OK, If it were really up to me I would do the following:

1) Have two site-wide rankings: CP's from individual games and CP's from team games.

2) Board Ranking on each board would be determined by using option I from a previous discussion.

3) Tournament games would be included in these rankings like any other public game.

4) CP's on each board would be given to the top 10 players regardless of Board Score.

5) Stats/Rank would be available for "All time" and for the "last x time period" where x would be something like 1 year and/or 6 months.  Players who have not completed a game in that time period would be removed from those rankings.

6) Rank would be determined by your higher placement in the two All Time rankings.

AttilaTheHun wrote:

it (CP) is what most players look at when they look to overtake the top position.

Ok, your post is sidetracking the thread a bit but...

If I were to choose just one rank to look at to overtake the top position, I look at GR, but, maybe that's just me ;-) I find CP to be a bit superficial in that i rewards boards disproportionately.  Plus, I am a gr type player in that I like to specialize and be really good at some things, but not all.  I also value the other play styles I participate in as well and look at my tourney, team and team-tourney gr ranks before I look at CP.

But that is not what this thread is about.  The CP versus GR versus whatever arguments have been tired out and this thread is about the macro structure of scoring, the framework and not the micro structure of how CP/GR is calculated and if one or the other deserves whatever prominence.  I do not want to side track the point of this thread.  I can dig up many other threads that muck through those dirty waters.

If you truly wanted to have an overall score to stack up against that would truly require an aggregate.  That conversation always dies because no one knows how to weigh scores against each other and frequently complain that the CP would not be given the prominence it deserves.  An aggregate is a macro conversation too, but, that is not for here either as it is impossible to come to a consensus on melding the currently ranked areas into such an aggregate and this is because the macro framework is unbalanced to start with as stated by this thread.  There is already a thread for the aggregate conversation as well, so, I'd appreciate we don't side track to that either.

Back to what this thread is about.  On the macro scale it makes sense to me to have balance by having all areas of play represented by both styles of play, those that GR emphasize and those that CP emphasize.  It just makes sense to add those CP ranks even though CP and diversification of play is not my forte, but, as you say, some people get really jazzed over chasing CP and why should they not also have this same enjoyment in all styles of play?  There could be some players who don't even see the point of trying to excel in tournaments because they don't care to become antastic specialists whereas I think by having both a GR and CP it would challenges players to diversify while still maintaining excellence in play otherwise one or the other (GR/CP) will suffer.  Suddenly many players could become more encouraged to try to excel in tournament play because there would be a top CP rank that didn't require them to be antastic nerds... like me ;-)  At the same time, if I wanted to remain a top tourney player on both fronts then I would have to branch out a bit and play some other boards!  Or, if I just wanted to protect my GR score I could stick to antastic at the expense of not accruing any new tourney CP.

I do appreciate you playing a little devils advocate as it's good to brainstorm in many directions (though lets please try to keep it to the macro arguments all, please and thank you!), but, I truly do feel like you'll never get to the penultimate of what your post was striving for without balancing the ranking system first, even if it feels to you like we are going a step back.  One step back then two steps forward?

Thanks a lot AtillaTheHun,

Erick

Amidon37 wrote:

OK, If it were really up to me I would do the following:

1) Have two site-wide rankings: CP's from individual games and CP's from team games.

2) Board Ranking on each board would be determined by using option I from a previous discussion.

3) Tournament games would be included in these rankings like any other public game.

4) CP's on each board would be given to the top 10 players regardless of Board Score.

5) Stats/Rank would be available for "All time" and for the "last x time period" where x would be something like 1 year and/or 6 months.  Players who have not completed a game in that time period would be removed from those rankings.

6) Rank would be determined by your higher placement in the two All Time rankings.

 

This is an interesting macro idea Amidon.

You're having tourney CP and regular play CP constitute an individual play CP score and the team-tourney CP and team CP constitute a team play CP score.  For two CP scores.

