Squint,

I think the whole point of an aggregate is to encourage playing all types of games, so, inclusion of as much legitimate aspects as possible is the key.  So I'll reiterate a vote for the inclusion of team ranking and tournament ranking. Possibly also team-tournament ranking and a roving h ranking too!...  Can we see how your spreadsheet would look if it included GR, CP, Team and Tourney?

Thanks,

Erick

Mad Bomber wrote: I ' m with smoke on this one. I play ALL boards in an attempt to collect cp points. I lose global ranking because most boards have a learning curb. Cp points give me something to shot for. Without them being what they are I see less variety being played. I have points on 73 different boards......variety. I am encouraged to play all types not just two or three boards like most players. Every board is equally important is it not? We want map makers to push the boundaries. I could play 16 16 player games, on the same map, win twelve, and what.....be the greatest? Sounds weak......cp points should be worth more than global....if it is given a higher percentage in the aggregate then I'll give my surf bum approval.

I share your opinion MB.  I think the GR and CP rankings are inherently different, almost inverse as MB describes.  What is interesting, however, is that there are people who are able to have both high CP and GR as the table above shows, which is amazing to me.  This demonstrates that it is possible for both rankings to be high at the same time.  So what does this mean.....not sure

I don't think it should be the end-all goal of the site to get people to play as many boards as possible.  To the degree this is true, there's already an incentive in place.  It's called Championship Points, and they are ostensibly WarGear's most coveted.

So that's not what an aggregate should be about.  I think there are a bunch of dud boards out there -- Heck, I've made a few, and if I'm in it for CPs, then I'm going to feel compelled to play some of the less popular boards (i.e., the duds) because they are probably easier to achieve CPs on. My +1 is to let the CP chasers do that, but don't unduly weight CPs in the aggregate.

I agree more with Mad Bomber and SquintGnome.  The only reason CP are WarGear's most coveted right now is because they are used to determine your rank. If you were to average CP, GR, Team-GR and Tournament-GR, than all 3 of the GR could be based on a single board, and diversity of play would only count for 25% of your cumulative rank.

I think if you want to combine everything, then GR, Team-GR and Tournament-GR should be averaged to get a 'cumulative GR' and then that should be averaged with CP.

Amidon37 wrote:

Here's a long thought on how to "combine rankings" -

We have a Public Global Ranking (currently called GR, but I'll call it PGR) and we have a Tournament Global Ranking (currently called T Score, but I'll call it TGR.)  Soon (I expect) we will have a Team Global Ranking - but actually we should have a Public Team Global Ranking and a Tournament Team Global Ranking - call them PTGR and TTGR respectively.  

Each of these can be calculated separately with the standard start-with-1000-point-system, but we could also create a Composite Global Ranking (CGR) by (retroactively) starting everyone off with 1000 points here and performing the standard calculation on this at the end of every (public/tournament/team) non-private game.   

We also have a Ranking Score for each board that uses the standard start-with-a-1000     -points system.  These currently change only for public non-team games and are used to determine Board Championship points.  (There are also stats for private games calculated but we won't consider those here)  I would like to see all games (public/team/tournament) count in those calculation also, but since that probably won't happen we could also have a PRS (Public Ranking Score), a TRS (Tournament Ranking Score), a PTRS (Public Team Ranking Score) and a TTRS (Tournanment Team Ranking Score) for each board.  (Note the PRS and TRS are already calculated, and the others probably will be when Tom does Team Rankings).  Then we could also have a Composite Ranking Score CRS that is calculated at the end of every non-private game where everyone again starts with the 1000 points and we go from there.

So, at the end of every game your CGR and CRS will change and either your PGR and PRS, or your TGR and TRS, or your PTGR and PTRS, or your TTGR and TTRS will change depending on the type of game.

There are a couple of directions then we could go with the BC points, but I suggest keeping them on just the PRS as they are now, but the graphics that say what boards you are #1 on, and the rankings on the board info page be based on the CRS for that board.

I know this isn't going anywhere, but I still like it -

I don't think the point of an aggregate is even about CP or GR and which is more "coveted", or "better", or whatever.  If people want CP they'll play for them and if they want GR, then that.  An aggregate has a whole different point to it though.  It should say that if you want to be at the top for this ranking then you must play all boards (CP), do that well (GR), succeed in tournaments (tourney) AND know how to succeed with teammates (team), if you want to top this rank... That is why it is an aggregate.  You guys are completely missing the point of it by making it a pissing contest between CP and GR, because, it's not supposed to be about either of those.  It's like "the most well rounded player award" but does not take away from the other two, or any other ranking for that matter, as they still have their individual merits.

