Cona Chris wrote:

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.

 

I have only played a couple so far, but, currently I am getting into playing more team invention games and this might continue as I find those team invention games fun, but, I currently see the lowest lying fruit available in playing team Antastic.  I think a lot of wins could be wracked up there because of its specialized strategies... Like I said earlier in some other thread, I went on a 35+ game winning streak for 2v2 CW before people started to wise up to my then unbeatable strategy and play the same against me.  I then stretched my CW strategy out to encompass 2v2v2's 3v3's 3v3v3's, 3v3v3v3's, 3v3v3v3v3's and am now contemplating trying some more 4v4v4v4's but am having difficulty getting all my teammates available at once.  Obviously that run accounts for most of the games you're pointing at, but, I have enjoyed most of those other 19 games as well ;-)  With the 3 player team games I teamed with the same who was the first to actually apply my own 2v2 strategy against me. Although, I still enjoy CW and won't rule it out for future games, I think that everyone has to start from somewhere.  Point being I'm still relatively new here with apparently less then 100 team games played still!  Check back when I hit the 250 mark and then try and speculate the same thing because in my case I think you're looking only at a starting point more so then an ironclad trend.  The trend you have actually highlighted in my case is one of following the points, so to speak, and I was simply squeazing as much points as possible out of a board where I felt I had an advantage in how I thought it.  Currently my only CW team game going is a residual team-tourney game.  I think even CP specialists like yourself do the same thing?  I often see a CP specialist create a number of games on the same board and do this in waves until they get to the level that they want to get to on that board, then onto the next.  You can't hold it against me for using the same strategy and then doing it on a popular board that actually fills in good time given my standard membership I had for much of that period.  So, while I think team Invention is fun and will continue to tinker on that board... I think at some point in the not-to-distant future you're going to see me try and take a run at team Antastic.  I'll let Toto, falker, and Conan talk for themselves, but generally, I don't think that pushing points out of one board for GR or CP negates the broader body of work that is present.  After all, isn't Toto up there in CP as well.  Anyway, Antastic and WGWF are really competitive boards, so, cudos to him regardless of how he managed it.  He deserves the recognition.

For Team Tournament, probably:

VIKTORY at 2512 on the back of CC

For comparrison

Gen Monty 2410 mostly CC as well

bmasera 2229 mostly on CW but a fair amount of CC

TerribleThunderLizards 2089 mostly CW

me 2088 mostly CW with a fair amount of CC too.

Xrayjay wrote:

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!

Three ways of looking at this.  Maybe they are just not very good at gaming the system OR  maybe they prefer flying under the radar OR maybe they just don't care.

Regardless, it's a good good observation, XRJ.

Xrayjay wrote:

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.  

Why non-fog?  Playing in the fog is a skill too!

Xrayjay wrote:

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.  

I love the idea of a "Championship Series" of games!  But it's bound to get bogged down in "Who Gets Invited" (like the American College Football BCS, some people will get left out and have a legitimate argument for being included) and what the boards we play on are.

Cona Chris wrote:

Xrayjay wrote:

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.  

I love the idea of a "Championship Series" of games!  But it's bound to get bogged down in "Who Gets Invited" (like the American College Football BCS, some people will get left out and have a legitimate argument for being included) and what the boards we play on are.

 

Again, you guys are both confirming the need for a 4 (or 5) rank system. There is no way a player could be ranked 11 on every single board and be ranked a Private. With a 4 (or 5) rank system the majority of the ranks would still be Private, but there would be a fair distribution of the other ranks in their so-called desired area of expertise. You artificial Generals need to share the wealth and inspire the troops. 

berickf wrote:

Xrayjay wrote:

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.  

Why non-fog?  Playing in the fog is a skill too!

My reasoning for non-fog is so people could watch as the game progressed. Maybe do a non-fog and medium fog on each board to be played on?

I'm also a big fan of the 5-rank system. The point of Achievements was to encourage and reward playing, so what's the harm in recognizing expertise in more than one style? I doubt Cona will complain too much if he's not the only Grand Pubah on the site :-)

What exactly are the arguments against this system? Is it just concern that we couldn't numerically determine the overall best player on the site? If so, I'd argue that this doesn't need to be tied in with ranks at all. An aggregate can be just another stat like H-rating.

berickf wrote:

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

Yeah, I'm going to stand by my comment.  And, based on the overwhelming private feedback I got after posting it I'm not the only one making the same assessment.