Would you also have a tourney GR and regular play GR constitute an individual play GR score and the team-tourney GR and team GR constitute a team play GR score.  For two GR scores as well or are you suggesting we entirely scrap GR?

If you're suggesting we scrap GR entirely, I fear you'd be chasing a lot of people from feeling that they can get high rankings, myself included, because I am not a CP player!  A CP's only rank, to me, seems also to not reward newcomers, as to crack the ranks of the vets who had accumulated much of the CP over years of playing, would be a daunting task to say the least!  I think GR is really important to give newcomers to the site an immediate feeling that they can be competitive in a matter of months and not make them feel like ranking is largely a futile or extremely time consuming task of accruing enough CP to stack up against players who have been around for years already.  Plus, if as you say, CP is only given to the top ten players from each board, then how long will it take for a new player to see any score effect from their game play!

If you're suggesting that GR has two scores as well, though it doesn't appear that way, then we are talking about a balanced system with two CP scores (individual and team) and two GR scores (individual and team) where you score in each area regardless of if it is a regular game or tournament game.  I'm trying to wrap my brain around what effect that might have between regular and tournament play?  Otherwise, if your idea was made to include both CP and GR it would have a similar framework to my initial suggestion, though with less scores to follow.  Personally, I like the idea of being able to look at each area individually and having 8 ranks where each represent a certain style of play in a different area of play, but maybe that's just me?  Plus, as far as the five star general system goes, less ranks detracts from how that works as it would become nearly impossible for a player to hold more then one top rank.  What do others think of wrapping all individual play CP (tourney and regular) into one, and then all team CP (tourney and regular) into one, then, with my inclusion of the same for GR for four final categories and no differentiation between regular play and tournament play?

Or perhaps Amidon's suggestion for two CP ranks only, as much as it makes me cringe ;-)

Thanks for the thoughts Amidon!

Erick

berickf wrote:

If you're suggesting we scrap GR entirely,....

I am suggesting we scrap GR entirely.  (and I have before) It has two downsides for me -  it doesn't translate well between boards and it's permanent.  Make that 3 - it's erratic.

For new people that is why I feel #5 is so important.  If you stripped out all the people who have played and left new people would have plenty of opportunities to gain CP's quickly.

And to tangentalize a little -

Given the wide variety of boards we have here any statistic that relies on data from multiple boards is suspect.  (Esp. GR)  I would even say that many of our stats that are purely board based (like board ranking) are suspect because of the options of scenarios, fog, turn timer and player count.  If we were a huge site  with thousands and thousands of players I would argue that our statistics be completely separated along every variable but, given our size and the transience of our players the above is where I am.

Amidon37 wrote:

I am suggesting we scrap GR entirely.  (and I have before) It has two downsides for me -  it doesn't translate well between boards and it's permanent.  Make that 3 - it's erratic.

We have radical in our ranks!  I'm an old-school kind of guy, but I'm actually thinking this might be a good suggestion.  In my mind its success hinges on a fair CP system where noobs can quicky gain points (and Rank) - Something like Option "I" (with an immediate entry point with the first win) could work.

My concern/criticism of the idea is that players who can't gain any points via option "I" will fall off the radar.

Nonetheless, the more I think about scrapping GR, the more I like the idea.

Amidon37 wrote:

I am suggesting we scrap GR entirely.  (and I have before) It has two downsides for me -  it doesn't translate well between boards and it's permanent.  Make that 3 - it's erratic.

You've lost me a bit here...

How can something be permanent and erratic?  If something is erratic isn't it by definition not permanent?

Also, I don't get why GR or CP would even need to translate between boards or even if they do or don't?  It seems to me that as a general rule if a board gets a lot of game play then the top level of GR increases and if a board gets very little game play then the GR doesn't get as high.  Also, the ability to get GR increases when the number of high ranking players increase to take disproportionate amounts of GR from, but, as you get higher in the GR ranks of that board the opposite begins to come into play. Whereas if a board gets a lot of game play it's hard to get CP on it from scratch and if it gets very little game play then it can be be ridiculously easy to get too much CP on it. So, CP has sort of an inverse relationship to GR when looked at on the board level.