I see the different scores rewarding different aspects of a players ability. 

So when I look at a player and see that they have wicked good teamwork skills, but a lower GR, then I know their good at team games.  Or I see they have lots of CP and a low GR, I know they've played alot of different boards.  Or they have a phenominally high ranking on WGWF but not the greatest GR, you can tell their a specialist. 

When I go to a players scores, I want to get a sense of their abilities, and understand how their going to compare to my own abilities.   What are they good at, what are they not so good at? How fast am I going to get my butt handed to me on a platter today?

What an aggregate would tell us, is how good overall a player is (considering all aspects of their play), where we don't really have an adequate system of doing that right now.  I think including as much of the data that's tracked on a player as we can is important.  Including the H rating and the GR and the CP and the team and tourney information.  

Also, weighting the importance of that data into the score seems like a non-argument, as the purpose of the aggregate score is to give a big picture representation of all the individual strengths, not to tell us which one is most important.  Because in different situations, different info is going to be important to players and those that look at their scores. And we track that now fairly effectively.

Mad Bomber wrote: I ' m with smoke on this one. I play ALL boards in an attempt to collect cp points. I lose global ranking because most boards have a learning curb. Cp points give me something to shot for. Without them being what they are I see less variety being played. I have points on 73 different boards......variety. I am encouraged to play all types not just two or three boards like most players. Every board is equally important is it not? We want map makers to push the boundaries. I could play 16 16 player games, on the same map, win twelve, and what.....be the greatest? Sounds weak......cp points should be worth more than global....if it is given a higher percentage in the aggregate then I'll give my surf bum approval.

+1  When I first started I wondered why it was CP instead of GR that determined your shown rank.  It was only after playing awhile that I understood and grew to like it. Your CP score IS the score of a well rounded player. It pushed me to start playing more of a variety of maps.  And, it forced me to learn new skills and styles because every time you play a new map you need to overcome the learning curve to start winning. And, if there are others like this pushes variety, which raises the overall quality of players and which increases the number of maps played, which encourages designers, which...

I'm not opposed to an aggregate, but like MB says CP should be the lion share. 

berickf wrote:

Squint,

I think the whole point of an aggregate is to encourage playing all types of games, so, inclusion of as much legitimate aspects as possible is the key.  So I'll reiterate a vote for the inclusion of team ranking and tournament ranking. Possibly also team-tournament ranking and a roving h ranking too!...  Can we see how your spreadsheet would look if it included GR, CP, Team and Tourney?

Thanks,

Erick

I would say beware of unintended consequences of well intentioned policy changes. 

Team Play:

I love team play, especially A&A stye boards, and will accept any private invite from decent players any day, but I play a lot fewer public team games, just because I keep getting burned by noob teammates. My team ranking is 1067.  Do you think this a fair reflection of my ability as a player compared to my other numbers?  Or, even my qualities as a teammate?  Ask around. 

Tourney Play:

Tourneys already have a clear and high stakes badge of honor.  For those not in the running a number of players use tourneys to practice new strategies or learn new boards without it affecting the numbers people truly look at.  Why mess with this dynamic?

itsnotatumor wrote:

Mad Bomber wrote: I ' m with smoke on this one. I play ALL boards in an attempt to collect cp points. I lose global ranking because most boards have a learning curb. Cp points give me something to shot for. Without them being what they are I see less variety being played. I have points on 73 different boards......variety. I am encouraged to play all types not just two or three boards like most players. Every board is equally important is it not? We want map makers to push the boundaries. I could play 16 16 player games, on the same map, win twelve, and what.....be the greatest? Sounds weak......cp points should be worth more than global....if it is given a higher percentage in the aggregate then I'll give my surf bum approval.

+1  When I first started I wondered why it was CP instead of GR that determined your shown rank.  It was only after playing awhile that I understood and grew to like it. Your CP score IS the score of a well rounded player. It pushed me to start playing more of a variety of maps.  And, it forced me to learn new skills and styles because every time you play a new map you need to overcome the learning curve to start winning. And, if there are others like this pushes variety, which raises the overall quality of players and which increases the number of maps played, which encourages designers, which...

I'm not opposed to an aggregate, but like MB says CP should be the lion share. 

