I like both, individual area excellence for being top of any one area, as well as an aggregate for all around player excellence.  It's not a "pick one only" thing, so I'd opt for both.

berickf wrote:

I like both, individual area excellence for being top of any one area, as well as an aggregate for all around player excellence.  It's not a "pick one" option, so I'd opt for both.

I'm not sure what we're talking about here, partly because we've split up some of these related topics into different threads..  This is my understanding of where consensus is pointing, though I could be way off.

The below are separately converted to percentiles, each of which suggest 4 different Ranks by category, the highest of which becomes the player's primary Rank.

1. CP (& GR?)
2. Tournament (& Tournament GR?)
3. Taam (& Team GR?)
4. Teamplay in Tournaments (& that category's related GR?)

Also an Aggregate would somehow be distilled into one number from some or all of the above, but would have no bearing on Rank.

Am I in the ball park?

M57 wrote:

berickf wrote:

I like both, individual area excellence for being top of any one area, as well as an aggregate for all around player excellence.  It's not a "pick one" option, so I'd opt for both.

I'm not sure what we're talking about here, partly because we've split up some of these related topics into different threads..  This is my understanding of where consensus is pointing, though I could be way off.

The below are separately converted to percentiles, each of which suggest 4 different Ranks by category, the highest of which becomes the player's primary Rank.

1. CP (& GR?)
2. Tournament (& Tournament GR?)
3. Taam (& Team GR?)
4. Teamplay in Tournaments (& that category's related GR?)

Also an Aggregate would somehow be distilled into one number from some or all of the above, but would have no bearing on Rank.

Am I in the ball park?

Tournament, Team and Team Tournament are already GR style scores, so maybe you should reverse those last three and say:

Tournament (& Tournament CP?)

Team (& Team CP?)

Team Tournament (& Team Tourn CP?)

berickf wrote:

Tournament, Team and Team Tournament are already GR style scores, so maybe you should reverse those last three and say:

Tournament (& Tournament CP?)

Team (& Team CP?)

Team Tournament (& Team Tourn CP?)

Right.

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.  

I really like this idea of different ranks (Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines).  I would want to once again pipe up and ask to include tournament team as well (Coast Guard?).

However, I struggle with this issue: the current leader for GR, Tournament, and Team play all got their top rank in those areas by essentially being really good and playing the heck out of one or two boards.  

Obviously, I am biased being in the top spot for CPs, but what do others think?  Should being an expert at one board be enough?

>Obviously, I am biased being in the top spot for CPs, but what do others think?  Should being an expert at one board be enough?

IMO - no

No

Well then, what we seem to be heading toward is satisfying everyone by having separate CPs for All Categories of Play.

AND

..a reasonable weighting system that recognizes the difficulty of getting CPs on more popular (or more difficult) boards.

Cona Chris wrote:

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.  

I really like this idea of different ranks (Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines).  I would want to once again pipe up and ask to include tournament team as well (Coast Guard?).

However, I struggle with this issue: the current leader for GR, Tournament, and Team play all got their top rank in those areas by essentially being really good and playing the heck out of one or two boards.  

Obviously, I am biased being in the top spot for CPs, but what do others think?  Should being an expert at one board be enough?

 

I'm seeing some CP bias dragging back in here, so, I'm going to go on a bit of a ramble...

First of all, while I agree that CP does force more boards to be played (by design), it is only the Tournament ranking that has what may be perceived as a "flaw" by having only one board specialists being the top ranked players.  I think you are over exaggerating that this is the case for the GR and team rankings though.  Simply because it is theoretically possible does not mean it's what is actually happening.  I'll admit I'm a board snob and prefer what might be classed as the more popular boards, but neither my team rank nor GR could be classified as coming from one or two boards.

I hope that some new boards are designed that will be competitive for growing one's tourney ranking though, as being a one-board specialist for tournament ranking can be a little monotonous.  I recently went off script and entered tournaments on a different board for "fun" even though I know my tournament ranking will inevitably suffer for it, but, whatever, ultimately we're here for fun, aren't we?  Speaking of which, topping any rank should be for "fun" too and if the top tourney player gets there and stays there by only playing one board... Well, that's what it takes and that takes a lot of discipline.  If to them protecting their rank is more "fun" then playing other boards, I'm not going to knock them because I know that that is what is required to top that rank (by design as well - at this point). 

