In your opinion, what do you think is more prestigious Global Ranking Score or Championship Points?

Please provide a reason with your answer.

Tough call.  In some ways very high Championship Points is more impressive than Global Ranking, because it is possible to get a high GR from just playing a single board, but you are limited to 20 CP from each board, so to get into the top ranks of CP you need to play lots of boards.

This has been discussed before, and my answer is still and will always be :

 we badly need an overall site ranking.

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1854p1/Debate:_Board_Championship_and_Global_Ranking

Reading again the thread I posted, I realize it was 1 year ago. So I guess it could be good to have this debate again, and may be we will reach a consensus this time.

Championship points generally represent experience across all of the boards on the site.  CP score is fairly stable, and tends to grow steadily as a player gets better, plays more maps, and plays more games on each map.

Global ranking generally represents how well you are doing compared to how well you are expected to do at a moment in time.  Global ranking fluctuates based on whether you are on a winning or losing streak, but generally it fluctuates around a value that I would call your "Expected Score."

Ideally, GR is a measure of pure Risk skill, while CP measures depth of experience.  When a new player comes to Wargear, their GR will fairly quickly rise to match their skill level.  Once they reach their "Expected Score", their GR will rise and fall according to their winning and losing streaks, but the average of their GR shows how well they play vs other players.  Meanwhile, if they are good and play a variety of maps, they will slowly but steadily accumulate CP as they work their way up in the individual map rankings.

Unfortunately, in practice it is fairly easy to "game" your GR score.  If you look at the top GR players, you will notice that some of them have a system that they use to keep their GR high.  First they play lots of lightning games, which are a source of cheap GR.  Second they play "tricky" maps (often simulgear) for which they have figured out a winning strategy.  Third, they play maps that they can win quickly, and they play them a LOT.  Two player lightning A&A games are a prime example of how to work the GR system.

You can also argue that top CP players also "game" their CP score.  I'll admit that I have a system.  When a new map comes out, I learn it quickly.  Then, while the average player is still figuring out the map, I am winning most of my games against them.  Once my score is high and the play is more competitive, I taper off, and learn a new board.  I tend to play games with 5-8 players; these games are not so big that my skill level can be easily negated by starting luck and position, but still give enough points to be worth the effort.  I also play quite a bit of head to head simulgear and strategy maps, but these do not tend to have much impact on CP.

Unfortunately there is really no way to combine these two scores.  They represent two very different attributes of a player, and generally players do not agree on their relative worth.

As mentioned above/before, both GR an CP aren't perfect, and both can be gamed.

However, because CPs require you to play a lot more than one map in order to have a lot, I would say that those are more prestigious. 

GR can be a bit limited because on certain boards, luck is a bigger factor and so there is always a limit as to how high it can be for any given board.  Some boards (like Wargear Warfare) , if you play them a lot, make it much harder to maintain a high GR than others that involve more skill.

BlackDog wrote:

Championship points generally represent experience across all of the boards on the site.  CP score is fairly stable, and tends to grow steadily as a player gets better, plays more maps, and plays more games on each map.

+1 - I definitely give more respect to CP rather than GR

BlackDog wrote:

"Ideally, GR is a measure of pure Risk skill, while CP measures depth of experience."                 (For some reason it wouldn't let me type outside the box when I tried to quote it)

I would say this is true.  I definitely look at both when I'm seeing how powerful a player is.  CPs really do take a long time to build up, so I can also use that to measure how active players have been since they joined.

 I've heard two downsides to GR that I think are exaggerated. One is that people who shoot for a high GR troll one map continuously.  The other is that they stick to lightening games, because I guess that makes the win easier.  

Looking at the top GR players game list  and scrolling through quite a few pages I see that there is more of a trend to play one map continuously, for a little while, and then switching to a completely different map and doing the same.  This strategy makes since to me and seems like a fun way to play the site in general.  To get a real high GR you really do need that occasional large player game boost that took an incredible amount of endurance and intuition.