You can say whatever you want. But, we all have access to the same numbers, and we can all make our own conclusions about when someone is acting disingenuously out of self interest.

The top 9 tournament players. ALL OF THEM (including you and your wife) got their points from one board! And you want to "equally" factor that in with the other numbers? ANTASTIC RULES!!!

The "team issue" has already been addressed, and anyone who wants can investigate all of this for themselves. 

So again, cut the selfless "good of the site" "why can't they see" "banging my head against the wall" "maybe I should step out of the conversation" crap.  We're not believing it anymore.

While it is true that higher Tournament Ratings and Team Ratings can be attained by focusing on 1 or 2 boards, this would not be true if Tournament CPs and Team CPs were combined with Tournament GRs and Team GRs, as well as regular CP and GRs.  I'm pretty sure that berickf is (or would give) a +1 to the notion of combining ALL for an Aggregate.

If it turns out that this is somehow beneficial to berickf's Aggregate score - as opposed to some other proposal, and even if it were somewhat true that in the back of his mind, he is looking for some recognition over the current system that gives him practically none - then Good on Him.

I'm getting no "private feedback", but then I haven't be actively seeking it.  Most of the proposed systems won't help my rank.  I keep an eye on it, but with a grain of salt.  I only play a handful of boards (mostly mine)- and that probably won't change.  Though honestly, depending on where this goes, I can see myself playing in a lot more tournaments and team games.

I see no benefit in claiming that someone has a personal agenda.   We're all big boys and girls here, and we can all read between the lines, read the stats ourselves, and cut out whatever we perceive as posturing, and get to the substance of an issue and come to whatever level of consensus we can.

Tom's final opinion is the only one that matters here.  He's entirely capable of doing the exact same thing.    It's fine to say.  Well erick, that's your opinion, but I think you're saying it in part because it benefits you. and be done wtih it.  If other's want to agree with you, fine. But that's where the line should be drawn. Referencing private conversations is a red flag, and when the tone of the conversation turns into a b-slap-fest, that's a hole that is just about impossible to climb out of.

Can we just let go of this and move the conversation forward please?

It's  frustrating when data, math, or logic are presented and instead of giving it the proper acknowledgement, a person clings to the idea that persuasion is possible without (honestly) addressing the critique. I'm all for civility, but if I cared at all about this "who's best" argument, I'd be pretty frustrated right now.

I agree with Attila. This is what is achievable: What we CAN do with the data we have is reward lots of people for lots of different achievements. A good player shouldn't be a "Private". "Rank" doesn't have to be about the ultimate best player of the site. It's about the everyday player too.

The other argument, about how to numerically determine the site's "best player", whatever that even means, is not an easy one. Aggregates can smooth data - but this is some seriously messy data!! Game selection bias barely scratches the surface of the flaws in the current GR calculation. (For the record, I'm also critical of interpreting CPs as the ultimate measure of skill,) We should respect how hard the problem is before going too nuts here.

Hugh wrote:

It's  frustrating when data, math, or logic are presented and instead of giving it the proper acknowledgement, a person clings to the idea that persuasion is possible without (honestly) addressing the critique. I'm all for civility, but if I cared at all about this "who's best" argument, I'd be pretty frustrated right now.

I agree with Attila. This is what is achievable: What we CAN do with the data we have is reward lots of people for lots of different achievements. A good player shouldn't be a "Private". "Rank" doesn't have to be about the ultimate best player of the site. It's about the everyday player too.

The other argument, about how to numerically determine the site's "best player", whatever that even means, is not an easy one. Aggregates can smooth data - but this is some seriously messy data!! Game selection bias barely scratches the surface of the flaws in the current GR calculation. (For the record, I'm also critical of interpreting CPs as the ultimate measure of skill,) We should respect how hard the problem is before going too nuts here.

Does this mean that you support the 4 (or 5) rank system? There are definitely 4 or 5 areas within wargear that deserve each having their 5 Star General. There is no 1 best all around player. Can the best football player also be the best in baseball, basketball or hockey. The answer is simple. No.

It seems like this multi-rank system is gaining support. Cona Chris, Atilla the Hun, Ratsy, you? and I (if I count) all support it.

Other things that could also be added would be Player of the Month (to be determined by the Commander in Chief), Player of the Year, and Rookie of the Year. These would all be determined by Tom (Commander in Chief) by whatever criteria he deems important.