I don't mind weighting at all... But "lions share"... I think that that would completely defeat the purpose of an aggregate.  If I wanted to see a CP ranking... I'd look at the CP ranking.  No one rank should influence an aggregate such that the aggregate rank mimics that rank, hence, a "lions share" can not be given to any of the aggregate components.  If the aggregate is done appropriately it should reward players with all around prowess in all areas of the game and some players who are not even top 20 in either CP or GR should be able to sneak into the top 20 of the aggregate based on having a decent CP and/or GR coupled with their strong team, tourney, team-tourney, roving h-ranking etc.  Because of its inclusiveness an aggregate should be the most difficult of all ranks to attain as one could not just focus on any one thing to top it.  But, first of all, it needs to stop being feared!  It would not erode the importance of CP or any other rank, it would just be another way of compiling a players strengths and abilities into an all-inclusive rank.

itsnotatumor wrote:

berickf wrote:

Squint,

I think the whole point of an aggregate is to encourage playing all types of games, so, inclusion of as much legitimate aspects as possible is the key.  So I'll reiterate a vote for the inclusion of team ranking and tournament ranking. Possibly also team-tournament ranking and a roving h ranking too!...  Can we see how your spreadsheet would look if it included GR, CP, Team and Tourney?

Thanks,

Erick

I would say beware of unintended consequences of well intentioned policy changes. 

Team Play:

I love team play, especially A&A stye boards, and will accept any private invite from decent players any day, but I play a lot fewer public team games, just because I keep getting burned by noob teammates. My team ranking is 1067.  Do you think this a fair reflection of my ability as a player compared to my other numbers?  Or, even my qualities as a teammate?  Ask around. 

Tourney Play:

Tourneys already have a clear and high stakes badge of honor.  For those not in the running a number of players use tourneys to practice new strategies or learn new boards without it affecting the numbers people truly look at.  Why mess with this dynamic?

That is the difficulty in attaining the top of an aggregate!  Anyways, for those not interested in it, they can still focus on their CP, GR, Achievements, on a board ranking or whatever floats their boat!  You've pretty much hit the nail on the head though as the aggregate should be really hard to be competitive in for so many reasons!

Anyway, it would not be there to replace any of these other ranks which would still all be their own "badges of honor", but, it would be a particularly difficult one to attain a top rank in!

SquintGnome wrote:

Interesting idea.  Is Mad Bomber missing though (second in CPs currently)?

I don't mind weighting at all... But "lions share"... I think that that would completely defeat the purpose of an aggregate.  If I wanted to see a CP ranking... I'd look at the CP ranking.  No one rank should influence an aggregate such that the aggregate rank mimics that rank, hence, a "lions share" can not be given to any of the aggregate components.  If the aggregate is done appropriately it should reward players with all around prowess in all areas of the game and some players who are not even top 20 in either CP or GR should be able to sneak into the top 20 of the aggregate based on having a decent CP and/or GR coupled with their strong team, tourney, team-tourney, roving h-ranking etc.  Because of its inclusiveness an aggregate should be the most difficult of all ranks to attain as one could not just focus on any one thing to top it.  But, first of all, it needs to stop being feared!  It would not erode the importance of CP or any other rank, it would just be another way of compiling a players strengths and abilities into an all-inclusive rank.

+1

ratsy wrote:

I don't mind weighting at all... But "lions share"... I think that that would completely defeat the purpose of an aggregate.  If I wanted to see a CP ranking... I'd look at the CP ranking.  No one rank should influence an aggregate such that the aggregate rank mimics that rank, hence, a "lions share" can not be given to any of the aggregate components.  If the aggregate is done appropriately it should reward players with all around prowess in all areas of the game and some players who are not even top 20 in either CP or GR should be able to sneak into the top 20 of the aggregate based on having a decent CP and/or GR coupled with their strong team, tourney, team-tourney, roving h-ranking etc.  Because of its inclusiveness an aggregate should be the most difficult of all ranks to attain as one could not just focus on any one thing to top it.  But, first of all, it needs to stop being feared!  It would not erode the importance of CP or any other rank, it would just be another way of compiling a players strengths and abilities into an all-inclusive rank.

+1

But at the same time, I don't think someone who only plays WGWF  should be able to take a top spot in the cumulative rankings, so you can't rank all the various GR at the same level as CP.

