berickf wrote:

redshift wrote:

Abishai wrote:

berickf wrote:

redshift wrote:

Abishai wrote:

I would say that the current GR score is pretty straightforward. It just shows how well you do overall on public games. What meaning would you like the GR score to have? Not trying to be a jerk, I'm really trying to understand.

With the current system, a player can be top ranked in GRS by playing only on one board. How does that show his overall skills?

It's not intended to represent one's overall skills.  If that is what you are all looking for then it's not about revising CP or GR, or revising any of the other current ranks for that matter.  The only way you could create an overall rank would be to create a new aggregate rank that actually takes all ranks into consideration.  But to talk about that, at least in the past, was like flogging a dead donkey.  It just doesn't go anywhere!

+1.  

I also like berickf's definition of GR as overall unwillingness to lose. I would maybe add my definition of CP would be overall tenacity to conquer maps. 

The fact being that I can go to anyone's profile page and know everything I need to about their play style by just looking at their CP, GR and h rating.

If I look at berickf's stats I see that he maybe sticks to a few favorite maps, but on these maps I do not want to mess with him. He is the shark in those waters and he is very, very good.

If I look at Mad Bomber's stats I see he has put in several years of hard, but likely very entertaining work. I can see that I am likely to have many more run ins with him and on any given game, no matter how big, he is probably my #1 threat.

The difference in these two players made for good examples. My point is that these stats already do a good job at conveying the necessary information. If you want to add an aggregate ranking or change which stat governs overall site ranking, then that is another conversation. I just don't see any need to change GR or CPs into a whole other stat .

You pretty much made the case of why the current system is so bad. Top players avoid each other, that's just wrong.

If the holy grail of Wargear was a Championship based on tournaments, top players would face off more often.

Huh? Top players avoid each other?  Where do you get that from?  I think you are mixing up the circumstance of player preference for something else.  Simply put, it is not about the rank that chases players apart, but about game preference that dictates who plays who.  As my GR got higher I realized it made me too much of a target in multiplayer games, so, since I am pretty confident in my abilities in 1v1 situations, I focused on that.  Mad bomber likes collecting CP and the best way to do that is to play large player games on new/lesser played boards after 'figuring out' a board as best you can and beating others that might still perhaps be figuring it out.  You will lose some due to all the luck factors built into that equation, which is not great for one's GR, but he does pretty well for himself.  His preference vs my preference mean we don't play each other much (except for DEV games, I encounter him there all the time).  But it is not avoidance, but preference.  Don't mistake the two.  But, for other top players who like 1v1's, I have played with them severally due to the matching preference we share.  I have never avoided CC, Yuriz, Toto, Andernut, Luieuil, Babbalouie, Bex Valeur, Chele Nica, vult, Vyro, fiverocketcars, amongst other players who enjoy 1v1s whenever the chance arises.  I have even coached many of these same players, among others, to be better and up the competition level.  My record against these players speaks for itself.

Even this whole tournament thing.  I'll excel at 1v1 tournaments and MB will excel on multi player tournaments.  Preference will still dictate on which battlefields players meet and how often.

Abishai clearly stated that he avoids you. I'm not putting the blame on the players, but on the system. The system best rewards those who work on its soft spots.

If we want truly competitive gaming we need a system where to obtain the highest glory, the best players are forced to face off on a regular basis.  Hence my proposal to have a seasoned Championship based on tournament results. Some details will have to be implemented to make sure players are not vulturing weak tournaments, like having the points awarded based on the average BS, GS or TS of the players involved, mandatory tournaments for the top players (i.e. if a top player skips one of these tournaments, one of the slots will have a 0 and could only be replaced by another mandatory tournament).

Fortunately the system used in tennis provides all the tools we need and I know this system very well - with some adaptations, I think it can work great here.

berickf wrote:

There was a suggestion once about obscuring player identities in games and a few scenarios of how that could be implemented.  If it were possible to 'remove' the big cross hairs that come along with a high GR (or a high CP), I could see myself testing out those waters and seeing if it worked or if players just figured it out anyways (chat) and re-attached that target.  Anonymity could go a long way to branching out to many different styles of play.