Having several rewards for several different achievements, as you say above, is a good source of inspiration, competitiveness, and recruitment.     

itsnotatumor wrote:

berickf wrote:

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

Yeah, I'm going to stand by my comment.  And, based on the overwhelming private feedback I got after posting it I'm not the only one making the same assessment.

You can say whatever you want. But, we all have access to the same numbers, and we can all make our own conclusions about when someone is acting disingenuously out of self interest.

The top 9 tournament players. ALL OF THEM (including you and your wife) got their points from one board! And you want to "equally" factor that in with the other numbers? ANTASTIC RULES!!!

The "team issue" has already been addressed, and anyone who wants can investigate all of this for themselves. 

So again, cut the selfless "good of the site" "why can't they see" "banging my head against the wall" "maybe I should step out of the conversation" crap.  We're not believing it anymore.

 

Pretty sure I have already said that the tournament rank has that problem, so, not sure why you're agreeing with me to supposedly disagree with me...

Anyway, I got points from many boards on the way up the tourney rankings, but, once you pass a certain threshold you either do antastic or you don't, it's true.

I think you're being quite disingenuous if you think that my own proposals are actually only out of self interest though.  It surprises me you'd say so as I usually find you to be quite level headed in your assessments.

Given my current style of play, the diversity of boards I don't play, or as you say, "looking at the numbers", could you please qualify how my recommendation of a CP/GR, Team CP/Team GR, Tourney CP/Tourney GR & Team-Tourney CP/Team Tourney GR aggregate is in my self interest?  Obviously by suggesting that CP is integrated into all components I'd have to pick up my socks and play a lot more boards - not my strength!

My proposal even weakens the top tourney players holds by making the CP portion force them to move away from Antastic and actually addresses exactly what we are both saying is the problem there, but, while you are seemingly just pointing fingers, I'm actually addressing the problem with a suggestion to improve it (even if it's not a beneficial solution to my own rank).

Tumor, I must admit, I expect more from you then that.  And please stop writing as if you're writing for everyone.  We all have our own keyboards here and as many people who might agree with you, disagree with you as well.  This, after all, is a bit of a polarizing topic in our healthy WarGear forums.

Take care my friend,

Erick

M57,

Well, I at least agreed with Itsnota's point, and told him so privately for the reason I didn't want to be piling on.

I think we, and some others maybe, are frustrated not because the proposed aggregate benefits Erick, who's clearly a superb player (although I've never played him, since Civil War bores me to tears (but it's a lovely map, Viper)), and his equally superb consort, but because it doesn't seem to do much else. I brought up a bunch of objections when he first proposed it, and got what seemed to me to be a lot (a whole lot) of hand-waving in response. And that continues. 

So, we're frustrated.

But moving on: 

These seem to me to be key questions about any aggregate proposal:

(Caveat--I haven't thought about the "CP for everything" idea. Boy, seems complicated. But it may address many of my points, at the cost of complexity. )

How does an aggregate benefit the site?
--Does it get more players to join, stay, or pay?

What does it do for players outside the top 10-30? 

Does it encourage or discourage playing more diverse boards?
-- There are lots of places to play WGWF. Going weeks trying to fill a more obscure board one likes lessens enjoyment of the site (or having it fill up with noobs who have already quit the site by the time it fills).
-- Diversity of games seems a competitive advantage. Game designers receive some measure of satisfaction in seeing their effort and creativity come to fruition. 

How does it impact game designers? 

Is it fair? (well, sorta fair, Hugh)

And, probably least important: 

How does it impact the top 10-30 committed players?

For a variety of reasons which have mostly been discussed I see the aggregate as negative or neutral in all these areas. (I could go into detail, ad nauseam.)

But, this thread got restarted by troublemaker ratsy because of the introduction of ranks. I agree with the point Attila, Cona, Hugh, many others, and, yes, Babbalouie, are making. Ranks is too visible to equate to CP only. Xrayjay's player ranked 11 on a bunch of boards better not be a private. I'd still give some preference to CP. Doesn't really seem right that a guy afraid to play a public game because he'd lose his ranking should be co-ranked with Cona at the top.

I just wanted to write out the aggregate that has formed in my mind though all these conversations.  First of all, however, I am borrowing all these calculations from an M57 post I read somewhere.  I thought it did a really good job of fairly calculating an aggregate.

To clarify the aggregate proposal that is in my mind, the components are not "equal" as I have seen said.  Each is weighted to the top GR score and readjusts as the top GR scores change.  The reasoning here being that the more effort that goes into a score, the more that the field below it rises and then that GR ceiling would rise in accordance.

