M57 wrote:

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?

For the record: I solicited no private feedback, but I apologize to everyone who feels I stepped over a line by bringing that up. 

I also apologize for making it “personal”, but I’d also argue that a number of previous arguments that I was responding to were equally if less clearly “personal”.  That along with the type of “posturing” is what I still find issue with. 

But, enough said.

So moving forward:

CP is admittedly unfairly flawed. Another thread is working on that with a whole bunch of interesting ideas. 

A universal aggregate would be much more unfairly flawed based on all the fact based arguments from the last 10 pages.  Though as I said previously diluting the Team and Tourney GR issue with CP’s could improve that, I would still argue against Team inclusion for the same reasons everyone previously noted. 

Babba’s and others ideas of multiple ranks seems much more equitable than a Universal Aggregate, but I still wonder if there’s a less complicated solution. 

And, to Tom. Still love the new badges and awards despite the disagreements it’s magnified in the community. You're awesome.

itsnotatumor wrote:

M57 wrote:

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?

For the record: I solicited no private feedback, but I apologize to everyone who feels I stepped over a line by bringing that up. 

I also apologize for making it “personal”, but I’d also argue that a number of previous arguments that I was responding to were equally if less clearly “personal”.  That along with the type of “posturing” is what I still find issue with. 

But, enough said.

So moving forward:

CP is admittedly unfairly flawed. Another thread is working on that with a whole bunch of interesting ideas. 

A universal aggregate would be much more unfairly flawed based on all the fact based arguments from the last 10 pages.  Though as I said previously diluting the Team and Tourney GR issue with CP’s could improve that, I would still argue against Team inclusion for the same reasons everyone previously noted. 

Babba’s and others ideas of multiple ranks seems much more equitable than a Universal Aggregate, but I still wonder if there’s a less complicated solution. 

And, to Tom. Still love the new badges and awards despite the disagreements it’s magnified in the community. You're awesome.

Dear itsnotatumor, 

I agree with you on the Universal Aggregate, but I also want to point out that the multi-rank system can be as simple as possible and fully automated and I like the fact that the way to earn CP's is being re-addressed.

But, the real reason I am replying to your posting is your picture. I love it and can't stop laughing whenever I read your postings. The picture makes you sound like a raving lunatic, which I know you are not. I really get a kick out of it. You are the itsnotatumornator.  

Hugh wrote:

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.

I guess there seems to little opposition to the multi-rank system. It seems to have all pros and few cons so I have asked Tom to review the threads on this proposal to see if he thinks it's doable. There seems to be a lot of support for this 4 rank or 5 rank (as per Cona Chris) system.  

Babbalouie wrote:

Hugh wrote:

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.

I guess there seems to little opposition to the multi-rank system. It seems to have all pros and few cons so I have asked Tom to review the threads on this proposal to see if he thinks it's doable. There seems to be a lot of support for this 4 rank or 5 rank (as per Cona Chris) system.  

While what you say is true, there are a number of us who feel that although we want to see a change, we are more concerned about the quality underlining per game Point System upon which the multi-rank system would be based.

Am I wrong or do things seem slow out here? It is time to implement the 4 rank system and pump some fresh blood into this site. Tom has never given me an answer on this. It would be beneficial to all in terms of competiveness as well as recruitment of new personnel. It could be implemented temporarily to see how it works and how well received it is by veteran players. Toto, Cona Chris (5 rank system), Attila the Hun, and several other veterans have given the green light and endorsed this new ranking system.

It is time to move forward with something new. It has been months since this was first purposed.

Thank you.

I have mentioned this before, but I can't find the thread...

H-Rating heavily favors non dualists.  For dueling players, like myself, because luck is such a strong factor, it is nigh impossible to have an H-Rating greater than 65% for boards that get regular play.  If you do get higher than 65% it is likely because you played the board when it was new and no one knew the rules and then you stopped playing.

If you were to take my WGWF games and separate out my 1 v 1 games, you would probably find my 1v1 H rating about 60% compared to 75% or more for multiple player games. 

So, I don't think H rating is a good global measure.

*************sorry, I think I replied to something that was posted months ago, not sure if it is relevant now

Here are my H-Rating stats for all games to show you what I mean

2-player games     64.8%     1680 games

3 to 6 players        61.5%     138 games

7 to 16 players      79.2%      91 games

Overall                  66%

So, you can see if I only player 7 or more player games my H rating would be near 80%, but my overall rating is pulled down by the many 1 v 1 games I have played.