 I would agree that there is a smaller percentage of power players in realtime games, but I don't think people play them to rake in amateurs.  Also, good luck trying to fill a lightening game that has a tricky concept.  Most people are only going to join a realtime game if they have a good comprehension of the map.  I think people play realtime games, because that is what they felt would be enjoyable to do in that time period.  I love playing risk games from start to finish in a small period of time.

People who have a really high GR are likely to also have a really high CPs, like Toto for example.  I know it may seem like my views are skewed in favor of GR, but I actually haven't decided for myself which  is more prestigious. That's why I created this thread.  I have tons of respect for the amount of work a power player has to put in to get a large collection of CPs.  I think Blackdog deserves a dam lifetime achievement award for the quantity he has.

Wargear seems to give a lot more respect to CPs, because that is what decides your rank under your avatar.  I agree with Toto that the rank should be computed from more variables.  

BlackDog wrote: "Ideally, GR is a measure of pure Risk skill, while CP measures depth of experience."  (For some reason it wouldn't let me type outside the box when I tried to quote it)

I would say this is true.  I definitely look at both when I'm seeing how powerful a player is.  CPs really do take a long time to build up, so I can also use that to measure how active players have been since they joined.

 I've heard two downsides to GR that I think are exaggerated. One is that people who shoot for a high GR troll one map continuously.  The other is that they stick to lightening games, because I guess that makes the win easier.  

Looking at the top GR players game list and scrolling through quite a few pages I see that there is more of a trend to play one map continuously, for a little while, and then they switch to a completely different map and do the same.  This strategy makes since to me and seems like a fun way to play the site in general.  To get a real high GR you really do need that occasional large player game boost that took an incredible amount of endurance and intuition.

 I would agree that there is a smaller percentage of power players in realtime games, but I don't think people play them to rake in amateurs.  Also, good luck trying to fill a lightening game that has a tricky concept.  Most people are only going to join a realtime game if they have a good comprehension of the map.  I think people play realtime games, because that is what they felt would be enjoyable to do in that time period.  I love playing risk games from start to finish in a small period of time. Besides, in the top GR players game list there was never an overwhelming amount of these games.

People who have a really high GR are likely to also have a really high CPs, like Toto for example.  I know it may seem like my views are skewed in favor of GR, but I actually haven't decided for myself which  is more prestigious. That's why I created this thread.  I have tons of respect for the amount of work a power player has to put in to get a large collection of CPs.  I think Blackdog deserves a dam lifetime achievement award for the quantity he has.

Lastly, Wargear seems to give a lot more respect to CPs, because that is what decides your rank under your avatar.  I agree with Toto that the rank should be computed from more variables.  

CPs in my opinion still due to the force of battling on more maps along with the need to actually do some battling and possibly maintain a certain score or come back to a map to obtain the most CPs.

I like GR in that newer players can contend quicker/earlier, and it has weight, but I pay less attention to that score.

Overall, I'd still love to see an Achievement system and if a big enough system with a wide range of Achievements was put in place I could see myself potentially favoring that pretty high too.

so noone looks at H-rating then?

When I say that the rank should be computed from more variables, H- rating is definitely included in that.

@ WT : As far as I am concerned, I pay very little attention to H-rating because it doesn't take into account the strenght of opponents. Playing only against newbies will get you a high H% with little merit. Also, H% is so easy to game as you can get an 100.00% by playing only 1 game and winning it.

@ 3ET : Yes, I think an overall site ranking should include the H% among all the other rankings.

Toto wrote:

@ WT : As far as I am concerned, I pay very little attention to H-rating because it doesn't take into account the strenght of opponents. Playing only against newbies will get you a high H% with little merit. Also, H% is so easy to game as you can get an 100.00% by playing only 1 game and winning it.

I don't see why it wouldn't be just as true that you can get a higher Global Rating by playing only newbies.

Yes, H ratings don't mean much when a player has only played a few games.  However, once a player has played 50+ games, I tend to regard H-Ratings quite highly.  They tend to be very stable -- unlike Global Ratings, which can fluctuate wildly.

