I submit that Global Rankings would be the better measure to display on the Home Page than Championship Points total.

Subpoint 1: Global Ranking is the natural metric; CP's is a differently sorted measure which actually uses Ranking Score as is base metric. This shows that Global Ranking is the more accurate of the two.

Subpoint 2: CP's rewards player longevity and breadth of play over pure skill and depth. The number of CP's attained by the Top 10 is already intimidating to new players and will only get more so. Also, past a certain point a top-ranked player is never in any realistic danger of losing points or moving down the list because they can just go on to new boards to farm CP's from. Using Global Ranking favors remaining active and being invested in every game.

Subpoint 3: I'm ranked #8 in Global Ranking and only 19th in CP's. Need I say more.


(final note: Yertle: http://www.wargear.net/help/display/Rankings - in the example, Player D should end up with 1060, not 1040).

This thread discusses this issue:
http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/359/Ranking_changes

Yes, but... Um...

Darnit. You're not only a crafty player, you're clever on the forums as well. You've just exposed me as completely self-interested.

I see the point Tom makes in that first post though. You could play on one map forever and get ranked overall on Global Ranking that way. But I truly don't think the CP as default ranking is egalitarian enough. Maybe some strange combination of both..?

asm wrote: Yes, but... Um...

Darnit. You're not only a crafty player, you're clever on the forums as well. You've just exposed me as completely self-interested.

I see the point Tom makes in that first post though. You could play on one map forever and get ranked overall on Global Ranking that way. But I truly don't think the CP as default ranking is egalitarian enough. Maybe some strange combination of both..?

Haha, sorry.  When I remembered that other thread, I forgot that you had argued for the CP system at that time. ;-)

I agree that getting the highest CP definitely involves a bit of a grind.  I think Global Ranking is a little too dynamic, however.  One thing that could help might be flattening out the CP scale a little.  Hypothetical example: as a board gets played more and has many more 1500+ scores, it would seem harsh to give the #1 player with 1570 20 CP's and the #10 player with 1520 only 1 CP.

Some composite ranking could be a nice way to go, but I'm not sure how it might work.

While we're on the topic, let's also debate whether ties in the CP rankings should be broken by G Rating (currently implemented) or Global Ranking score (would bump me up one spot).

EDIT: Also, how about a 'minimum games played' option while sorting (or even better, a games finished minimum to even go into the list - maybe 10 games)? When sorting by G Rating, no one in the top 15 has more than 29 games played (you have to go down to the 20th-ranked player to find your second player with more than 29 games); and 12 of the top 15 (and 10 of the top 11) have fewer than 10 games played.

asm wrote:

Also, past a certain point a top-ranked player is never in any realistic danger of losing points or moving down the list because they can just go on to new boards to farm CP's from. Using Global Ranking favors remaining active and being invested in every game.

Huh?  With the current system only the top 10 players of a board get CPs, therefore they could be very at risk of losing points.

Throwing in another Ranking calculation like you later mention seems like it could get too complicated, already with the 3+ types of calculations (G Rating/Board/Global, then throw in must be top 10 and certain level) it can be overwhelming IMO.

The breaking CP ties with the G Rating is because it is using the G Rating of that map, so it's breaking the tie with something at least related to the map (if G Ratings are the same, then I believe it is last game played date/time), where as the Global Ranking would be the ... um Global Ranking :P.

Minimum games played idea is nice, and should be boosted as time goes on (I think tom has updated it once, from 1 to 2 games, don't want to set it at something to where there is only 10 people that show up on it :P).

Fixed the Help page, nice catch and thanks!

Yertle wrote:

Huh?  With the current system only the top 10 players of a board get CPs, therefore they could be very at risk of losing points.

Throwing in another Ranking calculation like you later mention seems like it could get too complicated, already with the 3+ types of calculations (G Rating/Board/Global, then throw in must be top 10 and certain level) it can be overwhelming IMO.

The breaking CP ties with the G Rating is because it is using the G Rating of that map, so it's breaking the tie with something at least related to the map (if G Ratings are the same, then I believe it is last game played date/time), where as the Global Ranking would be the ... um Global Ranking :P.

Minimum games played idea is nice, and should be boosted as time goes on (I think tom has updated it once, from 1 to 2 games, don't want to set it at something to where there is only 10 people that show up on it :P).

Fixed the Help page, nice catch and thanks!

