berickf wrote:

Do any of these CP models propose to actually organize players by their skill or would that be the trueskill model only, if at all?  Again, I have not put much thought into the models, but, by my gut, they do seem to just emphasize redistributing a flawed CP system rather then to actually create anything that emphasizes and organizes players by skill..

I agree.  In my above post, I was alluding to the fact that CPs sit on top of and are nothing more than an interpretation of GR, which most agree is flawed and needs revision, but that doesn't mean that CPs can't have value.  

At the end of the day, if I looked at a CP rank and was able to say 'these players around me can definitely stand their ground against me, and vice versa.  Damn I get some epic battles against this group.'  Then it would seem to be getting somewhere reasonable.  As it is, the rank is completely arbitrary as to player skill and thus of little interest to me.  I'd much rather look at GR and H-rank to determine a player's ability.

Again, CP is only as good the GR it sits on. I also agree with you regarding H-Ratings. H-Ratings are important because they bring a completely different (and valid) metric into consideration.  I would value H-Ratings even more if they were adjustable by moving-game-average periods. It's been a while since I've read up on Trueskill, but Trueskill-like systems somehow consider H-Rating-like data.

M57 wrote: 

At the end of the day, if I looked at a CP rank and was able to say 'these players around me can definitely stand their ground against me, and vice versa.  Damn I get some epic battles against this group.'  Then it would seem to be getting somewhere reasonable.  As it is, the rank is completely arbitrary as to player skill and thus of little interest to me.  I'd much rather look at GR and H-rank to determine a player's ability.

CP is only as good the GR it sits on.

I don't have a problem with the GR it sits on.  Good GR players are mostly good h-rank players.  GR reflects skill whereas CP reflects manipulating board ranks and then to parlay that into one's completely arbitrary CP rank based on adding up these discrepant totals.  One could try to make the individual board ranks less discrepant, but the bigger problem is that CP will never be able to give an accurate rank according to skill because not everyone wants to play so many boards to sum up to a good CP score...  It's really not a good rank as a standard bearer, yet it is.  It's a shame that the community can not come to an agreement on an aggregate rank so as to balance skill with diversity of play so that in the end, the skill CP players are sorted out from the less skilled yet persistent CP players, and the skill players who have high GR scores have a chance to rise among the CP players without having to have a high CP score as well, even if their resistance to playing a great diversity of boards still holds them back a bit on the aggregate.

berickf wrote:

I don't have a problem with the GR it sits on.  Good GR players are mostly good h-rank players.  GR reflects skill whereas CP reflects manipulating board ranks and then to parlay that into one's completely arbitrary CP rank based on adding up these discrepant totals.

Agree again.  The current CP system is arbitrary.  OptionI at least maintains the integrity/paradigm of the GR (regardless of what it is - current or Trueskill) and simply recognizes those efforts where a level of success has been achieved.

One could try to make the individual board ranks less discrepant, but the bigger problem is that CP will never be able to give an accurate rank according to skill because not everyone wants to play so many boards to sum up to a good CP score...

You are challenging CPs as a measure of how good players are, and I will again agree that it is lacking, but would posit that CPs should and will never be that stat.  GR (or GR aggregates) and H-Ratings are (and should be) the stat(s) you and I value. That said, CPs have some focused value where examining the flexibility and commitment of a player is concerned, but much more importantly, they are the stat that entices players to branch out and play more boards.  The diversity of boards on this site is it's greatest strength and the primary differentiator. In as much as CPs may have less value for you and me, their value to the site should not be discounted.

It's really not a good rank as a standard bearer, yet it is.  It's a shame that the community can not come to an agreement on an aggregate rank so as to balance skill with diversity of play so that in the end, the skill CP players are sorted out from the less skilled yet persistent CP players, and the skill players who have high GR scores have a chance to rise among the CP players without having to have a high CP score as well, even if their resistance to playing a great diversity of boards still holds them back a bit on the aggregate.

I think we are quite close to an aggregate solution.. Weren't we talking about 4 classes of Ranks? (Teamplay, Tournament, Open Ranked,  etc..).  Basing Ranks on the GRs of the different classes of play excludes and further separates CPs from the main system, and I have no problem with that.

Mad Bomber wrote: Gr is garbage. I see dueling specialist. Or people who play only a few boards. Gr players are weak berick.....

I'm not going to totally disagree, but GR is the best we've got.  There are no improvements to be made short of TrueSkill

I see dueling specialist.

To clarify, it's certain dueling boards that you're referencing. You're not going to climb very high playing WGWF as a dueling map.  But again, I won't disagree with your premise.

Or people who play only a few boards. 

This is precisely where CPs have their value.  Sure, GR has it's flaws, but they are largely mitigated by CPs.  Let players rack up the points on a couple of dueling boards.  Even very elite CP players like you have their favorite boards, or boards where their skills are best leveraged.  Besides, this thread is not about GR.  Most everyone including Tom agrees that something TrueSkillish would be best for the site.

Mad Bomber wrote: Gr is garbage. I see dueling specialist. Or people who play only a few boards. Gr players are weak berick.....