And, no offense Cona, but I don't think that those who cherish a rank that requires that they play a lot of boards should be downplaying the efforts that are required to top the other ranks by defaulting to the "you can do it on one board" reasoning, especially given that most players do not get to the top of those ranks on the back of one board only.  It seems like you're baiting with a misleading theoretical. It is true that the new player plays less boards though and I think that that is the whole point that babbalouie was expressing.  That the new player doesn't come with a 100 board resume of expertise tucked under his belt and the point of the multiple rankings that he was proposing, and even, to a degree, the aggregate that I am an advocate of, are to reward players right out of the starting gate no matter where they want to apply their efforts. This does not mean that they don't spread their efforts around and play 10-15-20 boards in their first few months, but even though playing 20 boards doesn't usually mean a lot for CP, they can still get a promotion and see some of the fruits of their labour.

Of course my idea of an aggregate is more to promote overall excellence and I and M57 were even juggling with the idea of having a CP and GR for every area with the CP weighted to equal the GR of the same and then all eight areas combined and averaged.  This type of aggregate would then encourage immediate greatness (GR), one board or not, but then also encourage more board play (CP) in every area down the road in order to continue to grow that aggregate.  Best of both worlds ;-)

Also, to tell you the truth, I still think that CP is one of the most gameable stats and the style that is needed to game it the best is most accessible to premium members, whereas, GR is readily and immediately accessible to everyone because it can be achieved on boards that fill quicker (if you're good at them).  So, in the name of good sportsmanship, I tend to think it's best if CP were not so exclusive in its preeminence, as it is right now. 

Anyway, at the end of the day the icon rank accomplishment system is just a badge, a badge which is supposed to be an incentive... So is it really so bad if the icon rank reflects upon all four areas of game play even if someone does get there as a one board specialist in tournament play? 

As for an aggregate, I know it wasn't said by you just now, but generally it's is a big misnomer that CP'ers like to throw out there that it would allow one game specialists to top it.  Such a weird and ludicrous notion has been thrown out there way too much.  It shouldn't need to be said, because it's an aggregate, but, by definition a well constructed aggregate would never allow one style of play, to allow one constituent of the ranks that compose it, to dominate all the others.  No one would break into the top echelon of an aggregate without having some CP competence.  They might not be a 50 board expert, but, I would suspect that even those that climb the aggregate on everything not CP would still need to have points on at least a handful of boards to really put up a fight in climbing near the top of such a rank.  That might get them into the top ten, but then to continue climbing they would have to now target their weakness, their CP.  So, there is really nothing to fear here, except for maybe the fear of theoretical possibilities which are far outside of the reality of what has happened, is happening or would ever happen.

I think I'm done rambling off the top of my head...

Hope it was an enjoyable read ;-)

berickf wrote:

And, no offense Cona, but I don't think that those who cherish a rank that requires that they play a lot of boards should be downplaying the efforts that are required to top the other ranks by defaulting to the "you can do it on one board" reasoning, especially given that most players do not get to the top of those ranks on the back of one board only.  It seems like you're baiting with a misleading theoretical. It is true that the new player plays less boards though and I think that that is the whole point that babbalouie was expressing.  That the new player doesn't come with a 100 board resume of expertise tucked under his belt and the point of the multiple rankings that he was proposing, and even, to a degree, the aggregate that I am an advocate of, are to reward players right out of the starting gate no matter where they want to apply their efforts. This does not mean that they don't spread their efforts around and play 10-15-20 boards in their first few months, but even though playing 20 boards doesn't usually mean a lot for CP, they can still get a promotion and see some of the fruits of their labour.

Anyway, at the end of the day the icon rank accomplishment system is just a badge, a badge which is supposed to be an incentive... So is it really so bad if the icon rank reflects upon all four areas of game play even if someone does get there as a one board specialist in tournament play? 

 

No offense taken, but it is possible to get to the top by being good on just one board, and that is what is happening now.  It's hardly me baiting - I just happened to notice it.  I'm not saying this will always happen, but if we implemented babbalouie's idea of a top rank for CP, GR, Tournament and Team, then we may see more of one board specialists, we may not - I honestly do not know.