I think the best way would be to make it Anonymous right from the game lobby so one doesn't even know who they are in the game with to start with.

I like the idea.

I'm absolutely lovin' how you guys kindly reference my, how shall we say, less than stellar player skills with the "player of M57's calibre" phrase.  Seriously, I'm not offended at all.  I'm actually rather appreciative and I'm happy to be the dissection frog.  I'm probably a pretty good example of a 2nd or 3rd tier player.

@berickf As usual, you make a number of valid points, and your analysis of my play history and its relevance to my volatile GR is accurate I'm sure - but most players just look at the numbers - they don't go and research their opponent's histories to ascertain the relevance of the numbers.  For instance, unless you do the research,  you can't really know if a GR of 2000 is relatively high or low for me in the moment.

I want to be as open minded as possible about this.  A player's current GR does have a kind of moving average aspect to it.  And admittedly, a SUM:GS-1000 number is simply going to go up the more boards a player plays, so it does lose its relevance as an indicator of play calibre - (but it is a wonderfully egalitarian and stable approach to rewarding all players for both good play and variety of play).  I think that in conjunction with a [SUM:(GS-1000)]/(#OfBoardsPlayed) type of score there's more to be gleaned about a player's ability/calibre.

I dunno - I'm just frustrated with the CP system weighted the way it is, and I have it in my mind that a good GR/GS overhaul would free up things on the CP side.

Also as an aside, I think the H-rating system is brilliant.  These days it's the rating I consider the most valid even though it doesn't consider the quality of opponents in its calculations.  Just consider how accurate it might be if game-play could be anonymous.

redshift wrote:

berickf wrote:

redshift wrote:

Abishai wrote:

berickf wrote:

redshift wrote:

Abishai wrote:

I would say that the current GR score is pretty straightforward. It just shows how well you do overall on public games. What meaning would you like the GR score to have? Not trying to be a jerk, I'm really trying to understand.

With the current system, a player can be top ranked in GRS by playing only on one board. How does that show his overall skills?

It's not intended to represent one's overall skills.  If that is what you are all looking for then it's not about revising CP or GR, or revising any of the other current ranks for that matter.  The only way you could create an overall rank would be to create a new aggregate rank that actually takes all ranks into consideration.  But to talk about that, at least in the past, was like flogging a dead donkey.  It just doesn't go anywhere!

+1.  

I also like berickf's definition of GR as overall unwillingness to lose. I would maybe add my definition of CP would be overall tenacity to conquer maps. 

The fact being that I can go to anyone's profile page and know everything I need to about their play style by just looking at their CP, GR and h rating.

If I look at berickf's stats I see that he maybe sticks to a few favorite maps, but on these maps I do not want to mess with him. He is the shark in those waters and he is very, very good.

If I look at Mad Bomber's stats I see he has put in several years of hard, but likely very entertaining work. I can see that I am likely to have many more run ins with him and on any given game, no matter how big, he is probably my #1 threat.

The difference in these two players made for good examples. My point is that these stats already do a good job at conveying the necessary information. If you want to add an aggregate ranking or change which stat governs overall site ranking, then that is another conversation. I just don't see any need to change GR or CPs into a whole other stat .

You pretty much made the case of why the current system is so bad. Top players avoid each other, that's just wrong.

If the holy grail of Wargear was a Championship based on tournaments, top players would face off more often.