The board's GR relationship seems to me to be more rational and stable then the board's CP relationship...  It might even seem strange that I even proposed additional CP scores in the first place given my apathy for the ranking overall, but, to me, it seemed the logical step to bring a balance to the ranking system.  I acknowledge that general style players should be rewarded for their own style of play.  Such generalists might even have an apathy for the specialists' GR ranking, especially since it is the general style of play that causes GR to become the most erratic, but, I think they both have a place?  Of course some players learn how to dominate both realms, and they will be WarGear Gods! ;-p

For me, however,I definitely like me some GR!  I am a non CP specialist type player and a CP only style of ranking would have me coming around these parts a lot less because I am not likely to ever embark on playing enough disparate boards to do well with CP only.  I've been around the block here at WarGear and still have not ever caught the CP bug!  If I had nothing to strive for, ranking wise, my sometimes fanatic interests would wane.  I'd still come around for a few games just for the fun of it, but, with nothing to show for my efforts I'd just be playing for the fun of playing and wouldn't throw in the few extra games to attempt to climb this or that ranking.  With less of an invested interest I'd probably be around these forums a lot less too.  I can't imagine I'm the only player that feels that way?  This is the same reason why I made this proposal in the first place.  We need players who feel invested, who feel included.  If someone likes playing a lot of tournaments on many different boards because they like the competitive nature of tournaments, I don't want them to feel that it's all for not because they don't want to be an antastic specialist.  I want that player to get invested in the site.  Give them some CP to strive for and suddenly they're having an opportunity to strive for something that suits their style of game play!  And no, trophies, like achievements, don't really do it.  People want a number that slots them into the hierarchy of greatness.  A rank is something concrete while trophies slip into the past pretty quickly.  The more ranks we make accessible, the more play styles and areas that are rewarded, the more chance of getting people invested.  The more people that get invested, the more the site will grow and the more that it will keep players sticking around to maintain their ranks!

Maybe I'm just the eternal optimist, but, we have one thing in common.  I wish we WarGearians numbered in the thousands as well!  But how do we best achieve that?

Cheers,

Erick

Sorry for getting all wordy here.  I felt a sense of inspiration wash over me, lol.

berickf wrote:

Amidon37 wrote:

I am suggesting we scrap GR entirely.  (and I have before) It has two downsides for me -  it doesn't translate well between boards and it's permanent.  Make that 3 - it's erratic.

You've lost me a bit here...

How can something be permanent and erratic?  If something is erratic isn't it by definition not permanent?

By permanent, I think he means they accumulate starting with game 1, so your current GR is still being affected by the very first public game you played on this site - even though you may be a much better player now.

By "erratic" I'm pretty sure he means the scores fluctuate so dramatically as to be irrelevant. I've seen my GR shoot up to 2100, then down to 1200 and then back over the course of a year or two.

I believe his comments regarding GR are not directed at individual board play. Rather, they refer to "Global" numbers. I.e, the single number that is generated after every game you play regardless of which board you play.

But then - I probably should be more careful about putting words in his mouth.  I apologize in advance, @A for any misunderstanding or misdirection on my part.

M57 wrote:

berickf wrote:

Amidon37 wrote:

I am suggesting we scrap GR entirely.  (and I have before) It has two downsides for me -  it doesn't translate well between boards and it's permanent.  Make that 3 - it's erratic.

You've lost me a bit here...

How can something be permanent and erratic?  If something is erratic isn't it by definition not permanent?

By permanent, I think he means they accumulate starting with game 1, so your current GR is still being affected by the very first public game you played on this site - even though you may be a much better player now.

By "erratic" I'm pretty sure he means the scores fluctuate so dramatically as to be irrelevant. I've seen my GR shoot up to 2100, then down to 1200 and then back over the course of a year or two.

