring 0.5 on two boards earns a single CP.

Comments:

Note that 2000 is the new 1500! Korrun was concerned about inflation. The scores of the top players should remain close to where they are now, maybe even lower.

At 2000 the top 12 are in the money.

Fractional points basically doubles the # of recipients, bringing more players into the hunt, which I have to admit is something I feel strongly about. Right now CPs are out of reach for all but the top 95% of registered players, and the majority of players with CPs only have 10 or less. I don't know how to easily crunch the numbers, but I suspect the vast majority of CPs are easily distributed among the top 1% of players. While theoretically this may seem appropriate, I feel it is not good for the site.

Yes, popular boards are awarded more points and more players are awarded more points on those boards as well, but the 'advantage' seems very reasonable.  It's much much easier to be on top of two boards at 1500 than it is to be on top of WGWF with 3000!

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. 

I'm going to agree to disagree. When the system was created most players were still under 1500 and passing that mark represented a significant achievement. Now there are significantly more players and in a popular board 1500 won't even get you 40th place, which even with 4x scaling would still leave people "out of the money" (for those who are worried about exclusivity). At the same time 1100 points on a less played board will pick up more points than someone with over 2,000.   That is RIDICULOUS!

It was ridiculous when I brought this up two years ago when top scores were generally just breaking the low 2,000's, not the 3,000 they're at now.

Scaling up won't really affect CP exclusivity as everyone's points will rise. The only players whose pecking order may improve are those who have been getting screwed by putting up win after win and getting no recognition for it. 

If anything not changing the system stifles game play as map leaders on less popular boards have no reason to start new games unless someone actually challenges their 1,500+ lead. 

And, again I have no personal ulterior motive because most of my points come from board variety, and I don't even care if my rank drops. I just want a more legitimate/reasonable ranking system. 

itsnotatumor wrote:

When the system was created most players were still under 1500 and passing that mark represented a significant achievement. Now there are significantly more players and in a popular board 1500 won't even get you 40th place, which even with 4x scaling would still leave people "out of the money" (for those who are worried about exclusivity). At the same time 1100 points on a less played board will pick up more points than someone with over 2,000.   That is RIDICULOUS!

It was ridiculous when I brought this up two years ago when top scores were generally just breaking the low 2,000's, not the 3,000 they're at now.

Scaling up won't really affect CP exclusivity as everyone's points will rise. The only players whose pecking order may improve are those who have been getting screwed by putting up win after win and getting no recognition for it. 

If anything not changing the system stifles game play as map leaders on less popular boards have no reason to start new games unless someone actually challenges their 1,500+ lead. 

And, again I have no personal ulterior motive because most of my points come from board variety, and I don't even care if my rank drops. I just want a more legitimate/reasonable ranking system. 

+1 To piggy-back on your rant (I'm ranting with you), I would add that back in the days when the system was devised and implemented (even before my time on this site), almost anyone who could win games was racking up points.

As far as I'm concerned, part of the problem is the name itself, "Championship." It implies exclusivity and it served its purpose back in those days when "exclusivity" meant practically everyone.

I am still a fan-boy of my own proposal (going back a few years now).   We called it Option "I." LINK @INAT, I notice you voted for C over I, but I'm not sure you would vote that way again based on what you just posted.

Option I: CP = (GR-1000). Dividing by a some constant (like 100) is optional. Anyone who can advance on any board scores. It's dead simple, equanimous and it's scaleable.

No, they're not really "Championship" points.  It's more of an aggregate that rewards diverse play and high scores, but it ends up functioning not dissimilarly to the early CP system, where anyone who could win was in the hunt.

Top 5/10 board played get more cp's?

If you base CP on GR, then why even have CP?

Just compare GR's and forget the other number. 

IMO: that's a silly thing to do. 

My idea of the "4 Rank System" was received well and was due to be implemented. Tom was looking for someone to design the medals. Any volunteers? 

Babbalouie wrote:

My idea of the "4 Rank System" was received well and was due to be implemented. Tom was looking for someone to design the medals. Any volunteers? 

@B I do remember a lot of discussion about an aggregate ranking system (it was GR based, right?) can you perhaps find and post any links to those threads?

ratsy wrote:

If you base CP on GR, then why even have CP?

Just compare GR's and forget the other number. 

IMO: that's a silly thing to do. 

I don't disagree. This is why I prefer to 'rebrand' CPs as more of an Aggregate score. Right now, CPs are the only stat that gives us any idea of both a player's range and quality of play across the site.  And it's a horrible stat for that, only really recognizing the work and skills of elite players with any accuracy.  It's worthless when it comes to accurately rewarding middle tier players, and demoralizing for lower tier players.  It may have been designed to be the most highly regarded stat, but it has become the least valuable, least informative for a majority of players, and most manipulated stat on the site.

Here's the 4 rank system

http://www.wargear.net/rankings/show4ranks/

And for what it's worth, I think it's a good solution with minimal change

AfroDaby wrote: Here's the 4 rank system

http://www.wargear.net/rankings/show4ranks/

And for what it's worth, I think it's a good solution with minimal change

I would agree except for the part where there's still no good aggregate, and even if there was, CPs as they are currently tallied would ruin it.

M57 wrote:

AfroDaby wrote: Here's the 4 rank system

http://www.wargear.net/rankings/show4ranks/

And for what it's worth, I think it's a good solution with minimal change

I would agree except for the part where there's still no good aggregate, and even if there was, CPs as they are currently tallied would ruin it.

Yep.  Not opposed to the 4 rank, but until CP is fixed this will be super flawed too. ANY fix of CP would be better than current. 

Top played board.... 100 cp...next five get 50......everything else stays the same.....

Why not 1000 CPs?

i vote for no change

just play a lesser board 5 Times.....win three or four....easy right