Huh? Top players avoid each other?  Where do you get that from?  I think you are mixing up the circumstance of player preference for something else.  Simply put, it is not about the rank that chases players apart, but about game preference that dictates who plays who.  As my GR got higher I realized it made me too much of a target in multiplayer games, so, since I am pretty confident in my abilities in 1v1 situations, I focused on that.  Mad bomber likes collecting CP and the best way to do that is to play large player games on new/lesser played boards after 'figuring out' a board as best you can and beating others that might still perhaps be figuring it out.  You will lose some due to all the luck factors built into that equation, which is not great for one's GR, but he does pretty well for himself.  His preference vs my preference mean we don't play each other much (except for DEV games, I encounter him there all the time).  But it is not avoidance, but preference.  Don't mistake the two.  But, for other top players who like 1v1's, I have played with them severally due to the matching preference we share.  I have never avoided CC, Yuriz, Toto, Andernut, Luieuil, Babbalouie, Bex Valeur, Chele Nica, vult, Vyro, fiverocketcars, amongst other players who enjoy 1v1s whenever the chance arises.  I have even coached many of these same players, among others, to be better and up the competition level.  My record against these players speaks for itself.

Even this whole tournament thing.  I'll excel at 1v1 tournaments and MB will excel on multi player tournaments.  Preference will still dictate on which battlefields players meet and how often.

Abishai clearly stated that he avoids you. I'm not putting the blame on the players, but on the system. The system best rewards those who work on its soft spots.

If we want truly competitive gaming we need a system where to obtain the highest glory, the best players are forced to face off on a regular basis.  Hence my proposal to have a seasoned Championship based on tournament results. Some details will have to be implemented to make sure players are not vulturing weak tournaments, like having the points awarded based on the average BS, GS or TS of the players involved, mandatory tournaments for the top players (i.e. if a top player skips one of these tournaments, one of the slots will have a 0 and could only be replaced by another mandatory tournament).

Fortunately the system used in tennis provides all the tools we need and I know this system very well - with some adaptations, I think it can work great here.

I'm not sure if 'I do not want to mess with him' means he avoids me or that he needs to do his homework before stepping up to the plate?  Once he asked me to teach him IWO and I did my best to take him through the basics of it, but I have not seen him back again for a follow up lesson.  You'd have to ask him if that statement is avoidance or means a required preparation before playing me?

redshift wrote:

berickf wrote:

redshift wrote:

Abishai wrote:

+1.  

I also like berickf's definition of GR as overall unwillingness to lose. I would maybe add my definition of CP would be overall tenacity to conquer maps. 

The fact being that I can go to anyone's profile page and know everything I need to about their play style by just looking at their CP, GR and h rating.

If I look at berickf's stats I see that he maybe sticks to a few favorite maps, but on these maps I do not want to mess with him. He is the shark in those waters and he is very, very good.

If I look at Mad Bomber's stats I see he has put in several years of hard, but likely very entertaining work. I can see that I am likely to have many more run ins with him and on any given game, no matter how big, he is probably my #1 threat.

The difference in these two players made for good examples. My point is that these stats already do a good job at conveying the necessary information. If you want to add an aggregate ranking or change which stat governs overall site ranking, then that is another conversation. I just don't see any need to change GR or CPs into a whole other stat .

You pretty much made the case of why the current system is so bad. Top players avoid each other, that's just wrong.

If the holy grail of Wargear was a Championship based on tournaments, top players would face off more often.

Huh? Top players avoid each other?  Where do you get that from?  I think you are mixing up the circumstance of player preference for something else.  Simply put, it is not about the rank that chases players apart, but about game preference that dictates who plays who.  As my GR got higher I realized it made me too much of a target in multiplayer games, so, since I am pretty confident in my abilities in 1v1 situations, I focused on that.  Mad bomber likes collecting CP and the best way to do that is to play large player games on new/lesser played boards after 'figuring out' a board as best you can and beating others that might still perhaps be figuring it out.  You will lose some due to all the luck factors built into that equation, which is not great for one's GR, but he does pretty well for himself.  His preference vs my preference mean we don't play each other much (except for DEV games, I encounter him there all the time).  But it is not avoidance, but preference.  Don't mistake the two.  But, for other top players who like 1v1's, I have played with them severally due to the matching preference we share.  I have never avoided CC, Yuriz, Toto, Andernut, Luieuil, Babbalouie, Bex Valeur, Chele Nica, vult, Vyro, fiverocketcars, amongst other players who enjoy 1v1s whenever the chance arises.  I have even coached many of these same players, among others, to be better and up the competition level.  My record against these players speaks for itself.