All of the ratings systems have their flaws. That's one of the points of this thread. H-ratings do not consider the quality of your opponents either.  I agree with your point, SG, but just to play devil's advocate, it's also possible that you're playing higher quality opponents in 1v1 and smaller games?

For good players on a regular map, duels should produce lower H-Ratings than the larger game sizes on average. I bet for WGWF the sweet spot is 10-12, but for larger maps it's 16. High H-ratings are possible for specialized dueling maps, though.

I agree it's a very localized measure. It allows for meaningful comparison when you fix the game type, the game size, and the strength of the opponents. These three are often fairly constant, so it often tells a player how quickly they'll rise in the (board/local) rankings! However, it can't be recommended as a global measure.

Am I wrong or do things seem slow out here? It is time to implement the 4 rank system and pump some fresh blood into this site. Tom has never given me an answer on this. It would be beneficial to all in terms of competiveness as well as recruitment of new personnel. It could be implemented temporarily to see how it works and how well received it is by veteran players. Toto, Cona Chris (5 rank system), Attila the Hun, and several other veterans have given the green light and endorsed this new ranking system.

It is time to move forward with something new. It has been months since this was first purposed.

Thank you.

Hey Babba,

I’m still kind of on the fence about this one.

Some things to think about though:

#1 Lack of opposition is not the same as a broad consensus.

#2 Tom has a to do list 2-3 years long, and something major like this needs to get significant push to bump it up the list (So keep instigating and building support).

#3 I’ve notice some conversations need to be had a few times often in a brand new threads to clear the air/un-bog and get to the nitty-gritty.   

#4 I can only speak for myself, but I would like to see the current CP situation, and possibly some of the other ranking systems, ‘fixed’ before overlaying further system over the top of it.

itsnotatumor wrote:  

#4 I can only speak for myself, but I would like to see the current CP situation, and possibly some of the other ranking systems, ‘fixed’ before overlaying further system over the top of it.

+1 - That's my Vote - Implement something True-Skill-like for Global Ranking scoring.

itsnotatumor wrote:

Am I wrong or do things seem slow out here? It is time to implement the 4 rank system and pump some fresh blood into this site. Tom has never given me an answer on this. It would be beneficial to all in terms of competiveness as well as recruitment of new personnel. It could be implemented temporarily to see how it works and how well received it is by veteran players. Toto, Cona Chris (5 rank system), Attila the Hun, and several other veterans have given the green light and endorsed this new ranking system.

It is time to move forward with something new. It has been months since this was first purposed.

Thank you.

 

 

Hey Babba,

I’m still kind of on the fence about this one.

Some things to think about though:

#1 Lack of opposition is not the same as a broad consensus.

#2 Tom has a to do list 2-3 years long, and something major like this needs to get significant push to bump it up the list (So keep instigating and building support).

#3 I’ve notice some conversations need to be had a few times often in a brand new threads to clear the air/un-bog and get to the nitty-gritty.   

#4 I can only speak for myself, but I would like to see the current CP situation, and possibly some of the other ranking systems, ‘fixed’ before overlaying further system over the top of it.

Try it. You'll like. The best of 4 worlds.

M57 wrote:

itsnotatumor wrote:  

#4 I can only speak for myself, but I would like to see the current CP situation, and possibly some of the other ranking systems, ‘fixed’ before overlaying further system over the top of it.

+1 - That's my Vote - Implement something True-Skill-like for Global Ranking scoring.

+1 for true skill and fixing cp before trying to combine them.

What if the Championship Points were only awarded on the top 20 boards, rather than all boards? Or maybe boards that have a certain number of plays per month? This would show who is the best at the top boards and show versatility and encourage playing multiple boards. It would also limit the championship points awarded from the never played boards that some players may "mine" just to add on points without being challenged on them. That mining process is boring and doesn't prove ability as much as getting ranked highly on the top played boards.

Gen Monty wrote:

What if the Championship Points were only awarded on the top 20 boards, rather than all boards? Or maybe boards that have a certain number of plays per month? 

Both of these ideas would encourage contenders to focus on the top boards only.. Players who prefer the boutiquey boards would get nothing for their efforts and good play.

The idea of making the more hotly contested, more popular, most played, etc boards worth more is valid, but I'm not in favor of having it at the complete expense of lesser played boards.  With a top boards only system, I can just envision contenders logging on, checking to see which boards on the bottom 10 of the top 20 are most popular that month, and getting in on the gravy train.

Agree. Championship points for the less popular boards is a big draw to getting players for new maps. Don't take away that incentive.