In the end, it's all supposed to be for fun, so if we have some aggregate rank or have a top rank for each area, that's fine with me.

Cona Chris wrote:

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.  

I really like this idea of different ranks (Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines).  I would want to once again pipe up and ask to include tournament team as well (Coast Guard?).

However, I struggle with this issue: the current leader for GR, Tournament, and Team play all got their top rank in those areas by essentially being really good and playing the heck out of one or two boards.  

Obviously, I am biased being in the top spot for CPs, but what do others think?  Should being an expert at one board be enough?

 

No, It's not just the top ranked player either. The whole top of the field in Tourney, Team, and Team Tourney all made their points as 1-2 board dynamos. And, often it's the same few boards in each.

I'm not against that being valued, but I would argue that until all the others are not just a GR that CP should remain the decider of rank.

The idea of introducing a CP to each category is an interesting idea though.

Having multiple ranks for each displayed on your homepage could be cool.

I would still argue against any aggregate until the issues and the "flaw" with the current CP calculations are addressed.

See: 

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/3542/Updating_CP:

Cona Chris wrote:

No offense taken, but it is possible to get to the top by being good on just one board, and that is what is happening now.  It's hardly me baiting - I just happened to notice it.

Chris,

Besides the tournament ranking, which I already acknowledged is susceptible to "one board specialization", can you be more specific as to who is at the top of a ranking on the back of just one board?  I have not scrutinized it as closely as you, but, that would surprise me.  For instance I've played team games on CW, CC, Ants, Invention, WGWF... Again, I realize I like popular boards, but that is more then one board to be sure and I'm sure there are others boards as well that I have played team games on and there will be many more too.  It's not the same as the tournament rank whereby playing other boards will risk one's rank.  For team, if I've devised a good strategy that others haven't considered for a new board, my odds are pretty decent I'll be able to win the majority of those games for the foreseeable future till others start to break down the strategy as well.

Regards,

Erick

berickf wrote:

Also, to tell you the truth, I still think that CP is one of the most gameable stats and the style that is needed to game it the best is most accessible to premium members, whereas, GR is readily and immediately accessible to everyone because it can be achieved on boards that fill quicker (if you're good at them).  So, in the name of good sportsmanship, I tend to think it's best if CP were not so exclusive in its preeminence, as it is right now. 

Anyway, at the end of the day the icon rank accomplishment system is just a badge, a badge which is supposed to be an incentive... So is it really so bad if the icon rank reflects upon all four areas of game play even if someone does get there as a one board specialist in tournament play? 

As for an aggregate, I know it wasn't said by you just now, but generally it's is a big misnomer that CP'ers like to throw out there that it would allow one game specialists to top it.  Such a weird and ludicrous notion has been thrown out there way too much.  It shouldn't need to be said, because it's an aggregate, but, by definition a well constructed aggregate would never allow one style of play, to allow one constituent of the ranks that compose it, to dominate all the others.  No one would break into the top echelon of an aggregate without having some CP competence.  They might not be a 50 board expert, but, I would suspect that even those that climb the aggregate on everything not CP would still need to have points on at least a handful of boards to really put up a fight in climbing near the top of such a rank.  That might get them into the top ten, but then to continue climbing they would have to now target their weakness, their CP.  So, there is really nothing to fear here, except for maybe the fear of theoretical possibilities which are far outside of the reality of what has happened, is happening or would ever happen.

I think I'm done rambling off the top of my head...

Hope it was an enjoyable read ;-)

Oh cut the crap.  You use a lot of words to cover the fact that you're just advocating for a system that rewards your preferred style of play.  In other words, you want an aggregate where your ability to run up the score on a few boards, or do the same thing with a hand picked teammate against mostly semi-random sets of newer players takes precedence.  I've been using the term one board dynamo, but I could just as easily say one-hit-wonder. 

The idea of introducing CP's to the other categories is a fair one, but everything else is just smoke, mirrors, and fertilizer.  I know your smart enough to not keep accidentally "misinterpreting" data like you've been.   CP is the easiest score to game? Pot calling kettle black?