Ozyman wrote:

ratsy wrote:

I don't mind weighting at all... But "lions share"... I think that that would completely defeat the purpose of an aggregate.  If I wanted to see a CP ranking... I'd look at the CP ranking.  No one rank should influence an aggregate such that the aggregate rank mimics that rank, hence, a "lions share" can not be given to any of the aggregate components.  If the aggregate is done appropriately it should reward players with all around prowess in all areas of the game and some players who are not even top 20 in either CP or GR should be able to sneak into the top 20 of the aggregate based on having a decent CP and/or GR coupled with their strong team, tourney, team-tourney, roving h-ranking etc.  Because of its inclusiveness an aggregate should be the most difficult of all ranks to attain as one could not just focus on any one thing to top it.  But, first of all, it needs to stop being feared!  It would not erode the importance of CP or any other rank, it would just be another way of compiling a players strengths and abilities into an all-inclusive rank.

+1

 

But at the same time, I don't think someone who only plays WGWF  should be able to take a top spot in the cumulative rankings, so you can't rank all the various GR at the same level as CP.

Even if all composite ranks were exactly equal in an aggregate and CP was only worth roughly 15-25% (depending on how many ranks were included - Although, I would not even propose equal weigh), even that would still be enough such that playing on only one board would still never let anyone top an aggregate.  So, to me, that threat, and the perception of it even being a threat, is largely moot.  The aggregate would still reward diversity in all styles of play and the more boards the better.

If someon only played the one board, and were the absoulte best at it, they would still only be able to achieve like 75% of a cumulative rating, because at least some of the rest of it would come from other places.  

Like flunking an exam and acing all the rest. You can only get a max total of 85% if the flunk was worth 15%. 

Hey Cona,

Yes, Mad Bomber was left out because for my sample I only took the top 60 based on GR for the demonstration.  MB is second in CP but lower than 60 in GR so he was not included in my list (sorry MB).  If this was done for real all the players would be included and MB would prolly be in the top 10. 

Well, let's talk some example numbers:

Player A - 3000 GR,   3000 TournamentGR,  3000 TeamGR, 20 CP.

Player B - 2000 GR,   2000 TournamentGR,  2000 Team GR, 500 CP

Player D - 2430 GR, 2430 TournamentGR 2430 TeamGR, 300 CP

Player D = (2430/3000*3 + 300/500)/4 = .7575

I guess this is just personal bias, but I'd rather see players B,C,&D ranked above player A.

Cona Chris wrote:

Might be a bit late with this point, but right now the proposed "super ranking" has 4 categories: CP, GR, H-score, and Tournament Ranking. 

It is possible to gain a very high rating in 3 out of the 4 categories (GR, Tournament Ranking and H-score) without playing a lot of different boards.  I would think  the weight of CPs should be higher than the other categories just because you have to play many boards to get somewhere on that stat (as opposed to specializing in a few boards - which I tend to do).

CC said it well in post #61 of this thread, which is why I would be in favor of CPs getting a nice weight in an aggregate ranking if we find one that works.

Yertle wrote:

Cona Chris wrote:

Might be a bit late with this point, but right now the proposed "super ranking" has 4 categories: CP, GR, H-score, and Tournament Ranking. 

It is possible to gain a very high rating in 3 out of the 4 categories (GR, Tournament Ranking and H-score) without playing a lot of different boards.  I would think  the weight of CPs should be higher than the other categories just because you have to play many boards to get somewhere on that stat (as opposed to specializing in a few boards - which I tend to do).

CC said it well in post #61 of this thread, which is why I would be in favor of CPs getting a nice weight in an aggregate ranking if we find one that works.

Yertle, look at ratsy's post 162.  This happened to me in real life and I wholeheartedly agree with it.  In highschool, I never did homework but was really good at math.  Unfortunately, for me, my grade 12 AP math teacher decided he'd check our notebooks on a weekly basis to make sure we were doing our homework and made that worth 25% of our final mark.  I was a stubborn guy back then and just flatly didn't do a bit of homework.  At the end of the year I scored 73% overall.  Not even remotely close to head of the class.  When I went to university I was questioned on that mark as the math course I wanted to take had higher requirements.  Being stubborn I sought out the professor of the course that they were trying to deny me and told her that I wouldn't disappoint.   After she questioned me she gave me a special exemption to take her course.  University had zero weight given to homework and I scored 98%, highest in the class.

So, despite my mathematical abilities, they alone couldn't save me from a category I had no interest in participating in!  An aggregate would work the same way by placing a ceiling for non participation or a poor showing in any composite of the aggregate.