True. Okay. My arguments on that issue can fairly be called frivolous.

True too. I suppose CP is alright, but at some point somebody should address the problem (or is it a problem at all?) that it rewards longevity more than anything else.

I mean the overall CP rankings, not allocating the CP's themselves on a board by board basis. For example I have 9 CP's along with about 4 other people. I'm in 2nd of the group with 9 CP's based on overall G Rating. I submit that overall Global Ranking would be a feasible alternative to break that tie.

Thanks. I think this is something I'd advocate to change pretty soon. We want people to stay invested in the rankings and it's a little silly to see the entire top section of one of the 3 main ranking tools available to be dominated by people that had a couple lucky games and for the most part don't play.

No prob. Thank you.

Oh and it's been suggested that there be some sort of recent 6 month list or some sort of line graph to show rankings, which I think would be cool as well, but overall I think the bulk Ranking should be Overall, which probably would favor longetivity. That makes sense to me though, the person that is on the site the most, plays the most games, pays the most money (maybe,possibly), and wins, gets top honors.

Overall CP rankings having the Global Ranking break a CP tie rather than G rating, perhaps that makes sense, but not sure if there is a better case for either to be the tie breaker.

Current posts Yertle?  I have games waiting on you!

New orders from the Grand High Toaster:

• All players must complete turns in games with Toaster before they are allowed to peruse the forums.

Edit: Okay, so I only have one game waiting on you, but the order still stands!

Toaster wrote:

Current posts Yertle?  I have games waiting on you!

I blame asm.  I do normally try and hit test games first :P

asm wrote:

True too. I suppose CP is alright, but at some point somebody should address the problem (or is it a problem at all?) that it rewards longevity more than anything else.

Unless Yertle is being sarcastic, I do interpret his opinion as being that this is okay and good and is what keeps people coming back.  I think people would prefer a more realistic mirror of their skills, but I am suspicious that my opinion may be the opposite of reality.

Norseman made the comment that it is a bit of a grind to hit top spot on a map.  I very recently did some (possibly very relevant to this discussion) analysis of how long it takes to achieve rating equilibrium.  Is anyone interested?  If I did, it would be a separate thread, right?  Lowering equilibrium time could go a long ways towards making it seem so longevity-based (though it could be hard to ultimately get around the longevity bit).

-H

Hugh wrote:

Norseman made the comment that it is a bit of a grind to hit top spot on a map.  I very recently did some (possibly very relevant to this discussion) analysis of how long it takes to achieve rating equilibrium.  Is anyone interested?

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/474/Ratings_Equilibrium

Hugh wrote:

Unless Yertle is being sarcastic, I do interpret his opinion as being that this is okay and good and is what keeps people coming back. 

I was being serious .  The more time someone puts into the site, theoretically the higher they should be in something, I wouldn't like seeing brand new people high in the ranking, or else that does reduce longetivity IMO.

Yeah true, but at the same time relative newcomers should be able to feel like they're making some kind of impact, no?

Maybe, as some have mentioned, a last-month or last-60 days table side by side with (or just below) the main one would scratch this itch.

What would be nice to see is when you click the "Ranking" tab at the top (like the "Boards" tab) is a tile of a bunch of different top 10 rankings (the number could be top 10,25,50etc). I know right now there are only 2 rankings but there could be more.

you could have top ten: most wins, most aggressive, Player Killer (most eliminations), most tournament wins, most games played, highest rated board, newest players, most losses, most active in the forms,  player with the most game boards designed, the list could go on and on.

when you clicked on a ranking it would show the top 100. you wouldn't need to show more then that if each player had all their rankings on their profile.

Well, you can just click on the column header to sort by a lot of that stuff (game wins / games played / games lost / join date etc. I agree it would be good to add a few others (eliminations etc)

I'm not that keen to add lots of different ranking systems as I think it dilutes the main ranking which should be the championship points.

tom wrote: Well, you can just click on the column header to sort by a lot of that stuff (game wins / games played / games lost / join date etc. I agree it would be good to add a few others (eliminations etc)

Well, it would be cool if you could do that...but you can't :P  You can only sort by Player/ G Rating/ Score/ Points.  Someone suggested the rest a while back though

Board Designer ranking/sorting system at some point would be cool too though.

As far as "official rankings" I would probably agree with you tom, although a shorter time frame filter or other short term ranking might be semi-cool to see as well.