For instance, currently the top GR is 3424.  CP would then be equalized with that such that 2424 is divided by the top points and then each CP point someone has is worth 4.725 points added onto the base of 1000.  So, as it is right now, Cona Chris would have a CP score of 3424 for the purposes of creating this aggregate.  So, two scores for standard game play which are standardized and comparable.

Then for Tourney play the top is 2809.  CP's would be added based on tourney play and then CP's would be normalized to the tourney GR so 1809 would be divided by the top tourney CP player's points to find the CP point increment for every CP point added onto the base of 1000.  Two tourney scores standardized and comparable.

Team Tournament, 2512, so 1512 divided by top team-tournament CP over base 1000.

Team, 2385, so 1385 divided by top team CP over base of 1000.

So, Every player can be rewarded based on either GR or CP in any category equally, but each category is weighted based on its GR ceiling with its CP equalized to the GR for the purpose of eventually averaging out a number from the eight constituent parts that is recognizable and similar to any of the pre-existing GR scores, but, with CP factored into all.  A pretty simple formula really and it rewards every kind of game play.

I still like babbalouie's idea of having rank assigned based on individual areas so that promotions are more readily available for all, but, for the purposes of rewarding all around play, which I think is not a bad thing to recognize, I think that this system is quite accessible and fair to everyone.  Like Atilla said, the aggregate would be more like an h rating, an interesting stat to look at that simply compiles things in a different light.

I don't think that this way of creating an aggregate is particularly beneficial to me, nor to Cona Chris, as we both have weak areas that would be exposed by it, his (team) easier to fix then mine (CP) though.  My gut tells me that players like Luieuil and Toto have the least weaknesses that would be exposed by such?  Anyway, I think that it would be an interesting way to amalgamate all the ranks into one and reward the all encompassing player for overall excellence.  No hidden agenda.  I just think that it would be an interesting rank to compete for and that it would encourage me to tackle my weaknesses more then CP alone.

smoke wrote:

M57,

Well, I at least agreed with Itsnota's point, and told him so privately for the reason I didn't want to be piling on.

I think we, and some others maybe, are frustrated not because the proposed aggregate benefits Erick, who's clearly a superb player (although I've never played him, since Civil War bores me to tears (but it's a lovely map, Viper)), and his equally superb consort, but because it doesn't seem to do much else. I brought up a bunch of objections when he first proposed it, and got what seemed to me to be a lot (a whole lot) of hand-waving in response. And that continues. 

So, we're frustrated.

But moving on: 

These seem to me to be key questions about any aggregate proposal:

(Caveat--I haven't thought about the "CP for everything" idea. Boy, seems complicated. But it may address many of my points, at the cost of complexity. )

How does an aggregate benefit the site?
--Does it get more players to join, stay, or pay?

What does it do for players outside the top 10-30? 

Does it encourage or discourage playing more diverse boards?
-- There are lots of places to play WGWF. Going weeks trying to fill a more obscure board one likes lessens enjoyment of the site (or having it fill up with noobs who have already quit the site by the time it fills).
-- Diversity of games seems a competitive advantage. Game designers receive some measure of satisfaction in seeing their effort and creativity come to fruition. 

How does it impact game designers? 

Is it fair? (well, sorta fair, Hugh)

And, probably least important: 

How does it impact the top 10-30 committed players?

 

For a variety of reasons which have mostly been discussed I see the aggregate as negative or neutral in all these areas. (I could go into detail, ad nauseam.)

But, this thread got restarted by troublemaker ratsy because of the introduction of ranks. I agree with the point Attila, Cona, Hugh, many others, and, yes, Babbalouie, are making. Ranks is too visible to equate to CP only. Xrayjay's player ranked 11 on a bunch of boards better not be a private. I'd still give some preference to CP. Doesn't really seem right that a guy afraid to play a public game because he'd lose his ranking should be co-ranked with Cona at the top.

 

Hey Smoke. 

I was writing as you posted.  I think that perhaps the CP integrated aggregate that I just clarified might address some of your points better?  Like you, I too like babbalouie's rank concept, as well as Atilla's concept of having an aggregate as an accessory rank like the h-ranking, so, I think we might be closer then you realized to seeing eye-to-eye on this.  I have never meant this to be perceived as being out of self interest, because it's not.  I'm sorry if I gave you or Tumor the impression that it was.  I have always sought a fair aggregate that rewarded completeness in as many areas as can be included whether I am good at them or not.

