how about a logarithmic scale for the auto-scaling as proposed by AttilaTheHun.  Something like:

That's cool.  I like logarithms.

What does that do for strictly duel maps where it takes more plays to move up in the GR? 

We know one of the flaws of the current system is that duel maps don't give much "bang for the buck" GR/CP wise and I'd like to see us not marginalize them more -

I like logarithms too, but they are very harsh on the top end.  To mediate I'd go with a Top Rank CP scale that scales differently with a higher max.

I dunno, counting private games WGWF might already have over a million games played on it.  That would mean top place would be worth 320CP?  Seems a bit much to me.

Even if we don't count private games WGWF is currenty around 135k, with wargear growing as is, it could still be up to the 320CP level in a few years.  Just seems a bit much to me.  Maybe make the 160CP level a cap, so that no matter how many games are played you don't get above that?

Just shift things..

# of plays           Top Rank CP      Min GR for top rank

0-10                          0                         NA

10-100                      5                        1500
100-1000                10                        1750
1000-10000            20                        2000
10000-100000        40                        2250
100000-1000000    80                        2500 

1000000+             160                        2750

I think I prefer it pre-shift, but just make the 100000-1000000 category 100000->infinity.

Getting 900 public games on a map is fairly significant, so I think the 100-1000 category should match the current 20CP.

Does the play count on the board explorer show the # of private games?

If not, it'd be no good to base a calculation off it.  The calc. should be based on information availableto the player. 

I think it's public games only, but I have no idea & I guess it makes sense to base these rankings values on # of public games.

ratsy wrote:

Does the play count on the board explorer show the # of private games?

The number on the About I assume includes Private games as if you go to the Games List there is X number less than that number...although there is also a different number that is present from the Charts page...soooooo...

Yertle wrote:

Hmmmm, I'm not sure I agree with all this as I think it will grow the gap between players rather than close it or truly better define it.  I think the reason that a lot of the current CP chasers don't have a score much above 1500 is due to the fact that there is nothing great to obtain (unless they have to overtake a spot), not because they are not willing to grind it out to 2000-2500+.  So I could see this as giving players a higher goal to shoot for (which is a good thing), but giving the top players a chance to get 30+ more medals will grow the gap to both take out a top player on a board and also the then cumulative CP counts.  I'd much rather have a goal of hitting 1550 to grab 20 CPs and drop someone in the Rankings down rather than trying to hit 2500+ to grab 50 and drop the person.  I could see this as forcing even more ("bad/unpopular") boards to be played for high score counts, which is not a bad thing either but was brought up as a potential negative to CP grabbers play.

Soooo, what I would look at proposing is possibly a "bonus" system at one or more levels in which those CPs are guaranteed, which would be in addition to the current system.  So anyone that hits 1750+ gets 5 CPs (while maintaining 1750+), 2000+ gets 8, 2500+ gets 12 (I just pulled those numbers out of the air) in addition to the 20 CPs for 1500 and #1.  I see this as promoting some set goals with a guaranteed payout along with going beyond the current 1500 mark.

 

Babba should correct me if I'm wrong, but the problem he brought up about the flaw in the system is that someone with just a few wins on a whole bunch of less played boards can get a really high rank. Where as another person who manages to rack up serious wins on a few boards maxes out at  20 per board even if they had to win a lot more games to do it.   CK 66's comparison of Cona vs Toto was an amazing example.

If people are playing any board enough to rack up the kind of wins necessary for those number it means the board has become popular/arguably more competitive, but they're only getting rewarded the same as someone with a few wins on an uncompetitive map.  Just tossing them a few more points doesn't address that issue. 

On the other hand if this is just an issue of a one board dynamo.  This person might have a stellar GR, but is going virtually unrecognized in the CP, which clearer than ever determines rank. 

Raising the caps from the arbitrarily preset level would address both issues, including the gap between CP and GR that some people want to bridge with a universal number anyway.  But, do it in a way that I'm sure is much simpler for Tom to do than completely restructuring everything.  The site has clearly grown past the original caps, so why not up them?

Any numbers people wanna crunch the top 10 CP and top 10 GR to see how things would change?

Babbalouie wrote:

Is this site equivalent to a military dictatorship or is it a democracy? If it is democratic then the privates are the clear cut majority by far and should have the final say. I only see "CP" Generals doing all the posting and decision making keeping their flawed coveted "Championship Points" in mind. Everyone needs to think out of the box and come up with a totally new ranking system to either replace what's in place or to be kept as a totally separate ranking that can be compared to rankings that are currently in place. 

I think one thing you may be missing is the hundred pages of discussion spread over dozens of threads about the flaws of each of the different systems.  There have been dozens upon dozens of systems suggested and debated. Some incremental in nature and others way outside the box. Not too mention people arguing all the different ways to game each of them. Feel free to do a search and take a look.

One of the things that has a plurality of support is the idea that someone who can master many different boards with completely different strategies is arguably better skilled than a person who figures out one strategy for one map and just repeats it ad nauseum. Not that being able to do this among tough competition doesn't have value. This does not have complete consensus, but it is a clear majority. 

