I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before - I like the idea of the 4 ranks, however I think a player's overall rank should simply be the highest of the four - with the rank of Full General only going to one player in each category, and the Rank of 5 Star General only going to Highest GR ranking General.

I wanna chime in again on tournament team games - I think if we expand the ranking system, then let's include all the games.

Cona Chris wrote:

I wanna chime in again on tournament team games - I think if we expand the ranking system, then let's include all the games.

+1  That would make it a 5 Rank system if acceptable.

M57 wrote:

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before - I like the idea of the 4 ranks, however I think a player's overall rank should simply be the highest of the four - with the rank of Full General only going to one player in each category, and the Rank of 5 Star General only going to Highest GR ranking General.

I think this is a good way to do it. 

This does nothing to solve any problems with GR or CP in general, but it seems a fairer way to display a players rank.

Amidon37 wrote:

it's not bad but I do agree with itsnot "I'm not necessarily against it, but no point in having a fancy roof if the walls are no good..."

In particular I think the GR score has got to go away as a global score.  Since GR is fixed if you don't play any games Falker is going to be really hard to move off the top here.

And of the other 3 ranking lists "tourney score" and "team score" are also a form of global GR.  I just don't think that works good as a way of measuring skill across different boards.  Too easy to manipulate by specializing.

Anyone who hasn't played in 6 months should be "deactivated" and removed from the rankings. If they come back then they can be reactivated to where they were.

Amidon37 wrote:

And of the other 3 ranking lists "tourney score" and "team score" are also a form of global GR.  I just don't think that works good as a way of measuring skill across different boards.  Too easy to manipulate by specializing.

But currently that's the only measure we have for those categories.  If we had CPs for Team and Tourney, then it would be a much easier decision.  I'm more inclined to not include CPs in determining Rank, which btw if we go with the 4 or 5 general system, is somewhat of an aggregate type of system where the categories are 'separate yet equal.' It seems to me that this would satisfy a number of players who sit on different sides of the aggregate issue.  So for instance, if you include CPs (which I do not really value or care for), it shouldn't matter to me - I can still ignore them and attain rank.

I think that we should finally go ahead and implement it and see how it works. Once it is in place, let's see how everyone receives it. Even though I totally hate the CP system, it should still be one of the ranks, based on its popularity amongst several players and the fact that it has been the basis of the current ranking system. I feel that the 4 (or 5) rank system will be popular and allow all players to concentrate on their favorite area(s) to move up in rank. Tweaking will most likely be necessary and the implementation could be time consuming for Tom. But, I guarantee that it will definitely stir up the troops.   

In terms of complexity, a new formula for calculating ranking changes is the simplest to implement so we could quite easily trial that prior to the switch to a 4/5 rank system.

tom wrote:

In terms of complexity, a new formula for calculating ranking changes is the simplest to implement so we could quite easily trial that prior to the switch to a 4/5 rank system.

Wow! I can't wait. I can easily speak for the majority of wargear players, including myself, "I don't and deserve not to be a PRIVATE anymore".

I don't see how there's any harm in trying out such a system, especially if it's easily altered or scrapped.

M57 wrote:

I don't see how there's any harm in trying out such a system, especially if it's easily altered or scrapped.

OK.... so what system do you want to try :)

I would be OK with Babbalouie's Proposed system, though I would cap the top General Spots to one player per each category - and the 5-star to any player who is the Full General in more than one category . Optimally, I would prefer an algorithm that limits the number of Generals and ranks going down ..to a percentile. B's proposal is artificial and will necessarily need revising/updating to accommodate the way membership scales. etc.

PERCENTILE

PRIVATE-------------  1000 or less GR, 0 CPs,  000 or less Team, 1000 Tourney

PRIVATE FIRST CLASS--- 5th percentile (for CP's = 5th percentile of those who have at least 1 CP

CORPORAL----------------10

SERGEANT---------------- 20

STAFF SERGEANT-------- 30  

MASTER SERGEANT------ 40

2nd LIEUTENANT--------- 50

1st LIEUTENANT---------- 60

CAPTAIN------------------ 70

MAJOR--------------------- 80

COLONEL------------------ 90

BRIGADIER  GENERAL---- 95

MAJOR GENERAL---------- 97

LIEUTENANT GENERAL---- 99

GENERAL-------------------Leader in each Category

5 STAR GENERAL---------- Leader in more than one Category (it's possible to have zero, one or two 5-Star Generals.

And to reiterate, I think a player's overall rank should be the rank from the category in which they are ranked the highest: the other rank positions could be found on their profile or stats page.

Tom, I would say to go with Post #280 but also incorporate Cona Chris's 5th Rank (Team Tourney), which as he says, would include all games. From there, as M57 says, the player's overall rank should be the one where they are ranked the highest, with the other ranks found on their profile page, but with one small difference. The overall rank should show in which category that rank has been achieved in, of the 5 ranks. Once it is up and running the numbers and system would definitely need updating periodically. 

Babbalouie wrote:

Tom, I would say to go with Post #280 but also incorporate Cona Chris's 5th Rank (Team Tourney), which as he says, would include all games. From there, as M57 says, the player's overall rank should be the one where they are ranked the highest, with the other ranks found on their profile page, but with one small difference. The overall rank should show in which category that rank has been achieved in, of the 5 ranks. Once it is up and running the numbers and system would definitely need updating periodically. 

+1

+1 all around.

I still think it is pretty important to promote someone to private first class as soon as they win a game.  (just the one rank would work differently than the rest)

Amidon37 wrote:

so a form of global GR.  I just don't think that works good as a way of measuring skill across different boards.  Too easy to manipulate by specializing.

This does remind me why I was so resistant to an aggregate and partially resistant to the multi rank idea. The tourney score isn't just another GR, but one that already gets a seperate award in trophies and all the top ranked players made the overwhelming amount of there score from one board. You might as well call it the Antastic score. 

A lesser concern with team scores was that so much is out of peoples control and that system can be pretty thoroughly gamed by people who collude and time it to always sign up together for team games vs those people who are semi-randomly joining open team games.

Which, brings us back to the point of the thread (CP). Babba's biggest and most legit complaint of new players staying a private "forever" especially if they only play popular boards would be immediately fixed by Option I, and partially addressed by some of the others...

tom wrote:

M57 wrote:

I don't see how there's any harm in trying out such a system, especially if it's easily altered or scrapped.

OK.... so what system do you want to try :)

CP Option I

I think Tom was talking about the Ranking system - but now that you mention it, provided that a given CP system isn't all that difficult to implement - and if it can be run concurrently with the existing system (in Beta) - there's little harm in trying.

itsnotatumor wrote:

A lesser concern with team scores was that so much is out of peoples control and that system can be pretty thoroughly gamed by people who collude and time it to always sign up together for team games vs those people who are semi-randomly joining open team games.

This I agree with, but I think it's a fact of life. There will always be pro's and always be a beer league in everything. I don't think any scoring system can fix that... 

I'd like to try option I that counts regular public and tournament games together and an option I that counts regular team and tournament games together.  

To keep going with Babb's multi-ranking system that would give us two ways, and then I'd like a special option I for Wargear Warfare, War and Global Warfare combined since those Warfare is very popular boards to play and the others are the closest cousins.