With the ongoing site update taking place it might be a good time to incorporate the board ranking score for the actual type of game that is being played. Currently, whether in a regular, team, tournament or team tourney game, the rank shown in the player stats chart within the game itself only shows the player's individual board rank from regular games. For each player, board rank scores are generated for each category and viewable on a players stat page so the numbers are already available, so it would be a matter of sorting the game type and displaying the correct data in the rank column. I can't help but feel this was the original intent and maybe slid through the cracks or maybe this was the case before my time here and hasn't worked correctly?

Thoughts?

I think it was intentional to show the individual score in the player stats chart within the game. The rationale being that this most accurately represented their ability on that board as usually most games were played individually.

I can change it across quite easily if that's what people would prefer?

My first instinct was to keep it as is for the reason Tom gave, but I can see where showing player ranking for the type of game being played would be appropriate because it is the score that will directly impact the allocation of points for that game.

I'm not too fussed about it but I willl mention board rank scores aren't always representative, I've played more than ten times as many tournament games as public games on several boards. When playing tournaments I'd prefer to see individual tourney rankings.

Litotes wrote:I'm not too fussed about it but I will mention board rank scores aren't always representative, I've played more than ten times as many tournament games as public games on several boards. When playing tournaments I'd prefer to see individual tourney rankings.

When we made the decision tom referred to tournaments were brandy-new so it made sense at the time. It may make more sense now to make the switch as Litotes indicates.

Obviously what we really need a score that combines individual scores with tournament scores. That should be easy to figure out.

Amidon37 wrote:Litotes wrote:I'm not too fussed about it but I will mention board rank scores aren't always representative, I've played more than ten times as many tournament games as public games on several boards. When playing tournaments I'd prefer to see individual tourney rankings.

When we made the decision tom referred to tournaments were brandy-new so it made sense at the time. It may make more sense now to make the switch as Litotes indicates.

Obviously what we really need a score that combines individual scores with tournament scores. That should be easy to figure out.

The mechanics of figuring out a combined score sounds simple enough, but how would you suggest it was made? Just as an example, for Colossal Crusade (my most played tourney board) I have 1921 tourney ranking for 134 games played. For public games I have 1001 for 10 games played. Would you suggest a simple average of 1461? Or a weighted average, where the tourney score is worth a lot more due to more games played?

Amidon37 wrote:

When we made the decision tom referred to tournaments were brandy-new so it made sense at the time. It may make more sense now to make the switch as Litotes indicates.

Obviously what we really need a score that combines individual scores with tournament scores. That should be easy to figure out.

It made perfect sense at the time, but so many more games have been played since, generating more useful rankings for the four specific game categories. I applaud the foresight of differentiating between them so early on, frankly.

And sorry, it's not obvious to me Amidon, If I am in a Team Tourney game (as an example), that specific ranking of an opponent is what I would be after, honestly. The dialog surrounding establishing a combined formula could go on for some time and the result might water down the data and give us a head scratching result. Now, that is not to say that I totally disagree with the "need" for a combined type of ranking as currently only the regular game rank figures into the board rankings but it would it would need to be some sort of separate ranking which had no effect on people's ranks and CP's.

I posted the suggestion after some dialog amongst teammates in a tourney game as comparisons were being made as to who was worst at a particular board citing the ranks shown, soon a "not so fast" card was played and the tourney ranks were dug up from individual profiles. Seemed easier if the appropriate ranks were shown.

Amidon37 wrote:

Obviously what we really need a score that combines individual scores with tournament scores. That should be easy to figure out.

Sorry, this was a deep cut. A number of years ago we tried to come up with combined score. A lot of discussion went nowhere.

The CP replacement discussion? That's a bit different than what we are discussing here I believe, because that was an overall across-all-boards score, and this is an overall-for-a-single-board score?

At the time I was against "Proposal I", I think it was called? Maybe M57 came up with the idea? Basically include all positive score about 1000 as a players champion points, and sum that up to get a total new Champion Score. After a few years to think about it, I kind of like the elegance and simplicity, and I think it hits most of the right targets.

Another CP points race for tourneys would be fun. A TP race. Points given the same way, anyone ranked top-10 for tourney points on the board and the usual parameters (20, 15, 12 etc). Of course, we'd have to add people to board rankings who have only played tournaments, and then to be able to sort on that. I'm sure on several boards whoever has highest tourney points haven't played a single public game.

Honestly, a player's rank from regular individual games is less than representative of their abilities with regard to team and/or individual tournament scenarios imho. Without going into a large list of examples I'll just quote Tom Hanks here: "there ain't no truces in tourneys" to make my point.

I will also point out that in a team tournament, when players are invited to a game, the ranks listed while players are joining is the player's Team Rank score from the regular games. Once all the seats are filled, the players' ranks all revert back to the players' individual ranks from the regular games. Huh?

I wouldn't mind seeing a breakdown of the number of games (or pointing me in the direction of where to find this) started that are Regular vs Tournament. Probably would be skewed a bit as games are smaller but then again there are the r/t games so I'm not sure unless we could see data.

I can do the extra 4 or 5 clicks and running down the list of maps within an opponent's stats to find the info I am after, but deep down it seems the tournaments aren't getting the respect they might deserve.

hootz72 wrote:

.... but deep down it seems the tournaments aren't getting the respect they might deserve.

I agree,

Somehow, I'm only at just over 1000 solo, but 1369 as a teammate. It could be that I have had some good teammates (which isn't wrong), but I *am* 6th overall in # of tourney wins so I think it's more than that 😇.

weathertop wrote:hootz72 wrote:

.... but deep down it seems the tournaments aren't getting the respect they might deserve.

I agree,

Somehow, I'm only at just over 1000 solo, but 1369 as a teammate. It could be that I have had some good teammates (which isn't wrong), but I *am* 6th overall in # of tourney wins so I think it's more than that 😇.

6th in number of tourney wins? I have Cona Chris 6th, for this order:

1) Babbalouie (who knows? At least 200)

2) Charlemagne (way more than 100)

3) ....some Norwegian dude (87)

4) Mad Bomber (82)

5) Berickf (80)

6) Cona Chris (55)

weird. the table on the Tourney page shows this when I sort by wins:

First image is before start of Team Tourney game (ranks posted are Regular Team game numbers):

Next after all have joined game shows individual regular game scores

None of these numbers will factor into the results following the game?

Also it would appear my team has less to fear as it has been established that a certain player *isn't* 6th overall in tournament wins.

;)

weathertop wrote:weird. the table on the Tourney page shows this when I sort by wins:

The table only show the top-20 by score plus yourself. There is no way to sort by tourney wins. Babbalouie, Charlemagne, Mad Bomber and Cona Chris aren't ranked in the top-20 for score just at the moment so they're not visible.