Mad Bomber wrote: just play a lesser board 5 Times.....win three or four....easy right

lol... yeah... easy. 

• 1st place CPs based on (GR-1000)/75 on a board by board basis. (GR-1000) represents the 'real' amount of GR points held.  The same idea I used in my other proposed system where CPs are simply GR-1000 ..divided by some constant.
• Successive points awarded by dividing by 1.3
• Fractional numbers count in the aggregate but only whole numbers are awarded (rounding down).  I.e., scoring 0.5 on two boards earns a single CP.

How about just straight (GR - 1000) / 50?

50 because that would start 1050 scores at 1 CP. It would lower IRsmarts score on Battle of Waterloo from 20 to 10, but would increase his score on WGWF from 20 to 39. It would also give over 1000 people on WGWF some amount of CP that don't currently have it. It would lower top scores slightly on less popular boards. Reef's top scores would go from 12/6/2/1/1 to 8/5/2/1/1 but you would also be gaining CPs on way more boards than previously.

If you don't like the reduction for less popular boards, you could add a flat amount to top ten scores or make a minimum score for top tens scores.

Mad Bomber wrote: Top played board.... 100 cp...next five get 50......everything else stays the same.....

This does nothing more than move the bar on the arbitrary and flawed system the site currently has. That's the whole point of this on-going discussion.

Mad Bomber wrote: i vote for no change

Tell us how you really feel ;)

The good news for you is it is highly unlikely that the system will change. It would take a good amount of community consensus and Tom would have to be willing to spend the time to implement it.  I doubt either of those things are in the cards - making this pretty much a theoretical exercise.   That said, it does provide some of us with an outlet where we can voice our criticism/frustration with the current system.  That this (and similar threads) is one of the most active on the site gives some credence to the idea that the CP system is flawed.

Korrun wrote:

• 1st place CPs based on (GR-1000)/75 on a board by board basis. (GR-1000) represents the 'real' amount of GR points held.  The same idea I used in my other proposed system where CPs are simply GR-1000 ..divided by some constant.
• Successive points awarded by dividing by 1.3
• Fractional numbers count in the aggregate but only whole numbers are awarded (rounding down).  I.e., scoring 0.5 on two boards earns a single CP.

How about just straight (GR - 1000) / 50?

50 because that would start 1050 scores at 1 CP. It would lower IRsmarts score on Battle of Waterloo from 20 to 10, but would increase his score on WGWF from 20 to 39. It would also give over 1000 people on WGWF some amount of CP that don't currently have it. It would lower top scores slightly on less popular boards. Reef's top scores would go from 12/6/2/1/1 to 8/5/2/1/1 but you would also be gaining CPs on way more boards than previously.

If you don't like the reduction for less popular boards, you could add a flat amount to top ten scores or make a minimum score for top tens scores.

My bad - actually, the chart I posted actually is (GR - 1000)/ 50, not / 75. (Note that the top score for 1100 is 2 points.)  One of the things I thought would appeal with this system is that though it is derived with pure math, the resulting numbers for the top ten feel eerily similar to what we have now, which is why I'm not a fan of it (even though I came up with it). It still retains all of the elitism of the current system. 

BTW, I came up the idea of fractional point to put twice as many people in the hunt, but I'm pretty sure they would have a minor impact on the aggregate at best.

I love to play competitively, and I would like to be able to accurately monitor my progress across the site, and I'm frustrated with the current CP system that's supposed to be the indicator of that progress.

Much much easier to understand and more egalitarian is to throw out the charts and simply award (GR-1000/50) to all. Call it the WGAggregate and keep the stupid CP system in place if you want. That would be my vote.

Let me tell you how I really feel :P

If the original desire is to include more people in the CP's why not broaden the requirements for achieving them based on the number of ranking players on a board (popularity) or the highest GR achieved in the rankings (difficulty)

I'm simple when it comes to math, one of you stats guys should do a better job at this.

So something like:  

Max GR achieved on the board/30 = number of players awarded CP's for that board. 

So a board with a highest GR of 3000 then 100 players would get CP's (10 fold increase) and a board with a max GR of 1200 then 40 players would get CP's.

I'm dividing by 30 cause I'm a troglodyte. I'm sure this could be done with a log or something to better scale.  A less played board should give 10 people points. WGWF should give 200 or 500 people points. 

ratsy wrote:

If the original desire is to include more people in the CP's why not broaden the requirements for achieving them based on the number of ranking players on a board (popularity) or the highest GR achieved in the rankings (difficulty)

I'm simple when it comes to math, one of you stats guys should do a better job at this.

