I've also moved the discussion of only an aggregate stat to a new thread, as this one is convoluted as ****. 

It's here: http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/3547p1

AttilaTheHun wrote:

berickf wrote:

AttilaTheHun wrote:

Those targeting high team scores will find teammates they play with consistently and respect the highest to give them the best chances of success.

Actually, to reduce the effect of score ceiling and to increase one's potential gains, you do the exact opposite of this.  Due to the nature of how GR is calculated it actually goes against sticking to a "clan" or "guild" of high team-rank individuals.  At some point, in order to maximize point gains. one needs to team with lower ranking people so that your combined rank reaps more gains and risks less loss.  ...

True, but you also need to win those games to reap the reward.  It's like saying individual players should seek to only play the highest rated players to maximize gains/minimize losses.  That's well and good if you win, but the risk also goes up that you'll lose.

But to your and M57's point, I think the ideal system is also one that encourages new partnerships and has teams built from experienced and new memebers alike.  One of the coolest things about TOS was the initial invitation you would get from experienced members.  How about this for a proposal:

• Guilds/clans are loosely formed based on whatever criteria to start with.  Possible to be a part of more than one clan/guild but could not compete in a game that has both.  It would be similar to the "Favorite Boards" tagging.  To simplify things, let's assume you just join one.
• Guilds could be dropped at any time.
• Each guild is focused on teamplay, and so members would have various teamplay scores.
• Guild game invitations would be sent to all members of the guild (and in effect could operate just like team games now but just with your Guild option).  The highest teamplay-rated player who joined would automatically be paired with the lowest teamplay-rated player from the same guild to encourage new partnerships and mentoring.  I think if you knew that player was from your guild and you'd likely play with them again, it would be more worth the investment to coach them if you're the higher-rated player.  Similarly, as a lower-rated player, you'd gain from the other teammate's experience.  
• This should allow new partnerships while still allowing high point gains.

In the past I had played some online games that had clans.  I found such to be overly polarizing, to be discriminatory against players that they didn't see to be up to their level (even if they were better then them) and they created an environment where people put on airs based on inclusion into some of the more prominent clans.  I don't know and am not saying that such would happen here, but, I can mentor and be mentored without the need for a guild.  I can find new teammates without a guild as well.  So, when balancing the potential pros versus cons of such... I tend err on the side of caution.  I agree with the concept of having mentors though.  I saw an old thread once about a mentor program, and if that could ever get off the ground, that would be great!

Do you think being able to join more than one would help? I could see some common guilds being formed around Simulgear, for instance. If I could join that one and another it might reduce the # of zealots

At some point we have to stop debating and start voting.  Can we set a deadline to allow all arguments to get voiced and then vote?  Every time we summarize or try to vote a new debate breaks out.

We still haven't heard from Tom about any of this.  I suggest rather than vote (or maybe in addition to the vote), we present him with our top ideas & summarized arguments and let him decide.

Ozyman wrote:

We still haven't heard from Tom about any of this.  I suggest rather than vote (or maybe in addition to the vote), we present him with our top ideas & summarized arguments and let him decide.

I think it's not a bad idea to let Tom get a sense of what the consensus or lack of consensus is.  And though a vote wouldn't hurt, I don't think it would mean much. At this point not a lot of members have had much of a chance to get in on the recent conversations.  There's been a lot of activity by a relatively small number of us. Some might be sitting on some great input and may simply be on vacation.  This is a long-standing and complex issue.  I don't think we've really explored or aired out the possibilities, and I doubt tom is going to act on the issue in anything resembling short order unless there is strong consensus, and we're nowhere near that.

M57 wrote:

Ozyman wrote:

We still haven't heard from Tom about any of this.  I suggest rather than vote (or maybe in addition to the vote), we present him with our top ideas & summarized arguments and let him decide.

I think it's not a bad idea to let Tom get a sense of what the consensus or lack of consensus is.  And though a vote wouldn't hurt, I don't think it would mean much. At this point not a lot of members have had much of a chance to get in on the recent conversations.  There's been a lot of activity by a relatively small number of us. Some might be sitting on some great input and may simply be on vacation.  This is a long-standing and complex issue.  I don't think we've really explored or aired out the possibilities, and I doubt tom is going to act on the issue in anything resembling short order unless there is strong consensus, and we're nowhere near that.

Agreed, I was suggesting that we vote to determine the top ideas so we can give a refined list to Tom of the top 3 ideas or so.

AttilaTheHun wrote:

M57 wrote:

Ozyman wrote:

We still haven't heard from Tom about any of this.  I suggest rather than vote (or maybe in addition to the vote), we present him with our top ideas & summarized arguments and let him decide.

I think it's not a bad idea to let Tom get a sense of what the consensus or lack of consensus is.  And though a vote wouldn't hurt, I don't think it would mean much. At this point not a lot of members have had much of a chance to get in on the recent conversations.  There's been a lot of activity by a relatively small number of us. Some might be sitting on some great input and may simply be on vacation.  This is a long-standing and complex issue.  I don't think we've really explored or aired out the possibilities, and I doubt tom is going to act on the issue in anything resembling short order unless there is strong consensus, and we're nowhere near that.