It looks like you're trying to game the whole system to me.  Which, if you can get everyone to agree with you should be worth the "top spot"

Feel free to answer in a billion words or less.

Of course my idea of an aggregate is more to promote overall excellence and I and M57 were even juggling with the idea of having a CP and GR for every area with the CP weighted to equal the GR of the same and then all eight areas combined and averaged.  This type of aggregate would then encourage immediate greatness (GR), one board or not, but then also encourage more board play (CP) in every area down the road in order to continue to grow that aggregate.  Best of both worlds ;-)

I admit I haven't been following very closely, but I like this idea.

itsnotatumor wrote:

berickf wrote:

Also, to tell you the truth, I still think that CP is one of the most gameable stats and the style that is needed to game it the best is most accessible to premium members, whereas, GR is readily and immediately accessible to everyone because it can be achieved on boards that fill quicker (if you're good at them).  So, in the name of good sportsmanship, I tend to think it's best if CP were not so exclusive in its preeminence, as it is right now. 

Anyway, at the end of the day the icon rank accomplishment system is just a badge, a badge which is supposed to be an incentive... So is it really so bad if the icon rank reflects upon all four areas of game play even if someone does get there as a one board specialist in tournament play? 

As for an aggregate, I know it wasn't said by you just now, but generally it's is a big misnomer that CP'ers like to throw out there that it would allow one game specialists to top it.  Such a weird and ludicrous notion has been thrown out there way too much.  It shouldn't need to be said, because it's an aggregate, but, by definition a well constructed aggregate would never allow one style of play, to allow one constituent of the ranks that compose it, to dominate all the others.  No one would break into the top echelon of an aggregate without having some CP competence.  They might not be a 50 board expert, but, I would suspect that even those that climb the aggregate on everything not CP would still need to have points on at least a handful of boards to really put up a fight in climbing near the top of such a rank.  That might get them into the top ten, but then to continue climbing they would have to now target their weakness, their CP.  So, there is really nothing to fear here, except for maybe the fear of theoretical possibilities which are far outside of the reality of what has happened, is happening or would ever happen.

I think I'm done rambling off the top of my head...

Hope it was an enjoyable read ;-)

Oh cut the crap.  You use a lot of words to cover the fact that you're just advocating for a system that rewards your preferred style of play.  In other words, you want an aggregate where your ability to run up the score on a few boards, or do the same thing with a hand picked teammate against mostly semi-random sets of newer players takes precedence.  I've been using the term one board dynamo, but I could just as easily say one-hit-wonder. 

The idea of introducing CP's to the other categories is a fair one, but everything else is just smoke, mirrors, and fertilizer.  I know your smart enough to not keep accidentally "misinterpreting" data like you've been.   CP is the easiest score to game? Pot calling kettle black?

It looks like you're trying to game the whole system to me.  Which, if you can get everyone to agree with you should be worth the "top spot"

Feel free to answer in a billion words or less.

If I'm advocating for an aggregate which introduces CP to all areas of play, yet, am self acknowledged as saying that I'm not a fan of the gamability of CP (like that CP revision thread!) nor a big multi board player myself.  How exactly am I advocating a system that rewards my style of play?  More to the point, I'd say the aggregate I am proposing rewards ALL styles of play... And isn't that the whole point of an aggregate and what is best for everyone?

Also, I addressed the whole teammate thing with the suggestion of first into a new team gets invite privileges so that that scapegoat can be let go.

I think you're mistaking my suggestions as somehow being self promoting, which they're not.  If I were thinking simply about myself and how I could make an aggregate favour me as much as possible then I'd not ask for any CP to be set into all the ranks nor ask for team invites, soo, so, so, so, not sure where all your "cut the crap" stuff cropped up from?  Anyway, good to hear your thoughts on it, as misguided as that bout of thoughts were.

If that's truly how you feel, however, then you've got me pegged completely wrong.

Cheers mate

I don't think we should "not" reward the one board dynamoes, but I think we should reward the well rounded player as well.  Lots of rewards for everyone!

Cona Chris wrote:

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.  

I really like this idea of different ranks (Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines).  I would want to once again pipe up and ask to include tournament team as well (Coast Guard?).