Now, to some of your points.

Players don't join, stay or pay because of an aggregate any more then they do for other rankings.  They join to play risk and they stay or pay because of the boards available and the community atmosphere that is present.  With regard to an aggregate I pass on this point.

For players outside the top 30, it gives them something to strive for, just as being outside the top thirty in GR or CP or your favourite board ranking can give you something to strive for.  Because of its cumulative nature, however, a good all around player who was just outside the top 30 in all the constituent ranks would be inside the top thirty on an aggregate because it rewards overall completeness even if excellent nowhere.

With CP integrated, yes, it would encourage playing more diversity of boards, and not just in standard games, but in tournament, team and team tournament games as well.  But, if a player was still not comfortable playing so many boards, they would still be rewarded for exceptional GR scores as well, but, by not playing many boards they would be handicapping their potential on the aggregate.

By encouraging playing more boards I suppose that designers might be more inclined to design and be happy that their boards are being played... But, I would still rather that board designers design boards to be as magnificent as the designer can facilitate and not just make boards because people are pushed to score CP.  The capabilities of the WarGear designer far exceed most other Risk emulator sites so lets keep making boards that will enhance the player's experience and convince new players to stay and pay!

All ranks have their inherent flaws and some threads have popped up to consider revising those flaws.  I suggested before that perhaps combining so many constituent parts acts to dampen the flaws such that the sum is more then its parts, but, the more the flaws of the constituent parts are ironed out... It can't hurt.  As far as measuring and rewarding the complete player, however, I think since each area is weighted by its top GR and that the GR and CP are both compiled within each area of play... Yeah, I would say it is a model that is verging on being quite fair in determining what it is supposed to measure, this being completeness in one's game play.

It effects the top 30 players in only a minor way.  Most of those players are pretty decent overall players anyways.  Cona said it could get him to consider a few team games.  It would definitely influence me to play more boards as CP alone does not.  Some players who are not expected to be seen would probably jump into the 15-30 range simply because they are jack-of-all-trades type player but are not "the best" and don't score top 20 in any of the constituent ranks.  I would love to see if some players that just do it all pretty well jump into that 15-30 range though.

I think that that takes a fair shot at answering all your queries?

Cheers,

Erick

Babbalouie wrote:

Other things that could also be added would be Player of the Month (to be determined by the Commander in Chief), Player of the Year, and Rookie of the Year. These would all be determined by Tom (Commander in Chief) by whatever criteria he deems important.

Having several rewards for several different achievements, as you say above, is a good source of inspiration, competitiveness, and recruitment.     

I'm in agreement here, but be mindful too that any system we come up with needs to be as self sustaining as possible.  This is site is probably not Tom's "job" per se, so we should be mindful of our "demands".  I'd hate to see him spend all his time doing things that are not fixing broken, or implementing cool new requests, or maintaining the server etc.  

smoke wrote:

But, this thread got restarted by troublemaker ratsy because of the introduction of ranks. 

 

To be fair, I was initially just trying to be lazy and not have to compare my performance and growth to others' using three, four or five different (and differently calculated) scores.  

It's alot of effort for me to look at how H-rating is calculated and understand what that means. Same issue for all the other scores.

What I was hoping for was a single number to figure out and compare the overall performance of any given player, and then we got ranks and it got all jumbled together. 

So I was hoping to help the already committed player (but not in the top 30) who is looking to get better - (perhaps into the top 30), and find other players around the same overall skill levels. -mostly to pester- 

I do believe an aggregate would encourage more diverse play.  

I think it'd encourage those that want to get better, by giving them more clear feedback on their comparative skills - (and in so doing increase site membership retention) - right now, when you hit the bad luck wall and can't tell if your getting better, it's easy to quit- no place to move towards

And I'm in agreement that a moderate to very good player should not be a private. And that having a few ranking systems based on the different scores could be a good thing. - although I see some practical problems with the implementation there.-

I'd love to see some kind of year end superlatives, beyond just player of the year & rookie of the year.  They probably need to be automatic so that it doesn't take Tom's time once they are setup.

Babbalouie wrote:

Does this mean that you support the 4 (or 5) rank system? There are definitely 4 or 5 areas within wargear that deserve each having their 5 Star General.

Absolutely. This is my favorite constructive proposal thus far.