Here is a list of the top 10 if the rank was an aggregate of GR, CR, Team and Tourney.

Each rating is listed as a ratio of the highest rank in that category, then the four ratios are added and scaled to 100.  Below is a shot of the worksheet with some details.

I think that your method of calculating is much more flattering to me then my rank based method.  My CP rank would pretty much tank me in an aggregate the way I'm brainstorming it!  Or maybe my CP isn't as bad as I think it is?  Thanks for showing me all inclusive though, even the way you've done it, I have a yearning to top it... That .07738 needs some work, so, I was at least right to know that CP is where I need to put my efforts!  Also, interesting to see the gap that Blackdog and Luieiul have put between themselves and the rest!  And Cona Chris needs to play a team game!

@ Erick,

Fair points on one man’s joy being another man’s HW and the CP already bein agn aggregate.

I will team with you anytime man.  I have team tourneys (, but only when I saw a teammate I would want to play with sitting open), and private team games going that people invited me too.  My problem is that choosing your teammates in public games is a little too hard unless you plan ahead with someone to create a game and jump in it as teammates.  I haven’t really started my own games in months just because I’m trying to keep my game count down, but have trouble resisting when I see a fave map with good people to join. 

I have nothing new to add to the rest of the debate.  I think it’s going to come down to differences of opinion though. 

berickf wrote:

And Cona Chris needs to play a team game!

Cona enjoys being a lone wolf :)

Two points about SG's posts:

1) Isn't Tournament Ranking and Global Ranking essentially the same thing, just measured across different games?

2) I know it's not readily accessible, but if Team Ranking is included, I would say then Tournament Team Ranking should be included as well.

Cona Chris wrote:

berickf wrote:

And Cona Chris needs to play a team game!

Cona enjoys being a lone wolf :)

 

Two points about SG's posts:

1) Isn't Tournament Ranking and Global Ranking essentially the same thing, just measured across different games?

2) I know it's not readily accessible, but if Team Ranking is included, I would say then Tournament Team Ranking should be included as well.

The lone wolf has come out of his den ;-)

I think that I can answer your questions...

1) Based on the kinds of games one has to play to be successful at one versus the other, I'd say that while the calculation might be the same for GR and Tourney (while being based on a separate sets of games), the ranks themselves are very different.  To expand on that in a general fashion, all the top tourney players are 1v1 specialists, whereas, the top GR players have taken many different routes to get there.

2) Yes, it makes sense in the same vein to include both regular team games and team tourney games, but, without Tom making the data readily accessible then for the sake brainstorming an aggregate I understand why for practical calculations like Squint was doing that team-tourney is ignored for the time being.

Seriously though, you should join a pack and enjoy some pack hunting too!  Out of curiosity, if there were an aggregate in place and you knew that your team ranking were holding you back from having a much better rank on it, would that eventually get the lone wolf in you to begrudgingly try out some wolf-pack team games?

itsnotatumor wrote:

@ Erick,

Fair points on one man’s joy being another man’s HW and the CP already bein agn aggregate.

I will team with you anytime man.  I have team tourneys (, but only when I saw a teammate I would want to play with sitting open), and private team games going that people invited me too.  My problem is that choosing your teammates in public games is a little too hard unless you plan ahead with someone to create a game and jump in it as teammates.  I haven’t really started my own games in months just because I’m trying to keep my game count down, but have trouble resisting when I see a fave map with good people to join. 

I have nothing new to add to the rest of the debate.  I think it’s going to come down to differences of opinion though. 

I'll keep an eye on your "online" icon and see if I can organize a good team game for you then.  It can be difficult having everyone on at or around the same time so that others don't usurp the seats of the team desired, but, I'll try my darnedest.

Hi Berickf,

A lot of your arguments seems to revolve around the belief that team games are 'good', and infer that those who don't like team games are....well, if not 'bad', then in need of coaxing to be 'good' team players.

Is it possible for you to accept that there are some players  who just don't want to play team games and there is nothing wrong with that and they don't need a cattle prod to encourage them to play team games?

SquintGnome wrote:

Hi Berickf,

A lot of your arguments seems to revolve around the belief that team games are 'good', and infer that those who don't like team games are....well, if not 'bad', then in need of coaxing to be 'good' team players.