So, in this thread we are arguing about the best way to incrementally improve the system that while flawed is arguably the most representative we have of this value.  Make sense? 

itsnotatumor wrote:

One of the things that has a plurality of support is the idea that someone who can master many different boards with completely different strategies is arguably better skilled than a person who figures out one strategy for one map and just repeats it ad nauseum. Not that being able to do this among tough competition doesn't have value. This does not have complete consensus, but it is a clear majority. 

Playing a board in team mode versus standard requires "completely different strategies" and those who are successful at seeing those differences are "better skilled than the person who" only figures out the standard strategy... Yet this is continually downplayed, discarded and ignored from being the reality that it is.  The exact same argument you are making for CP holds true for team play. 

For example, in playing CW the tendency for standard has been to city grab, but, in 2v2 CW the necessity is to ignore cities and focus on one's opponents from the get go, to differentiate targets and to nitpick their territory count bonus.  The fleets become an entirely new weapon because by taking them you can force your opponents into wasting their few precious troops against neutral to break your bonus.  By coaching my teammates to see the same way I went on an approximate 35+ game winning streak for 2v2 CW (more if I include touranment games) without even a sniff of a challenge, and this was against many competent teams who knew each other and were not dropping.  Then, in a tournament, terriblethunderlizards figured out my strategy, played it to perfection, and with his team going first had the slight advantage and beat my team. Seen here: http://www.wargear.net/games/view/188858. ; These days many have grasped this team strategy for CW of the back of my work.  Seeing that ttl had the where-with-all to grasp team strategy I invited him to this: http://www.wargear.net/games/join/210963 game.  Since then I have had the opportunity to tweak and perfect strategies for 3v3's, which are similar to 2v2 but more intense because you have less troops and are required to take more territories to do the first territorial bump, as well as 3v3v3's, 3v3v3v3's and 3v3v3v3v3's.  At first my record wasn't up to expectations for 3v3v3v3v3's, especially and 3v3v3v3's slightly, but, after a few strategy tweaks, I think I've got them down now.  I recently tried a 4v4v4v4, which strategically I'd place somewhere between 3v3v3v3 strategy and 3v3v3 strategy.  For CP, however, most watch histories and copy the best player strategies for that board whereas for team games there are very few past histories to look at that really utilize refined team strategies.  I have to look at a board and devise my own strategies afresh and without the crutch of copying past strategies.

I think it's a travesty how the whole "bad teammate" excuse is continually employed to downplay the work that actually goes into a good team score.  Shame on you all for oversimplifying and ignoring that to be at the top of that ranking actually requires individual team skills and a lot of thinking, communication and strategic work.

Anyway, I suggested a way of eliminating the "bad teammate" fear all together in the original CP/GR aggregate thread so that we can hopefully stop using that excuse and take responsibility for our own individual team play skills and the results that they bring us in the team ranking. ;-)

Cheers,

Erick

@berickf, I should think that you know what you're talking about seeing as you are the #1 team player on this site.  So I have a question for you..

Assuming that winning at team play requires a set of skills equal to if not more nuanced and sophisticated than regular play, would you not concede that the ability to win in regular play on many boards requiring a "completely different strategies" is perhaps more difficult than winning at team play on just one board?  My point is that the current team play stat does not reward winning team play over a multitude of boards.  Theoretically a team can specialize on one board and 'game' the stat.  We don't have a Team Play Championship Point System.

Don't get me wrong, I think Team Play and Tournament play deserve full status and recognition both determining player Ranks as well as the proposed Aggregate, but the above reasoning is why I'm currently more of a fan of a "Pick 2" or even "Pick 3" Ranking system, and a "Use all 4" Aggregate.

And just because I mentioned it - What do folks think of having separate Teamplay (and even Tournament) CP stats?  Then you could put an Aggregate proposal on the table that would be hard to argue against - the mean of TMCP, TNCP and STandardCP.

M57 wrote:

@berickf, I should think that you know what you're talking about seeing as you are the #1 team player on this site.  So I have a question for you..

Assuming that winning at team play requires a set of skills equal to if not more nuanced and sophisticated than regular play, would you not concede that the ability to win in regular play on many boards requiring a "completely different strategies" is perhaps more difficult than winning at team play on just one board?  My point is that the current team play stat does not reward winning team play over a multitude of boards.  Theoretically a team can specialize on one board and 'game' the stat.  We don't have a Team Play Championship Point System.

Don't get me wrong, I think Team Play and Tournament play deserve full status and recognition both determining player Ranks as well as the proposed Aggregate, but the above reasoning is why I'm currently more of a fan of a "Pick 2" or even "Pick 3" Ranking system, and a "Use all 4" Aggregate.

And just because I mentioned it - What do folks think of having separate Teamplay (and even Tournament) CP stats?  Then you could put an Aggregate proposal on the table that would be hard to argue against - the mean of TMCP, TNCP and STandardCP.