So something like:  

Max GR achieved on the board/30 = number of players awarded CP's for that board. 

So a board with a highest GR of 3000 then 100 players would get CP's (10 fold increase) and a board with a max GR of 1200 then 40 players would get CP's.

I'm dividing by 30 cause I'm a troglodyte. I'm sure this could be done with a log or something to better scale.  A less played board should give 10 people points. WGWF should give 200 or 500 people points. 

This is a decent plan for deciding how many people receive CPs, but it doesn't suggest how many CP they would get.  While aligning the two (such that the last person receives 1 point) can no doubt be accomplished mathematically speaking, it certainly wouldn't be easy to understand by rank and file players.

I'm not sure if this is relevant, but although the above proposed #s scales with top GR (a good thing imo), it does not necessarily scale with the size of membership. Suppose for example that active membership increases.. Whereas currently the proposal might put 25% of members in the hunt, double the active membership and it's down to 12.5%.  Admittedly, membership size and GR may be related, but a system where inactivity is considered would help immensely.

M57 wrote:

"The good news for you is it is highly unlikely that the system will change. It would take a good amount of community consensus and Tom would have to be willing to spend the time to implement it.  I doubt either of those things are in the cards - making this pretty much a theoretical exercise."

This is why I was arguing for the simple incremental change, which might have a shot at being implemented.  We should have 2 seperate threads for CP, one for realists and one for dreamers.

> We should have 2 seperate threads for CP, one for realists and one for dreamers.

haha.  I was thinking this exact same thing.  I really don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good.  I see tons of good proposals, I have no idea which would be best, but I think they'd all probably be better than the current system.

But!  I'm too exhausted to read, understand, etc. all the details.  I just want us to make a small incremental change to improve things, and I had hoped that something like that would make it easier to get agreement on, but I guess not.

I think part of the problem is that we are (or have in the past) discussing multiple related things at once:

#1) What is the purpose of CP?  What are they supposed to measure?  What are they supposed to encourage? 

#2) How should CP be calculated?  Should we include "inactive" players?  Should it be based on position, score, or both?  Should it be different for different boards (based on popularity)?

#3) How should board score (what's the correct term for this?) be calculated?  Can we switch to an ELO like system with an uncertainty measure?

#4) lots more...

Right.  The thing I think everyone agrees on (post if you don't) is updates to allow players outside top10 board ratings to garner points if they score well.  I don't think I've seen a single dissent for that idea in this thread. What we haven't agreed on is what the levels would be and the point breakdown/cap.

M57 wrote:

Much much easier to understand and more egalitarian is to throw out the charts and simply award (GR-1000/50) to all. Call it the WGAggregate and keep the stupid CP system in place if you want. That would be my vote.

Let me tell you how I really feel :P

I was suggesting straight (GR-1000)/50 awarded to all players. A score of 1050 on any board would get you 1 CP.

Even players that only play WGWF (which are many) could get to see their CP increase as they do better. But not so much that they would catch up to people that played many boards.

I wouldn't mind an additional boost to the top 1/3/10 places or whatever, but I also think it would work fine just with the simple formula.

Korrun wrote:

I wouldn't mind an additional boost to the top 1/3/10 places or whatever, but I also think it would work fine just with the simple formula.

Interestingly enough - if you use the current system to determine the 'boost' it could actually work because it's capped at 20!

NEWCP = (GR-1000)/50 + OLDCP

So a GR of 1500 doubles to 40 CPs if it's the top score. If that feels too heavy-handed, simply change denominator in the the formula to balance.

I was actually thinking that same thing, but chickened out on writing it.

I like that, but feel the position bonus gets a bit minimized - maybe 100 for the denominator for simplicities sake?

So someone in 1st with 1500 gets 25 CP, and someone in 1st with 3000 gets 40 CP. 

This formula seems to hit all the desirements:

-) Never needs to be readjusted, since it continues to scale to infinity.

-) Still encourages play on multiple board

-) newbs can quickly get some CP - earn your first point at 1050 on any board.

-) Relatively simple to implement - not a huge deviation from current ranking.

Anything it's missing?

Interestingly enough my CP score would stay almost the same with the (GR-1000)/50 method (without the +OLDCP).