Is it possible for you to accept that there are some players  who just don't want to play team games and there is nothing wrong with that and they don't need a cattle prod to encourage them to play team games?

That's not how I see it at all.  I think that many players have their own preferences and I don't intend to coax them to do anything that they have not made the choice to do. 

Some only play Wargear Warfare and could care less about anything but their WW ranking as they just want to play Risk as Risk was designed, and to dominate at that.  Others, play a more diverse variety of boards but could care less about CP, as it looks to be a chore, even if they have a god GR.  Each ranking in itself is a personal achievement and stands by itself, but, some rankings like CP, GR, team, tourney, and team-tourney are based on a collection of underlying factors, yet none truly encapsulate the "complete" player.  An aggregate ranking is about rewarding the complete player, but it does not replace, or reduce the importance of any of the underlying rankings.  As I said earlier to itsnot, it's more like a progression in the steps that one takes when looking at their rankings, and it would largely stay the same.  Many players, when they first show up, are interested in playing the original and quickly learn that their WW board ranking and GR is going up and down with their successes and failures.  As they learn the inner workings of WarGear they quickly come to realize that there is also team and tournment play, which is tracked separately from GR and also that there is this thing called CP which is dependent on playing many boards.  Some could care less and mostly play WW, and that is their choice.  They don't necessarily feel "coaxed" to play tournaments, to play more boards or to play more team games because of those other rankings, but, if they do decide to spread their wings in any of these areas then the reward is apparent.   It is not about "coaxing" anyone to play what they don't want to play, it is about rewarding those who decide to expand their horizons. 

So, as the natural progression occurs, the WW expert might enter a WW tournament, or play a WW team game, or try a new board and they start to build their other personal achievements, get a few achievement badges, and if they excel in any other areas, climb those rankings and get the reward of knowing what they have achieved.  So maybe that player is now the 12th ranked GR player, the 7th ranked team player, the 15th ranked tourney player and the are up to 32 in CP, or whatever.  To me, the next step is to put it all together and to reward players for being complete.  Many players will never get past WW, some will stick on GR or an individual board ranking, and that is fine.  There is a player that comes to mind that I only ever see in team tournaments... ONLY  And always with the same ally.  I presume that they are probably the friend of their chosen ally and like to play team games, but, whatever.  If that is all they want to play, even as the unsung hero of the team-tournament ranking, kudos to them.  http://www.wargear.net/players/info/VIKTORY/Player%20Stats Point being, it's to each their own where they want to put their efforts and just as CP does not "cattle prod" people to play more boards till they themselves feel comfortable to do so and make that decision, an aggregate is built with that same intention.  That, at the end of the road, there is a reward for "completeness" as the final rung on the ranking ladder.

Just as many might say "I'm not interested in learning 50+ boards, and to hell with CP", for an aggregate many players might also just say... Yeah, not interested in team games... OR tourneys... OR CP... or GR! and will just say to hell with that one too!  And I'm ok with that.  Any player can be perfectly happy with any ranking that they have achieved and stop at that. So, while I do hope that the reward would be enough to encourage more players to diversify their play, as I think that's a good thing, I do not see it as coaxing, or prodding anyone to do anything they don't want to do, just that same way that CP doesn't coax or prod anyone to play more boards.  To quote you, "there are some players who just don't want to play team games and there is nothing wrong with that", I completely agree with you just as there are some players who just don't want to play many boards and there is nothing wrong with that, there are some players who just don't want to play tournaments and there is nothing wrong with that, there are some players who just don't want to play what's best for their GR and there is nothing wrong with that!  Every rank is a reward in itself and is a progression in how they look at the rest.  Each ranking builds on itself and the next as an encouragement to do more and I don't look at an aggregate any differently.  Carrots, not sticks.

Mad Bomber wrote: I join team games mostly to learn a board, just as I do tournaments........

How about private games?

Although, I've been enjoying learning boards in development games of late, so there is that too.

Eric,

Well...as a mentioned above in a previous post, the root cause of our inability to agree as a group is that we disagree on the purpose of the proposed stat.  As you say above, you believe the aggregate "is about rewarding the complete player".  I do not.  I think the aggregate should measure individual play.  If, as a group, we can not agree on the purpose then the issue will remain unresolved. 