 

Like all boards, standard or team play, winning is a combination of strategy and luck.  First of all, however, while I gave CW as an example, I also have very good teamplay strategy for multiple settings for Antastic, Invention and CC,  So, I have not just limited myself to CW.  I will admit I prefer certain boards, usually the popular ones. (they are popular for a reason, I guess!).  As there are many boards out there though, there is a lot of room to devise new strategies exclusive to team play and a team CP would most definitely encourage me to devise new team strat for other boards.  when watching the histories of my own antastic team games I still find the majority of my opponents to be missing a complete strategy there so I could probably take that one for a multi game win streak if I put myself to it.  CC, being so popular, already has a multitude of players who already grasp and posses solid individual team play skills on that board, but, I still find great success there too.  Being a bit new to invention I'm still working out the best team styles.  I'd be all for a team CP though.  The more ways we can look at things and encourage more varieties of game-play, the better.  I also actually like looking at a board and devising new ways to dominate it be it through standard or team play and to have some more CP's to go with the multitude of GR's could only make my final goal of an aggregate all that much better!  To tell you the truth, however, I think the rank that might benefit the most from having a CP to go along with the GR is not the team rank, but the tournament rank.  The tournament rank is the closest we have to one board specialists gaming the stat, not team.

So to recap, team CP - yes, tourney CP - yes, team-tourney CP - yes.  Then they could all be normalized through that process that you described to its counterpart so that the team CP would max out the same as team GR, the tourney CP would max out at the same as the tourney GR, etc.  Add up the eight, take the average, bingo bango bongo... Very nice aggregate we'd have there!

berickf wrote:

So to recap, team CP - yes, tourney CP - yes, team-tourney CP - yes.  Then they could all be normalized through that process that you described to its counterpart so that the team CP would max out the same as team GR, the tourney CP would max out at the same as the tourney GR, etc.  Add up the eight, take the average, bingo bango bongo... Very nice aggregate we'd have there!

I too like this idea..  but we're about to hijack the thread - I will cut and paste this to the aggregate thread..

To redirect:

The current ideas include a basic scale expansion like:

• 2500+ score - 50 Championship Points
• 2400+ score - 45 Championship Points
• 2300+ score - 40 Championship Points
• 2200+ score - 36 Championship Points
• 2100+ score - 33 Championship Points
• 2000+ score - 30 Championship Points
• 1900+ score - 27 Championship Points
• 1800+ score - 24 Championship Points
• 1700+ score - 21 Championship Points
• 1600+ score - 18 Championship Points
• 1500+ score - 15 Championship Points
• 1450+ score - 13 Championship Points
• 1400+ score - 11 Championship Points
• 1350+ score - 9 Championship Points
• 1300+ score - 7 Championship Points
• 1250+ score - 5 Championship Points
• 1200+ score - 4 Championship Points
• 1150+ score - 3 Championship Points
• 1100+ score - 2 Championship Points
• 1050+ score - 1 Championship Points

A system for factoring in difficulty, such as:

CP x Difficulty factor x Popularity factor

And a logarithmic scale :

# of plays           Top Rank CP      Min GR for top rank

0-10                          0                         NA

10-100                      5                        1500
100-1000                10                        1750
1000-10000            20                        2000
10000-100000        40                        2250
100000-1000000    80                        2500 

1000000+             160                        2750

Thoughts? Votes for one or another?

I do not like the CP where all boards are 2500 down to 1500 - I don't think this fixes the issue we are trying to solve.

The difficulty factor would be very subjective - and plus some boards have scenarios that are very different in skill.  For example, the Invention map is a totally different game with Barbarians versus the "normal" 4-player start.

I like the idea of updated CP based on popularity (whoever leads WGWF and other popular boards should get more CPs than 20 IMO), but would caution against just the number of games being used, maybe the sum of the number of players in each game?  Afterall 1,000 games on a dual board is a lot different than 1,000 games with 8 players on average.

Cona Chris wrote:

The difficulty factor would be very subjective - and plus some boards have scenarios that are very different in skill.  For example, the Invention map is a totally different game with Barbarians versus the "normal" 4-player start.

The only way I could see 'difficulty' being factored in, is if there was a way for players to rate difficulty of a board the same as they can rate the quality of the board.  Otherwise it is too subjective. 

As for the scenarios, IMO, we should have "major" and "minor" scenarios.  Minor scenarios play substantially the same, but are used to provide some options to the players like different setup for various # of players, or changes to fortify, etc.     Major scenarios introduce drastically different gameplay, and should be treated as separate boards for most purposes, and are only scenarios for organizational purposes.

Ozyman wrote: Minor scenarios play substantially the same, but are used to provide some options to the players like different setup for various # of players, or changes to fortify, etc.     Major scenarios introduce drastically different gameplay, and should be treated as separate boards for most purposes, and are only scenarios for organizational purposes.

If Major Scenarios are drastically different then perhaps they should just be separate Boards...although I'm more of a fan of even Major Scenarios still simply being a Scenario than breaking out as Minor/Major or another Board. (Not trying to hijack the thread, as I think this is a part of the discussion but could go to far away easily.)

Yeah - I guess that would be the other way to do it, but to take Cona Chris's example - would the review board really want to see the Barbarian's Invention split into a separate board from regular Invention.  It just seems confusing and like it would clutter the board list more.

I don't know - I guess it's not really a big problem.