+1

+1 I think players are way apart on a universal aggregate.  With the threads split we're seeing more ideas then ever, and much of the "evidence" that's come out lately could be interpreted to support a number of positions.  

How about 4 separate ranks?

Global Rank, CP Rank, Tourney Rank, Team Rank

1) 4 ranks allows all players to concentrate on the area(s) they desire making everyone happy

2)  Happiness leads to increased membership and competition

3) New members immediately are ranked "Recruit" until completion of their 1st game. If they lose they become a Private and if they win they are immediate promoted to Private First Class (PFC)

4) All 4 ranks would be displayed in the players profile. In the forum all 4 could be displayed or just the top 1. They would be displayed as GR General, CP General, Team General, Tourney General, GR Captain, CP Corporal, etc.

The Ranks should be as follows:

PRIVATE------------- less than 1000 GR, 0 CPs, less than 1000 Team, less than 1000 Tourney

PRIVATE FIRST CLASS--- 1001-1100 GR, 1-5 CPs, 1001-1050 Team and Tourney

CORPORAL---------------- 1101-1200 GR, 6-10 CPs, 1051-1100 Team and Tourney

SERGEANT---------------- 1201-1300 GR, 11-15 CPs, 1101-1150 Team and Tourney

STAFF SERGEANT-------- 1301-1400 GR, 16-20 CPs, 1151-1200 Team and Tourney  

MASTER SERGEANT------ 1401-1500 GR, 21-25 CPs, 1201-1250 Team and Tourney

2nd LIEUTENANT--------- 1501-1600 GR, 26-30 CPs, 1251-1300 Team and Tourney

1st LIEUTENANT---------- 1601-1700 GR, 31-35 CPs, 1301-1350 Team and Tourney

CAPTAIN------------------ 1701-1800 GR, 36-40 CPs, 1351-1400 Team and Tourney

MAJOR--------------------- 1801-1900 GR, 41-45 CPs, 1401-1450 Team and Tourney

COLONEL------------------ 1901-2000 GR, 46-50 CPs, 1451-1500 Team and Tourney

BRIGADIER  GENERAL---- 2001-2250 GR,  51-75 CPs, 1501-1600 Team and Tourney

MAJOR GENERAL---------- 2251-2500 GR, 76-100 CPs, 1601-1700 Team and Tourney

LIEUTENANT GENERAL---- 2501-2750 GR, 101-125 CPs, 1701-1800 Team and Tourney

GENERAL------------------- 2751 and up GR, 126 and up CPs, 1801 and up Team and Tourney

5 STAR GENERAL---------- Leader in GR, Leader in CPs, Leader in Team, Leader in Tourney 

Your 5 STAR GENERALS ranks would be:

falker1976---- GR 5 STAR GENERAL, CP COLONEL, Team PFC, Tourney GENERAL 

Cona Chris--- CP 5 STAR GENERAL, GR MAJOR GENERAL, Team (no rank), Tourney GENERAL

Toto--- Tourney 5 STAR GENERAL, GR GENERAL, CP MAJOR GENERAL, Team MAJOR GENERAL

berickf-------Team 5 STAR GENERAL, Tourney GENERAL, GR LIEUTENANT GENERAL, Tourney CAPTAIN

Other Examples:

itsnotatumor--- GR MAJOR GENERAL, CP GENERAL, Tourney GENERAL, Team PFC

Attila The Hun--- CP GENERAL, GR BRIGADIER GENERAL, Tourney MAJOR GENERAL, Team MAJOR

Babbalouie--- GR MAJOR, Tourney 2nd LIEUTENANT, Team CORPORAL, CP PRIVATE

There will constantly be promotions and demotions so the above ranks will always change.

NOTE: The way to obtain CPs still needs to be redefined. As the wargear community grows and it will with this 4 ranks system the point parameters will need to be tweaked.

I know that I am fairly new to wargear but I feel that this system with the expanded lowers ranks would be beneficial to all the players giving them incentive in the area they want. 

This 4 rank system with GR, CPs, Team, and Tourney can be related to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines or even to the NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB.

Please provide feedback (which I am sure you will) and let me know if you think that this is credible. An aggregate ranking system will most likely be unattainable without flaws. I could be wrong. 

I think having different (and potentially widely divergent) ranks would be confusing, or convoluted at best.  I wouldn't really want to see 4 different insignia along side every player's icon, top of page, etc..

Babbalouie wrote:

3) New members immediately are ranked "Recruit" until completion of their 1st game. If they lose they become a Private and if they win they are immediate promoted to Private First Class (PFC)

 

+1, I really like this idea. 

Babbalouie wrote:

4) All 4 ranks would be displayed in the players profile. In the forum all 4 could be displayed or just the top 1. They would be displayed as GR General, CP General, Team General, Tourney General, GR Captain, CP Corporal, etc.

 

Giving everyone 4 ranks is a good idea as it solves many of the problems with ranking, but I think it's kinda complicated, and might confuse people in the beginnning...

M57 wrote:

I think having different (and potentially widely divergent) ranks would be confusing, or convoluted at best.  I wouldn't really want to see 4 different insignia along side every player's icon, top of page, etc..