I believe his comments regarding GR are not directed at individual board play. Rather, they refer to "Global" numbers. I.e, the single number that is generated after every game you play regardless of which board you play.

But then - I probably should be more careful about putting words in his mouth.  I apologize in advance, @A for any misunderstanding or misdirection on my part.

From my understanding of the system, you are looking for a more fair way to determine rankings. I understand the system, mostly anyway. I really don't pay much attention to it or at least how I can get further in the rankings. I see a complaint that you have those that have been playing a longer period of time accumulates the rankings. I would suggest, if you don't already do this, that you do a rolling score for a year at a time. This way no one can HOLD onto the lead without the continuation of playing and they must keep up the good play to stay on top. You can do this by scoring the 8 areas and then total them all up for the Global. So you could have the top of each section and then the top global that can change and become more competitive. This way no one can get to the top and just sit there. Just an idea if I am understanding the system correctly. 

Quazimoto wrote:

I would suggest, if you don't already do this, that you do a rolling score for a year at a time. 

I have suggested a 50 game moving average.. But I also like the idea of a time component.  Regardless, I think these types of alterations are minor in comparison to the overall way that the scores are calculated and how they are weighted in the context of the more aggregate oriented scores (in each category).

M57 wrote:

By permanent, I think he means they accumulate starting with game 1, so your current GR is still being affected by the very first public game you played on this site - even though you may be a much better player now.

All good M except this point.  By "permanent" I point to falker's #1 GR spot.  He's been #1 there for a long time and likely will only come down if he starts playing games again.  Unlike the #1 CP spot where leaving the site leads to a slow decay of points/rank.  

Erratic - it jumps all over the place.  Falker quit while he was at a peak and not a valley. And pity the player who likes duel boards.  

Doesn't translate well - again,  try gaining GR by focusing on 2-player games.   I lost 100 GR on a 2-player game once.  (I put these stats up not too long ago)  Falker gained his GR points by focusing on one thing.  He's a top player because he figured out how to game that stat?

And we definitely could use a "best of who's playing now" system where newbies can immediately see results.  a moving average or a time limit or whatever.

Mad Bomber wrote: Gr is garbage....I'm up to 8 player to break even

You wanna be champ, you gotta beat the contenders....

But GR is not necessarily the greatest. In that I can agree. 

ATH: I agree that a competitor's main point of pride should be excellence on a board above all else. And I like the radical suggestion. If only we humans could have such an enlightened view of competition. And CP's do draw arbitrary lines in the sand as to what counts as excellence. But I see it as an incentive ranking more than anything else. From that perspective, I view the suggestion as something like, "We do this weird incentive thing for individual games. Surely we could do it for these other types of games too!"

Also +1000 to MB for "gr is garbage".

postscript - Keeping CPs in other categories need not detract from the sense that the "main race" is for individual CPs.

I just wanted to say that we are getting a bit off topic here.  Like I said at the beginning, any revisions to how CP and/or GR were calculated and if either/or both are garbage could be amended later and applied to all the relevant categories that are included in the framework.  For the time being I'm just trying to consider the framework that would constitute a balanced ranking and to perhaps encourage Tom to merge it into the five rank system that he has put up already so that players can get the feel for it and see if it is something they like or not.  So far this includes my original proposal and Amidon's CP only proposal (though Amidon's would need to be displayed separately from the 5-rank because it is amalgamating some of the areas).  My main impetus in all this is to encourage site investment through the ranking structure.

The rolling average point is a legitimate macro factor, but, belongs more with the aggregate conversation then the general framework conversation.  We can re-visit that later.

Ozyman wrote:

+1 to having a corresponding CP for each GR.  Makes sense to me.

AttilaTheHun wrote:

I'd think the purpose would be to truly understand where you stack up against the rest of the site, regardless of your achievements. 

I took a break from WG a while back, and have to say that the whole CP/GR debate just really doesn't connect for me.