However, I struggle with this issue: the current leader for GR, Tournament, and Team play all got their top rank in those areas by essentially being really good and playing the heck out of one or two boards.  

Obviously, I am biased being in the top spot for CPs, but what do others think?  Should being an expert at one board be enough?

 

Thank you Cona Chris. Here is our current only 5 Star General willing to share his rank with 3 (or maybe 4) others.

First of all the 4 rank system is simple and not confusing. Only Army ranks would be used for all 4. Not all Army ranks need to be used but can be if desired, such as various levels of Sergeants. Only members with underlying factors would not be happy with this system. Competition levels in all areas would increase. Increased competition would lead to increased membership and involvement. All PROS and no CONS. What's there to not understand?

AN ACCURATE AGGREGATE SYSTEM IS NOT ACHIEVABLE. Any aggregate system would have too many flaws.

Would all CPs be thrown out and everyone starts from scratch? NOT FAIR

Would everyone's CPs be adjusted? NOT FAIR

Would a new way of earning CPs affect the current existing CPs? NOT FAIR

A new aggregate system would totally upset the apple cart. It might be good for some, but not all. NOT FAIR. All CONS and no PROS.   

berickf wrote:

Cona Chris wrote:

No offense taken, but it is possible to get to the top by being good on just one board, and that is what is happening now.  It's hardly me baiting - I just happened to notice it.

Chris,

Besides the tournament ranking, which I already acknowledged is susceptible to "one board specialization", can you be more specific as to who is at the top of a ranking on the back of just one board?  I have not scrutinized it as closely as you, but, that would surprise me.  For instance I've played team games on CW, CC, Ants, Invention, WGWF... Again, I realize I like popular boards, but that is more then one board to be sure and I'm sure there are others boards as well that I have played team games on and there will be many more too.  It's not the same as the tournament rank whereby playing other boards will risk one's rank.  For team, if I've devised a good strategy that others haven't considered for a new board, my odds are pretty decent I'll be able to win the majority of those games for the foreseeable future till others start to break down the strategy as well.

Regards,

Erick

Currently falker1976 is the leader on GR.  While he played a lot on WGWF, those games were mostly in the beginning of his tenure.  He played a lot on Axes & Allies and Fallout to get his points.  Toto got a lot of his from WGWF and Antastic.  Conan's specialty boards were Octagons and Ten-Propogate. Yes they played other boards too, but their "runs" to the top of the ladder were primarily fueled by wins on the boards just listed.  You can click on their names and then "Ranking History" to see their career GR, game by game.  So on GR, it was two boards, not one board that got the top 3 to where they are, primarily - but you can see how it could just as easily been one board.

On team, the leader is currently you, Erick, you have played 68 team games on Civil War (won 91.2% of those) and 19 on other boards.  Yes you have played other boards, but the overwhelming majority of your team points come from just one board (Civil War).  bmasera is in 2nd place and has 67 team games on Civil War (won 92.5% of those - you guys must be teammates!) and then 17 on other boards.  Killdawg is in 3rd place, and has played a lot of team games on many different boards - it's hard to see exactly how the pieces fit together, but would think most of his points come from Axes & Allies and War of the Ring.

Not sure who the leader on Tournament Team GR is (it's not summarized anywhere) - I have a 1735 GR for this, and most of those points were attained from Invention team games. 

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this - but a function of just using GR means that someone can specialize on a couple boards and rise to the top.  It's not theoretical - it's actually happening.

A flaw in the current system (although I have no better suggestion): A player could hypothetically be ranked #11 on every single board on the site and have a rank of private. This hypothetical person would be a very dangerous opponent!

Overall I think this argument is pretty silly.....there is no way to determine the single best player here, but between the CP, GR and board ranking in any given 8 player game (or whatever), the current system does an excellent job of indicating who the danger players are.

I think it would be really cool though if the top 8 (or 10 or 12, whatever) players on the site played some public non-fog games on a variety of the top boards and have someone keep track. Maybe in this scenario informal points could be tracked for coming 2nd or 3rd in the games and at the end crown a 2014 Wargear champion.  

Maybe include the top 5 CP and top 5 GR for my proposed Battle Royale.