I stand by my earlier post that examines the h-rating's of the first page of both ranks.  Simply put, their is a higher caliber of excellence with high ranked GR players over high ranked CP players and dueling is NOT the only way to be high ranked.  It can act as a catalyst to the top, for sure, but, my first time I climbed GR I did it on a variety of boards with 5-16 players per game and reached 3259 which would still be good for 4th on the current list...  NO DUELING AT ALL IN THAT CLIMB.  Feel free to check my ranking history. I admit I have used it a lot in my current climb, but, it is not the only way and I am not the only model.  Other players have not dueled to the top of GR either and your suggestion that it is the only way up is irrational, short sighted and, I suppose, self serving since you seem to just want to believe that such a rank is 'garbage' and only relies on one style of play.  Meanwhile, there is a VERY EASY way to look and know without any deep exploration who duels, who doesn't and who is in between.  Just compare h-rating to win %.  The closer the two numbers, the more dueling or smaller sized games, the further apart, the less dueling and larger sized games.  Evidently, Harry Chest, RECON, Black Dog and Luieuil, in the top ten of GR, are not the biggest duelers.  Feel free to check their ranking histories too!  Meanwhile, by the same metric, Cona Chris and Hugh seem to like dueling despite being top CP players.  Just because you don't like dueling doesn't mean you need to shit on anyone who does like it or who uses it to their advantage.

Mad Bomber wrote: I'm so tired of your ego. You are a known tournament cheat who got booted so your wife could win.

You sound like you are getting on the Toto band wagon... Unfounded conspiracy theories a plenty!  Enjoy your drinks and where they take you.  If you actually want to ask/say anything on a serious note instead of just trolling, feel free to pm me.

berickf wrote:

Mad Bomber wrote: I'm so tired of your ego. You are a known tournament cheat who got booted so your wife could win.

You sound like you are getting on the Toto band wagon... Unfounded conspiracy theories a plenty!  Enjoy your drinks and where they take you.  If you actually want to ask/say anything on a serious note instead of just trolling, feel free to pm me.

Whoa. Lets take a step back here...I cannot, and will not, tolerate any blame of drinking here. Drinking is just an innocent 3rd party on WarGear that sometimes has some bad advice that taking your turn and making that 5 on 8 attack is a great idea. Or forum posting.

Whatever happened to that Toto guy? You could be playing him in a 1 v 1 and if you dared attack him he would start ranting about how you were a cheat and conspiring to perhaps keep him from winning. Fun dude...kinda miss him.

i think someone hacked MB's account...

weathertop wrote:

i think someone hacked MB's account...

Yeah, the third party.. 

Where is that party?  ..and why wasn't I invited?

Okay,

#1 berickf this is a thread about revising CP. If you want to start your own thread spouting your shit about GR players vs CP players do it.  I might even chime in, though I believe that thread was already done before ad nauseum. But, keep it off this one.  

#2 Anyone feeling like posting while intoxicated? Please wait.

#3 Anyone who wants to pretend their shit don't stink? Stop and sniff. 

#4 Anyone who wants to get back on topic in what seemed to be a great thread please do so.  

 Most everyone including Tom agrees that something TrueSkillish would be best for the site.

Yeah, the idea seemed cool, but I believe Tom mentioned somewhere how he didn't see how it could work when it's a 1 winner everyone else loses game. And, no one has figured it out in over a year. Hence this thread...

Yeah, I'm liking option I as well, and prefer the option where you would divide by 100, to get single or double digits.

I don't like option A, B or C. I could like the other options, but I don't know how fair they would be

Xrayjay wrote:

However, I do about other considerations.  What percentage of players are 'in the points' with these systems? - How do these systems treat popular boards vs. less played boards?  How arbitrarily are they set up?  Are the numbers pulled out of a hat (like the current system?) Are they scalable?

Those questions are why option I and true skill moved up towards the top of the lists and got their own threads, because all the others were some sort of extensions to the current arbitrary system (which was probably perfectly adequate when things got started.  

As for the question about how would it change the top ranks. Someone crunched at least the top 10 or 15 and it didn't change things that much. I don't think I moved more than one place in any of them.  

The people who would probably benefit most are the people in the 50-200 ranks who have high ranks on one or more popular boards but little to no CP to show for it.  

itsnotatumor wrote:

Xrayjay wrote:

However, I do about other considerations.  What percentage of players are 'in the points' with these systems? - How do these systems treat popular boards vs. less played boards?  How arbitrarily are they set up?  Are the numbers pulled out of a hat (like the current system?) Are they scalable?

Those questions are why option I and true skill moved up towards the top of the lists and got their own threads, because all the others were some sort of extensions to the current arbitrary system (which was probably perfectly adequate when things got started.  

As for the question about how would it change the top ranks. Someone crunched at least the top 10 or 15 and it didn't change things that much. I don't think I moved more than one place in any of them.  

The people who would probably benefit most are the people in the 50-200 ranks who have high ranks on one or more popular boards but little to no CP to show for it.  