SquintGnome wrote:

Eric,

Well...as a mentioned above in a previous post, the root cause of our inability to agree as a group is that we disagree on the purpose of the proposed stat.  As you say above, you believe the aggregate "is about rewarding the complete player".  I do not.  I think the aggregate should measure individual play.  If, as a group, we can not agree on the purpose then the issue will remain unresolved. 

Rewarding completeness is a measure of individual play... I don't understand your distinction.

berickf wrote:

SquintGnome wrote:

Eric,

Well...as a mentioned above in a previous post, the root cause of our inability to agree as a group is that we disagree on the purpose of the proposed stat.  As you say above, you believe the aggregate "is about rewarding the complete player".  I do not.  I think the aggregate should measure individual play.  If, as a group, we can not agree on the purpose then the issue will remain unresolved. 

Rewarding completeness is a measure of individual play... I don't understand your distinction.

+1 - Flesh that out a bit SG.  What do you mean?

berickf wrote:

Out of curiosity, if there were an aggregate in place and you knew that your team ranking were holding you back from having a much better rank on it, would that eventually get the lone wolf in you to begrudgingly try out some wolf-pack team games?

I might.

The reason I don't do team games now is... I tend to pull my hair out a lot over the play of my teammates.   I did team games on ToS and needed a wig after a while :)

I've played in some team tournaments here, with people I know in RL for the most part.

berickf wrote:

Cona Chris wrote:

Isn't Tournament Ranking and Global Ranking essentially the same thing, just measured across different games?

 Based on the kinds of games one has to play to be successful at one versus the other, I'd say that while the calculation might be the same for GR and Tourney (while being based on a separate sets of games), the ranks themselves are very different.  To expand on that in a general fashion, all the top tourney players are 1v1 specialists, whereas, the top GR players have taken many different routes to get there.

 

I agree that this is how things are right now, but Tournament games are essentially a subset of all possible games - Tournament games with 5+ players are extremely rare, and thus it is very difficult to achieve a high ranking unless you exclusively play one board well or dominate 1 vs 1 games or something like that.  I'm not convinced a subset of games should get the same ranking as something that is much bigger.  

The same could be said for team games, although I don't think it is as extreme - most tournament team games have 2 or 3 players on a team, that's what most public team games are (not all).

Cona Chris wrote:

berickf wrote:

Cona Chris wrote:

Isn't Tournament Ranking and Global Ranking essentially the same thing, just measured across different games?

 Based on the kinds of games one has to play to be successful at one versus the other, I'd say that while the calculation might be the same for GR and Tourney (while being based on a separate sets of games), the ranks themselves are very different.  To expand on that in a general fashion, all the top tourney players are 1v1 specialists, whereas, the top GR players have taken many different routes to get there.

 

 

I agree that this is how things are right now, but Tournament games are essentially a subset of all possible games - Tournament games with 5+ players are extremely rare, and thus it is very difficult to achieve a high ranking unless you exclusively play one board well or dominate 1 vs 1 games or something like that.  I'm not convinced a subset of games should get the same ranking as something that is much bigger.  

The same could be said for team games, although I don't think it is as extreme - most tournament team games have 2 or 3 players on a team, that's what most public team games are (not all).

 

That's why I was suggesting that an aggregate might be weighted based on the top rank of each subset setting its weight percent.  The reason why I say this is that the top rank score should be relatively proportional to the amount of emphasis the community puts into attaining that rank.  This is because based on the risk/reward ranking system that is in place, the ceiling for the top rank should increase as the entire field below it increases as well.

berickf wrote:

Cona Chris wrote:

berickf wrote:

Cona Chris wrote:

Isn't Tournament Ranking and Global Ranking essentially the same thing, just measured across different games?

 Based on the kinds of games one has to play to be successful at one versus the other, I'd say that while the calculation might be the same for GR and Tourney (while being based on a separate sets of games), the ranks themselves are very different.  To expand on that in a general fashion, all the top tourney players are 1v1 specialists, whereas, the top GR players have taken many different routes to get there.

 

 

I agree that this is how things are right now, but Tournament games are essentially a subset of all possible games - Tournament games with 5+ players are extremely rare, and thus it is very difficult to achieve a high ranking unless you exclusively play one board well or dominate 1 vs 1 games or something like that.  I'm not convinced a subset of games should get the same ranking as something that is much bigger.  