You wouldn't have to have 4 icon's. They would only be in the player's profile. You could just have the highest rank displayed. 

ratsy wrote:

Babbalouie wrote:

3) New members immediately are ranked "Recruit" until completion of their 1st game. If they lose they become a Private and if they win they are immediate promoted to Private First Class (PFC)

 

+1, I really like this idea. 

 

Babbalouie wrote:

4) All 4 ranks would be displayed in the players profile. In the forum all 4 could be displayed or just the top 1. They would be displayed as GR General, CP General, Team General, Tourney General, GR Captain, CP Corporal, etc.

 

Giving everyone 4 ranks is a good idea as it solves many of the problems with ranking, but I think it's kinda complicated, and might confuse people in the beginnning...

4 ranks are good and would lead to more diverse competition. With 1 rank who is truly the 5 Star General? Cona Chris excels in CPs, is great in Tournaments, and has an excellent Global Ranking, but does not participate in Team play, which is of his own choosing. Toto is the best in Tournaments, has a great Global Ranking, and is excellent in CP's and Team play. Berickf is the best in Team play, great in Tournaments, has an excellent Global Ranking and has good CP's. Falker1976 has the best Global Rank, great in Tournaments, has good CP's, and is a fair Team player. How could you possibly say 1 is better than the other. They all excel in their own area of expertise. An aggregate ranking can be swayed to make any of them the best. You can knock your heads all you wants trying to finds an aggregate with no flaws.

Look at it this way, the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, all have leaders, who only report to The Commander in Chief. Having 4 5 Star Generals is a good thing and would make for more competition to dethrone one. It would also be interesting to see if it is possible for one of them to have the rank of 5 Star General in more than one area.  

Babbalouie wrote:

4 ranks are good and would lead to more diverse competition. With 1 rank who is truly the 5 Star General? Cona Chris excels in CPs, is great in Tournaments, and has an excellent Global Ranking, but does not participate in Team play, which is of his own choosing. Toto is the best in Tournaments, has a great Global Ranking, and is excellent in CP's and Team play. Berickf is the best in Team play, great in Tournaments, has an excellent Global Ranking and has good CP's. Falker1976 has the best Global Rank, great in Tournaments, has good CP's, and is a fair Team player. How could you possibly say 1 is better than the other. They all excel in their own area of expertise. An aggregate ranking can be swayed to make any of them the best. You can knock your heads all you wants trying to finds an aggregate with no flaws.

Look at it this way, the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, all have leaders, who only report to The Commander in Chief. Having 4 5 Star Generals is a good thing and would make for more competition to dethrone one. It would also be interesting to see if it is possible for one of them to have the rank of 5 Star General in more than one area.  

 

So this is basically a variation of Pick 2 in that you receive the highest rank as your overall rank.  The process may be slightly different (there are many ways/variations on how to compute the individual scores in both systems), but the fundamental difference is that you retain the sub-ranks. I have no problem with that as long as they aren't "in the way".  What is important to me is your 'real' overall rank, whether it be a strict aggregate or a pick-2.

Babbalouie wrote:

Look at it this way, the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, all have leaders, who only report to The Commander in Chief. Having 4 5 Star Generals is a good thing and would make for more competition to dethrone one. It would also be interesting to see if it is possible for one of them to have the rank of 5 Star General in more than one area.  

 

Yes, and they have different rank names which in some cases is helpful, but in others is confusing.

The Navy and Marines have Admirals and Commanders, but a Captain is an enlisted rank in the Army, and a high ranking officer in the Navy.

I'm not dead set against the idea, but I think it has the potential to be confusing and care would need to be taken regarding how these things are displayed, etc..

Babbalouie wrote:

M57 wrote:

I think having different (and potentially widely divergent) ranks would be confusing, or convoluted at best.  I wouldn't really want to see 4 different insignia along side every player's icon, top of page, etc..

You wouldn't have to have 4 icon's. They would only be in the player's profile. You could just have the highest rank displayed. 

I like this highest rank idea. When M57 posted the "best two" aggregate idea, what I really liked was taking the highest achievement. Two categories is a way of forcing balance, but it seems unnecessary.

Anyone excellent at anything gets a high rank. It's hard to be excellent at even one thing. The highest honor, as recognized by the site, should be something other than "Rank". But, this whole "Rank" thing: I really think we should recognize awesomeness in any category.

As far as specifics: For CPs, GRs, team stuff, calculate a percentile among the participants; base the rank on highest percentile achieved. (Some of the specifics of Babbalouie's approach I like, but I recommend percentiles over hard ratings because of things like ratings inflation. But I do like the Private versus PFC stuff for new members!)

Conceptually having several rankings (for all the categories) is better than the aggregate score, because it's rewarding more kinds of excellence, not just a broad skillset, which is better for players (they will feel special and be rewarded for being excellent at something/anything vs. everything). 

Every awesome player wins. :)

So you have rankings for all the categories of scores, make different colored backgrounds for each one (on the badge) and display them all on the player page.  When it comes to a "have to display just one" situation (like in the forum), the site takes the highest rank and shows that, or... what to do about a tie?