I would lose 4 CP on Battle of Waterloo and lose 2 on Reef. But I would gain 4 on Invention, 3 on WGWF, 3 on New Earth, 1 on Europe 1560, 1 on War of the Titans, and 1 on Kuprulu Sector (an identical score on the less popular Koprulu Yamato already gets me 1). All the rest of my boards would stay the same.

This would definitely reward diversification as currently I am getting 20 of my 54 CP from specializing in two unpopular maps.

Ozyman wrote:

I like that, but feel the position bonus gets a bit minimized - maybe 100 for the denominator for simplicities sake?

So someone in 1st with 1500 gets 25 CP, and someone in 1st with 3000 gets 40 CP. 

This formula seems to hit all the desirements:

-) Never needs to be readjusted, since it continues to scale to infinity.

-) Still encourages play on multiple board

-) newbs can quickly get some CP - earn your first point at 1050 on any board.

-) Relatively simple to implement - not a huge deviation from current ranking.

Anything it's missing?

I'm fine with changing the denominator to 100, but that would earn your first point at 1100 instead of 1050. I just picked 50 for its consistency with the current system. Your above numbers sound like reasonable scores to have for those positions.

And yes, I think this system covers all of the bases.

Korrun wrote:

Interestingly enough my CP score would stay almost the same with the (GR-1000)/50 method (without the +OLDCP).

I would lose 4 CP on Battle of Waterloo and lose 2 on Reef. But I would gain 4 on Invention, 3 on WGWF, 3 on New Earth, 1 on Europe 1560, 1 on War of the Titans, and 1 on Kuprulu Sector (an identical score on the less popular Koprulu Yamato already gets me 1). All the rest of my boards would stay the same.

This would definitely reward diversification as currently I am getting 20 of my 54 CP from specializing in two unpopular maps.

Interesting.

My score would increase somewhat. I have 2 now, 1 on Darkness Falls and 1 on Knight's Tour. I'd keep those. I'd add 9 on WGWF, 3 on Europe 1560, 1 on World War, 1 on Invention, 1 on Mutiny on the Bounty, 1 on Quantum Entanglement and 1 on Dejeweled. So a total of 19. Not sure how my 484th position overall would be affected.

Under (GR-1000/50), my score goes up from 48 to 72, 90% of that increase is from boards like WGWF and World War where I would normally get nothing. Considering only the boards where I currently have points, my (GR-1000/50) score is about the same, maybe slightly lower.

A quick check of Mad Bomber's scores indicates his score would fall from 705 to 686.  It's interesting to note that he does not have a single score above 1700, and pretty much avoids the rat-race on the popular boards like WGWF and Invention.  IMO, he's been playing the system smart. The one exception is his 1642 GR on Colossal Crusade, which is worthless in the old system, but gets him 13 in the new.  Hmm.. that's rounding up, which I expect all of us are doing with our spreadsheets.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to check the top 10 to make sure that someone doesn't take a huge hit, and do some spot checking here and there, but I think it's fair to say that the top players will shuffle a bit, but nothing dramatic.  Meanwhile hundreds if not thousands of WGWF, Invention and Antastic players who currently have maybe a point or two would suddenly find themselves with 10, 20, or even 30 points. Similarly, journeyman players who play a lot of boards and have managed to muster a dozen points or so will probably find themselves making similar gains.

(GR-1000/50) seems to retain the CP feel, but it brings a much needed parity and inclusivity to the system, which is just plain good for the site.

I checked Cona Chris just to see if we'd get a change at the top. He'd "only" get 449. Or maybe a few more, I rounded down at all times since that's what the system does now.

Cona Chris 640 -> 466       (-174)

Amidon37 451 -> 541        (+90)

IRsmart 379 -> 415           (+36)

Itsnotatumor 204 -> 250    (+46)

Amidon37 plays a LOT of boards, garnering 274 points from boards where his GR < 1300!  Contrast with Cona Chris, who is much more of a specialist, and only nets 32 points when his GR < 1300.

I didn't use ROUNDDOWN on these scores, but I did cut off the numbers at 1100 so there's no rounding up from 0.9 going on.  Given that, it's fair to say that the (GR-1000)/50 scores I posted above are likely to be 10-20 points lower, effectively bringing most of them even closer to current CP numbers. That would be consistent with the 449 you found for Cona Chris, @Litotes

My 449 might not be 100% accurate. I do all calculations in my head since that's a lot faster than typing everything into Excel, but I've been prone to smaller oversights in recent years.  General impression was right, though. Bomber loses a lot less than Cona. Amidon the biggest winner of the top guys.