The same could be said for team games, although I don't think it is as extreme - most tournament team games have 2 or 3 players on a team, that's what most public team games are (not all).

 

That's why I was suggesting that an aggregate might be weighted based on the top rank of each subset setting its weight percent.  The reason why I say this is that the top rank score should be relatively proportional to the amount of emphasis the community puts into attaining that rank.  This is because based on the risk/reward ranking system that is in place, the ceiling for the top rank should increase as the entire field below it increases as well.

I agree with that - sorry I missed that point.

So can one of your stats guys out there come up with a formula that takes into consideration the overall difficulty of achieving the top rank for each subset and combine it all together to form a score? Normalizing the scores across category so that their comparable?

Or has that been done already? 

ratsy wrote:

berickf wrote:

SquintGnome wrote:

Eric,

Well...as a mentioned above in a previous post, the root cause of our inability to agree as a group is that we disagree on the purpose of the proposed stat.  As you say above, you believe the aggregate "is about rewarding the complete player".  I do not.  I think the aggregate should measure individual play.  If, as a group, we can not agree on the purpose then the issue will remain unresolved. 

Rewarding completeness is a measure of individual play... I don't understand your distinction.

+1 - Flesh that out a bit SG.  What do you mean?

I define individual play as play that is not influenced by team members - for better or worse.  So any team games, including tournament team games, are not 'individual play'.

So, in sports, individual stats would be batting average and free throw percentage.  Team stats would be Win / Loss record and Championship victories. 

ratsy wrote:

So can one of your stats guys out there come up with a formula that takes into consideration the overall difficulty of achieving the top rank for each subset and combine it all together to form a score? Normalizing the scores across category so that their comparable?

Or has that been done already? 

Weighting the scores and combining is easy.  Deciding on the "overall difficulty of achieving the top rank for each subset" is not.

SquintGnome wrote:

ratsy wrote:

berickf wrote:

SquintGnome wrote:

Eric,

Well...as a mentioned above in a previous post, the root cause of our inability to agree as a group is that we disagree on the purpose of the proposed stat.  As you say above, you believe the aggregate "is about rewarding the complete player".  I do not.  I think the aggregate should measure individual play.  If, as a group, we can not agree on the purpose then the issue will remain unresolved. 

Rewarding completeness is a measure of individual play... I don't understand your distinction.

+1 - Flesh that out a bit SG.  What do you mean?

I define individual play as play that is not influenced by team members - for better or worse.  So any team games, including tournament team games, are not 'individual play'.

So, in sports, individual stats would be batting average and free throw percentage.  Team stats would be Win / Loss record and Championship victories. 

In sports many individual stats require "the team".  Assists and rbi come to mind.  And, good team play IS an individual skill too as revealed by those individual stats that rely on the team.  In advanced sports stats it can even be demonstrated who pulls the team up, and who pulls the team down, etc.  Even my team games here on WarGear.  Knowing when to suicide to make way for your teammates, knowing how to separate/prioritize targets between your teammates, or when to reinforce to one's teammates instead of oneself.  All individual choices that make or break the team's chances.  A good teammates is usually consistently a good teammate... It's an individual skill.

Question though... Why have an aggregate if it doesn't reveal anything new.  If you're just blending CP and GR then it doesn't seem to me to be capturing anything all that progressive above it's component parts.  The 1-5 guy come out higher then the 2-4 guy, or whatever... Big Whoop, We already know who's there and what to expect.  To me it seems that some kind of over-focus is occurring on the fear of team and tourney games as if an aggregate is supposed to overshadow the value of CP or GR... Which it would NOT!  It is not supposed to drown out GR or CP, or any of it's component parts for that matter, but rather be an alternative way of compiling an individual's skills into a complete package rank.  I want to see VIKTORY get some credit for his team-tournament ranking.  I want to see those players that do it all well, but maybe nothing great, get some recognition for their all-around efforts.  I would love to see a players who scores in the mid teens in every sub-area of an aggregate jump into the top ten of the aggregate rank for being all around good.  I want the aggregate to mean something for every player in whatever area they wish to play and not just be a GR versus CP pissing contest.

Hope that came out more inspirational then hostile, can never tell how the written word will play in one's mind ;-)