I'm more of the Mark Twain persuasion: There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I like to know if a player has tried this board before, if they're undefeated on it, if they're the best on this board to date, sure.  But best overall?  That's pure fiction, always will be, and if we spend all our time obsessing over it, then eventually there WILL be just one champion - the last guy using the site.

The things that I take most pride in are personal - and come from knowing you guys just a little bit, and knowing which names strike fear in my heart.   Things like being the first person to beat BlackDog on Gates of Hell, ever. (After getting drubbed by him something like four in a row).  Or beating Cona in any game at any time.  Or beating Kjeld on a board he designed.

The stats I care about most are all below the phrase "Live - Not Eliminated".

Now while I do on occasion peruse stats to see who's 'the best', I mostly use them to size myself up against the competition. I like to see who's playing my boards and who's playing 'em well, but I consume stats with a grain of salt.  Stats give me confidence - They confirm that I'm not a top-tier player, but I'm strong enough to hang with them. Stats keep me honest, because they're there I'm less inclined to throw away games or play half-heartedly. A philosopher I ain't, but I know I like stats.

berickf wrote:

Amidon37 wrote:

OK, If it were really up to me I would do the following:

2) Board Ranking on each board would be determined by using option I from a previous discussion.

If you're suggesting we scrap GR entirely, I fear you'd be chasing a lot of people from feeling that they can get high rankings, myself included, because I am not a CP player!  A CP's only rank, to me, seems also to not reward newcomers, as to crack the ranks of the vets who had accumulated much of the CP over years of playing, would be a daunting task to say the least!  I think GR is really important to give newcomers to the site an immediate feeling that they can be competitive in a matter of months and not make them feel like ranking is largely a futile or extremely time consuming task of accruing enough CP to stack up against players who have been around for years already.  Plus, if as you say, CP is only given to the top ten players from each board, then how long will it take for a new player to see any score effect from their game play!

Note that Amidon is a proponent of Option I, which puts noobs right in the CP race as soon as they have a winning record.  I think there is a bit of misunderstanding that goes with the notion of dropping GR. The system would still exist - just not the "Global" part of it.  The system would be used on a board by board basis, and would be necessary to generate CPs.  We're just talking about throwing away a number that fluctuates all over the place.  Option I CPs are in a sense a much more accurate and stable aggregate.

As I see it. I like the idea of having 8 areas and I assume the Global score is a total ranking with all of them combined. At least that is how I would set it up, if it isn't. That is the score I would use for the top player. So you can have a top player in one area and not have a very high ranking in the Global area. As I mentioned before, the scoring system is not my thing.It appears you are trying to make it more fair to all the players.Is there a link I can read on how the scores are being measured? I would like to compare the GR, CP, and true systems and I would be able to tell you what I really think about each system. As in the first posting, I see no reason to continue in the direction the scoring system is heading into. M57 suggest that Cps are more accurate, what if you combine the two? How would that work. 

Quazimoto wrote:

 M57 suggest that Cps are more accurate, what if you combine the two? How would that work. 

I would clarify that "Option I" CPs are more accurate.

What would be the point of combining them when "Global" CP scores are already based on the individual board GR scores?  Currently, the "Global" GR score is just a meandering record of a player's ups and downs. It doesn't give us a sense of how diversified their play is, or depending on its range, even how good they are.

The GR system is flawed enough as is, and piling on just creates Frankenstats. Optimally a Trueskill-like GR system would give us a much better sense of a player's current strength on any given board.  This in turn should be used to generate Option I CPs, which should be "THE" statistic for assessing Global strength and achievement. 

I say the current GR system is flawed, but I believe it is less flawed at the single board level -  and as much as I would prefer to see a TrueSkill-like system replace GR at the board level - I can see that converting CPs to ICPs and trashing the GR would both strengthen and stream-line things, which is all the more important if the site is moving toward a multiple CP system across play-styles (Tournament, Public, Team, etc..).