Ultimately, all of the current systems have their strengths and weaknesses.  A composite system would be cool, but even with a composite, there is bound to be weakness.  Just for starters, there's subjectivity regarding how to go about weighting its components.

M57 wrote:

Toto wrote:

@ WT : As far as I am concerned, I pay very little attention to H-rating because it doesn't take into account the strenght of opponents. Playing only against newbies will get you a high H% with little merit. Also, H% is so easy to game as you can get an 100.00% by playing only 1 game and winning it.

I don't see why it wouldn't be just as true that you can get a higher Global Rating by playing only newbies...

Well, I should have said newbies and even worse, very weak players (with a GR of 500 for example). The difference is that your GR will not keep growing as the point calculation system will make your GR go down sharply for every defeat (up to 100 points) while you will earn almost nothing (as low as 3 or 4 points) when you win. As I mainly care about my GR, I do avoid playing players under 900 GR, as bad beats happen frequently mainly because of bad luck.

But you knew all that ;)

I agree with Toto, I think there is an incorrect assumption that is it easy to 'farm' points from poor players to get high rankings.  Once you get past about 1800 it is difficult to gain points quickly.  No matter how different the skill level is, luck will cause losses, and when you win 10 points and lose 40 you need an 80% H-rate to break even.

3ET:

Lastly, Wargear seems to give a lot more respect to CPs, because that is what decides your rank under your avatar.  I agree with Toto that the rank should be computed from more variables. 

How about until we get a comprehensive achievement system, players can choose what ranking they want under their avatar.  So someone who plays a ton of team tournaments, and is really good at that, can be proud of their niche and get a "Team Tournaments: #1"

By default wargear could just choose a players highest ranking in any of the major categories (H-rating, GR, CP, Team Games, Tournaments, Team Tournaments), but maybe let a player choose the category they want displayed also.

M57:

I tend to regard H-Ratings quite highly.  They tend to be very stable -- unlike Global Ratings, which can fluctuate wildly.

Is this true?  It seems a run of luck would affect H-ratings & GR similarly.

SquintGnome wrote:

I agree with Toto, I think there is an incorrect assumption that is it easy to 'farm' points from poor players to get high rankings.  Once you get past about 1800 it is difficult to gain points quickly.  No matter how different the skill level is, luck will cause losses, and when you win 10 points and lose 40 you need an 80% H-rate to break even.

A corollary to that might be that best way for a 2000 kind of player to get to 2500 or higher is to play good players.  ..and what's wrong with that?

Toto's point about sub-1000 players does however apply to H-Ratings, and that is is what intrigues me.  I suppose H-Ratings can be gamed in this way, but I think it would be very difficult to manage, and it would tend to negatively impact on other ratings for the very reason that SquintGnome describes above.  In the aggregate, it doesn't really change my opinion that H-Ratings are a very good indicator of ability. 

I can't take any of them seriously, at least as measures of skill. H-Ratings are a win rate that don't take into account opponent skill. CPs are something like a lifetime achievement score. Most high CP players are highly skilled in multiple game types, but longevity and effort trump skill. The problem with GR is that different boards lend themselves to different winning efficiencies. Mine rises noticeably when I choose certain types of games over others.

And really, each game on the site is different. Does it actually make sense to produce one single composite number that ranks individuals playing games as diverse as WGWF, Octagons, For the Love of Smurfs, A&A, and Dejeweled?

And don't get me started on the ranking formula :)

You know what Hugh, It seems that I can fairly reliably guess that when I play against some of you guys in the top 10, or even top 50 I get creamed pretty regularily.... (I mean I think I'm about to win a game against snoocie Booches for the first time in history)... And it's just not as consistent with players that have lower scores. 

So yes, the games are very diverse, but I think the really high score shows a level of engagement and probably an amount of caring put into the games.  If Toto Loses one, I'm sure he feels the loss more heavily that I do, because he really cares about his score.