Its been a 4-5 years since I last broached this one, but is it finally time to update CP?

I'm at almost 2,000 points on Civil War and still 4 places and multiple wins out from getting a single CP point.

Whereas on some smaller boards you can get into the CP with just a single win.

Can we at least pay out say the top 20 so people who perform on heavily played boards can get a bit more recognition?

itsnotatumor wrote:

Its been a 4-5 years since I last broached this one, but is it finally time to update CP?

I'm at almost 2,000 points on Civil War and still 4 places and multiple wins out from getting a single CP point.

Whereas on some smaller boards you can get into the CP with just a single win.

Can we at least pay out say the top 20 so people who perform on heavily played boards can get a bit more recognition?

The counter-argument is that this provides an incentive for players to try out lesser-known boards. As a board designer with many lesser-known boards to my name, I could be biased, but I think that this incentive structure is a good thing.

I also don't think it's necessarily bad to have some high-profile boards where it's really challenging to break into the top rankings. I doubt anyone really cares if they're top-ranked on a board like Another Brick in the Wall, but lots of people care who is top-ranked on really popular boards like Civil War or Micro Mission.

Can we agree that the rankings have a lot of people who rarely if ever play anymore and newcomers have a tough time earning CP's because of that?

e..g. Of the top 20 people on Civil War 12 have not played (I think at all on Wargear) in 3+ years

Of course, there have been a number of well-though-out suggestions regarding changing/updating the system.  There was even something about as close to a consensus as you can expect from a group like this.  I don't remember.. Uh.. Proposal J?? ..or proposal L?? Okay, I'm probably just making up letters.

My guess is that Tom has bigger fish to fry right now.  Flash expiring has got to be giving him a headache.

Amidon37 wrote:

Can we agree that the rankings have a lot of people who rarely if ever play anymore and newcomers have a tough time earning CP's because of that?

e..g. Of the top 20 people on Civil War 12 have not played (I think at all on Wargear) in 3+ years

 

Yeah, if it was up to me - and I knew how to do it - I'd move passive players from the CP lists. If you haven't played any public game on any board the past 12 months then you're out of the running for points. But then you can get them back if you start playing actively again, getting back to exactly where you were when you left. That's how the world chess ranking works.

Litotes wrote:

Amidon37 wrote:

Can we agree that the rankings have a lot of people who rarely if ever play anymore and newcomers have a tough time earning CP's because of that?

e..g. Of the top 20 people on Civil War 12 have not played (I think at all on Wargear) in 3+ years

 

Yeah, if it was up to me - and I knew how to do it - I'd move passive players from the CP lists. If you haven't played any public game on any board the past 12 months then you're out of the running for points. But then you can get them back if you start playing actively again, getting back to exactly where you were when you left. That's how the world chess ranking works.

 

This has been suggested before and I think it is still one of the best solutions. Huge +1

Kjeld wrote:

itsnotatumor wrote:

Its been a 4-5 years since I last broached this one, but is it finally time to update CP?

I'm at almost 2,000 points on Civil War and still 4 places and multiple wins out from getting a single CP point.

Whereas on some smaller boards you can get into the CP with just a single win.

Can we at least pay out say the top 20 so people who perform on heavily played boards can get a bit more recognition?

The counter-argument is that this provides an incentive for players to try out lesser-known boards. As a board designer with many lesser-known boards to my name, I could be biased, but I think that this incentive structure is a good thing.

I also don't think it's necessarily bad to have some high-profile boards where it's really challenging to break into the top rankings. I doubt anyone really cares if they're top-ranked on a board like Another Brick in the Wall, but lots of people care who is top-ranked on really popular boards like Civil War or Micro Mission.

I agree with you both here.

I think there should still be a big incentive to try out other boards, but also at least some form of edit to get more people in the CP numbers.

It was awhile before I got my first CP and up until that moment I hadn't even realized they were something to be acquired which then got me excited to earn more. I think getting to where more players could get a small start into CPs sooner would help both cases.

Litotes wrote:

Amidon37 wrote:

Can we agree that the rankings have a lot of people who rarely if ever play anymore and newcomers have a tough time earning CP's because of that?

e..g. Of the top 20 people on Civil War 12 have not played (I think at all on Wargear) in 3+ years

 

Yeah, if it was up to me - and I knew how to do it - I'd move passive players from the CP lists. If you haven't played any public game on any board the past 12 months then you're out of the running for points. But then you can get them back if you start playing actively again, getting back to exactly where you were when you left. That's how the world chess ranking works.

 

I think this is a great and fair idea.

Aiken Drumn wrote:

Litotes wrote:

Amidon37 wrote:

Can we agree that the rankings have a lot of people who rarely if ever play anymore and newcomers have a tough time earning CP's because of that?

e..g. Of the top 20 people on Civil War 12 have not played (I think at all on Wargear) in 3+ years

 

Yeah, if it was up to me - and I knew how to do it - I'd move passive players from the CP lists. If you haven't played any public game on any board the past 12 months then you're out of the running for points. But then you can get them back if you start playing actively again, getting back to exactly where you were when you left. That's how the world chess ranking works.

 

I think this is a great and fair idea.

Of course, this has all been discussed before. I'm pretty sure the idea of a Hall of Fame for "retired" players was proposed at one time.