Even this whole tournament thing.  I'll excel at 1v1 tournaments and MB will excel on multi player tournaments.  Preference will still dictate on which battlefields players meet and how often.

Abishai clearly stated that he avoids you. I'm not putting the blame on the players, but on the system. The system best rewards those who work on its soft spots.

If we want truly competitive gaming we need a system where to obtain the highest glory, the best players are forced to face off on a regular basis.  Hence my proposal to have a seasoned Championship based on tournament results. Some details will have to be implemented to make sure players are not vulturing weak tournaments, like having the points awarded based on the average BS, GS or TS of the players involved, mandatory tournaments for the top players (i.e. if a top player skips one of these tournaments, one of the slots will have a 0 and could only be replaced by another mandatory tournament).

Fortunately the system used in tennis provides all the tools we need and I know this system very well - with some adaptations, I think it can work great here.

I wouldn't consider myself a top player, but nice try to pivot from the Mad Bomber berickf comparison. My preference is more to fogged, medium to large player games. I've actually played berickf 1v1 in Iwo Jima, that's why I can attest that he is very good.  

I think it is great that there are so many kinds of maps and settings that players can find the niche that they prefer, because that is what is fun to them. That is what this site is about, having fun right? A little escape from reality and exercise of the brain.  

Forcing players to play eacother in games that are outside their preference, and therefore not entertaining to them, seems Stalinesque.  Right now players have the freedom to choose what games they want to join and top players from within each niche enjoy eachothers company.

berickf wrote:

I'm not sure if 'I do not want to mess with him' means he avoids me or that he needs to do his homework before stepping up to the plate?  Once he asked me to teach him IWO and I did my best to take him through the basics of it, but I have not seen him back again for a follow up lesson.  You'd have to ask him if that statement is avoidance or means a required preparation before playing me?

It should translate that 'you do not want to be lackadaisical in your approach.' I played you in a private which was a good combination of a lesson and a whoopin, then I created two public games and Cona Chris joined both. He gave me a good lesson part 2 and 3.

berickf has a 98% H score in Iwo Jima playing nothing but 2-man? Wow....must be a board where the dice and initial map count for little. 

Personally I wouldn't avoid the elite players on their best boards for fear of losing, but I'd hesitate thinking I'm unlikely to make the games competitive. I think it's a good thing knowing who you're playing. If you sign up for a Battle of Bladensburg game and don't know if you get The Lion or berickf that would not be ideal imo. 

Abishai wrote:

I wouldn't consider myself a top player, but nice try to pivot from the Mad Bomber berickf comparison. My preference is more to fogged, medium to large player games. I've actually played berickf 1v1 in Iwo Jima, that's why I can attest that he is very good.  

I think it is great that there are so many kinds of maps and settings that players can find the niche that they prefer, because that is what is fun to them. That is what this site is about, having fun right? A little escape from reality and exercise of the brain.  

Forcing players to play eacother in games that are outside their preference, and therefore not entertaining to them, seems Stalinesque.  Right now players have the freedom to choose what games they want to join and top players from within each niche enjoy eachothers company.

I've never put any player's ability into question, I was simply saying the system rewards avoiding the best players.

It's obviously great that there are so many kinds of maps and I'm doing my share to increase that diversity. My proposal for a Championship does not inhibit anyone from playing what they want. It simply says, if you want to reach the highest glory, you will meet top players with some regularity on a diverse set of boards.

berickf was saying with my proposal, each player would simply choose the tournament formats/boards where they're best at and the problem would persist, but what I have in mind is that there will be some scheduled tournaments and players seeking the top places will have to play some of them or they won't be able to fill all the slots in their Countables, thus not maximising their points total in the Championship.

Take this as an example:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/dominic-thiem/tb69/rankings-breakdown

The player has some tournaments in his countables with less points than other tournaments that are in the Non-Countables. In tennis, there is a mix of freedom and mandatory tournaments for the players who have finished the previous season in the top 30.