Xrayjay definitely did not write the quote above. Unless I'd been drinking and don't remember. 

Also my vote is a clear Option I is best.

Xrayjay wrote:

itsnotatumor wrote:

Xrayjay wrote:

However, I do about other considerations.  What percentage of players are 'in the points' with these systems? - How do these systems treat popular boards vs. less played boards?  How arbitrarily are they set up?  Are the numbers pulled out of a hat (like the current system?) Are they scalable?

Those questions are why option I and true skill moved up towards the top of the lists and got their own threads, because all the others were some sort of extensions to the current arbitrary system (which was probably perfectly adequate when things got started.  

As for the question about how would it change the top ranks. Someone crunched at least the top 10 or 15 and it didn't change things that much. I don't think I moved more than one place in any of them.  

The people who would probably benefit most are the people in the 50-200 ranks who have high ranks on one or more popular boards but little to no CP to show for it.  

Xrayjay definitely did not write the quote above. Unless I'd been drinking and don't remember. 

Yes, I wrote that - unless we were both drinking and you were channelling me..  Awh... Now I'M confused.

My problem with these changes (other than TrueSkill) is, as it's always been, that I don't think you've gamed out the incentives carefully--for either top scorers or more average players.

Take option I, which has a lot to be said for it. Right now, if I wanted more CP, I'd have to go play some different boards, and do well. (What MB does.) Under Option I, I'd just need to keep playing boards I sorta dominate. (There'd be a point of diminishing returns, but 2000 would be very reasonable to reach on most boards)

That twists CP to be more like GR, where the best way to get points is to just keep playing boards you're already good at, witness falker1976, RECON, Harry Chest, etc. (Luieuil did something different).

I get that it's more complicated than this, but that's also my point.

(Sorry tumor ...) berickf, your GR vs CP peer comparison is nonsense--I'm surprised that's not obvious to you. It takes a lot longer to reach your "true" peer level in CP than in GR, and you have to be attempting to do it. And that's why it's worth doing. 

smoke wrote:

My problem with these changes (other than TrueSkill) is, as it's always been, that I don't think you've gamed out the incentives carefully--for either top scorers or more average players.

Take option I, which has a lot to be said for it. Right now, if I wanted more CP, I'd have to go play some different boards, and do well. (What MB does.) Under Option I, I'd just need to keep playing boards I sorta dominate. (There'd be a point of diminishing returns, but 2000 would be very reasonable to reach on most boards)

That twists CP to be more like GR, where the best way to get points is to just keep playing boards you're already good at, witness falker1976, RECON, Harry Chest, etc. (Luieuil did something different).

I get that it's more complicated than this, but that's also my point.

(Sorry tumor ...) berickf, your GR vs CP peer comparison is nonsense--I'm surprised that's not obvious to you. It takes a lot longer to reach your "true" peer level in CP than in GR, and you have to be attempting to do it. And that's why it's worth doing. 

Good stuff here smoke - I have tried to think that through what you are saying and rather then twist it I think "I" combines the best of GR and CP.  Board Ranking seems to have a natural ceiling to the scores - so I don't think you will be able to build a high "I" by playing a few boards like you can with the current GR.  

itsnotatumor wrote:

Okay,

#1 berickf this is a thread about revising CP. If you want to start your own thread spouting your shit about GR players vs CP players do it.  I might even chime in, though I believe that thread was already done before ad nauseum. But, keep it off this one. 

I was talking about this thread and the CP models and was just using GR as a comparison as to how it would be nice if the new CP could reflect player skill more, such that it made more sense, and if one of the models would provide more to that effect.  M57 suggested model I.  Could a parallel be run... Either by Tom or by some spreadsheet savvy WarGearian? 

The shit emanated later when MB got on my back with some biased and untrue accusations with regard to dueling that is clearly not supported by the data.

smoke wrote:

(Sorry tumor ...) berickf, your GR vs CP peer comparison is nonsense--I'm surprised that's not obvious to you. It takes a lot longer to reach your "true" peer level in CP than in GR, and you have to be attempting to do it. And that's why it's worth doing. 

As stated previously, the extension of the discussion that you see as nonsense came out of an attack that I was responding to.  If I am put to task, or asked a question I do have a right to respond, do I not? Anyway, I was originally simply looking at the factual comparison between GR with h-rank and CP with h-rank.  The fact that h-rank is all over the place when looking at any 'snap shot' at a chunk of CP shows that their truly is no near same skill level peer group that is ever reached with regard to the CP rank as it stands now.  I was simply asking if any of the models corrected this.  That is the only point I was trying to make which then brings us back to the subject at hand, and what I was originally asking, which of these CP models would most adequately group players by skill and thus less arbitrarily by mixing those with skill with players with a persistent mediocrity?  OR, is that not possible at all?  Sorry if I was not clear enough and allowed my thoughts to ramble, but, I have been writing with the topic of this thread in mind.  I'm also sorry if my responses to other ramblings have led me off course. I have heard option I put forth, so lets see it!