I see validity to both sides of the 'champions should play against other champions' argument.  While I agree that it is preferable if champions earn their points in play against each other, the range of diversity of board types on this site makes that a daunting proposition.  WGWF is nothing like Go-Geared.  Including all board types would be like making it such that to win the FED EX Cup, you have to be a golfer and a bowler.

Moreover, some of the top players on this site play exclusively on a 3-day or longer timer.  No, even though it would be preferable (to me at least), it's simply unreasonable.

And speaking of diversity, it's been frustrating for me to realize that there's too much diversity of opinion on the whole CP/GR conversation.  I don't like the current state of either and believe they both need a major overhaul, much less an update - but apparently there are some who think they're just fine.

Board diversity in the player's countables doesn't have to be that wide.  I was thinking of having some slots filled by mandatory tournaments and other slots by whatever tournament the player chooses to play, amandatory tournament could aso occupy the "Other" slots if the "Mandatory" slots are already full.

The mandatory tournaments should be scheduled ahead of the start of the season, but it wouldn't be like tennis where if you skip one of these tournaments, you'll have a 0-pointer occupying a slot for the following 52-weeks, or in our case, till the end of the season which does not necessarily have to be 52 weeks. My idea was that there would be more mandatory tournaments than "Mandatory" slots, so each player would only need to play a fraction of these tournaments to fully occupy those slots.

There would be enough board diversity in the mandatory tournaments so that each player while still having to play on different boards, he/she could still avoid some boards.

Btw, only NvN tournaments would be allowed to count for the Championship, so there would be no in-game alliance shenanigans. Most of these type of games end fairly quickly, namely 1v1 and 2v2.

2 day for small N and 3 day for large N seems reasonable.

M57 wrote:

I see validity to both sides of the 'champions should play against other champions' argument.  While I agree that it is preferable if champions earn their points in play against each other, the range of diversity of board types on this site makes that a daunting proposition.  WGWF is nothing like Go-Geared.  Including all board types would be like making it such that to win the FED EX Cup, you have to be a golfer and a bowler.

And a professional Ice hockey player, a windsurfer, a skeet shooter and an MMA fighter

Hey, did someone leak my resume...?

Litotes wrote:

berickf has a 98% H score in Iwo Jima playing nothing but 2-man? Wow....must be a board where the dice and initial map count for little. 

Personally I wouldn't avoid the elite players on their best boards for fear of losing, but I'd hesitate thinking I'm unlikely to make the games competitive. I think it's a good thing knowing who you're playing. If you sign up for a Battle of Bladensburg game and don't know if you get The Lion or berickf that would not be ideal imo. 

Maybe have it as an option to the game/tournament creator.

berickf wrote:

M57 wrote:

I see validity to both sides of the 'champions should play against other champions' argument.  While I agree that it is preferable if champions earn their points in play against each other, the range of diversity of board types on this site makes that a daunting proposition.  WGWF is nothing like Go-Geared.  Including all board types would be like making it such that to win the FED EX Cup, you have to be a golfer and a bowler.

And a professional Ice hockey player, a windsurfer, a skeet shooter and an MMA fighter

C'mon, you guys are taking this out of proportion. Besides, to win the championship you "just" have to be better than the opposition, you don't have to be perfect in every board available (and the championship wouldn't force players to play every board available, far from it).

redshift wrote:

berickf wrote:

M57 wrote:

I see validity to both sides of the 'champions should play against other champions' argument.  While I agree that it is preferable if champions earn their points in play against each other, the range of diversity of board types on this site makes that a daunting proposition.  WGWF is nothing like Go-Geared.  Including all board types would be like making it such that to win the FED EX Cup, you have to be a golfer and a bowler.

And a professional Ice hockey player, a windsurfer, a skeet shooter and an MMA fighter

C'mon, you guys are taking this out of proportion. Besides, to win the championship you "just" have to be better than the opposition, you don't have to be perfect in every board available (and the championship wouldn't force players to play every board available, far from it).

Thingol wrote:

Hey, did someone leak my resume...?

Sigh, looks like Thingol has the proposed tournament championships locked up before they have even started.