Personally I could care less about the global rankings.  You could play all of one map against different players and get to the top, and that's fine and all but I respect players who get wins on lots of different maps.

There is a difference between winning a game of 8 player Asheron's Gear vs Winning a 2 player game of Wargear: The Gathering.  Yes, both maps have their unique gameplay and you have to understand them to do well, but Asheron will get you more global points because you beat 8 players unless you win 8 games of WTG the it's the same (I think so at least).

I presently have 19 championship points and most of them are in maps that I play a lot.  I have a 25% winning percentage and am not that great of a player that way but for you all that have played against me.......are you gonna just discount me based on any of those stats?

A great player who used to play here but then went away once said:
"Risky, I fear you most of any player because I don't know what you will do except that I know you will go all Risky at some point and lose the game......Dude, that's just what you do"

Anyways, I think the Global Rankings are silly and that Championship points show who the best all around players are.  If I'm ever in the top 10 then I've either made a bunch of maps that only I can win or the system is seriously flawed.

I've noticed only the people who devote a lot of time here and play tons of maps are the ones climbing the top charts...if top rank player started fresh and played a limit of 10 games, it would take forever to climb because of how much maps depend on luck. Even if they continued to use their veteran strats...

that's just my honest opinion...

kinetix wrote:

I've noticed only the people who devote a lot of time here and play tons of maps are the ones climbing the top charts...if top rank player started fresh and played a limit of 10 games, it would take forever to climb because of how much maps depend on luck. Even if they continued to use their veteran strats...

When it comes to racking up Championship Points, you are undeniably correct.  But it doesn't take to long for your Global Ranking to suggest your level of play. Remember, no one can take GR points away from you if you don't play (though your standing in the rankings may change).  Right now there are four players with less than 100 games played who are in the top 25 in the Global Rankings.

This may be small consolation, but when it comes to attaining CPs, a good standard member can easily put themselves in the running on most any one board by playing it exclusively.

Nevertheless, generally speaking you are right, and your argument is the reason I don't pay much attention to CPs, especially when I'm in a game and need to check out the quality of the competition.

If you are concerned about CPs and want to play more than 10 games at a time, get a membership. $30/year is pretty cheap entertainment by most any standard.

kinetix wrote:

I've noticed only the people who devote a lot of time here and play tons of maps are the ones climbing the top charts...if top rank player started fresh and played a limit of 10 games, it would take forever to climb because of how much maps depend on luck. Even if they continued to use their veteran strats...

 

that's just my honest opinion...

Aye, you're right.  I imagine eventually there will be a stat that shows running previous 6 months (or whatever time frame) rankings along with the current "all time" rankings.  I think tom has showed interest in a system like that, just a matter of implementation.

What M57 said.. a low frequency of games will take you longer to reach your natural balance, but once you are there the frequency has no effect on your ranking.

@BD: My ranking is taking its biggest blow aswell. sucks :p

Id like tom to create a global ranking history graph from the beginning to now. If it exists on single maps I guess it's possible to make.

ecko wrote:

Id like tom to create a global ranking history graph from the beginning to now. If it exists on single maps I guess it's possible to make.

I would love to see this as well, for no reason other then I go weeks without looking and love to see it rise and fall throughout the last year.

Alpha wrote:

ecko wrote:

Id like tom to create a global ranking history graph from the beginning to now. If it exists on single maps I guess it's possible to make.

I would love to see this as well, for no reason other then I go weeks without looking and love to see it rise and fall throughout the last year.

That would be great indeed. Also the highest and lowest, the daily average, all this on a 1 month basis and all time (as already mentioned in another thread).

Toto wrote:

Alpha wrote:

ecko wrote:

Id like tom to create a global ranking history graph from the beginning to now. If it exists on single maps I guess it's possible to make.

I would love to see this as well, for no reason other then I go weeks without looking and love to see it rise and fall throughout the last year.

That would be great indeed. Also the highest and lowest, the daily average, all this on a 1 month basis and all time (as already mentioned in another thread).

These have been mentioned before, including a "Billboards" style who's up and who's down graphic.

M57 wrote:

Toto wrote:

Alpha wrote:

ecko wrote:

Id like tom to create a global ranking history graph from the beginning to now. If it exists on single maps I guess it's possible to make.

I would love to see this as well, for no reason other then I go weeks without looking and love to see it rise and fall throughout the last year.

That would be great indeed. Also the highest and lowest, the daily average, all this on a 1 month basis and all time (as already mentioned in another thread).

These have been mentioned before, including a "Billboards" style who's up and who's down graphic.

Right. it was Alpha's idea. Sorry I though in was in another thread. 

I am in my sickest ****ing run ever, just losing every possible game. it is insane, -800 points in global ranking, break incoming.

ecko wrote:

I am in my sickest ****ing run ever, just losing every possible game. it is insane, -800 points in global ranking, break incoming.

As a percentage of your score, that's not any worse than my fall from about 2050 to 1350.

What do people thing of having something like a 25, 50 and 100 game moving average? It could be a cool looking stat/graphic, and I'm wondering if it might serve as a better gauge of a player's abilities.

M57 wrote:

ecko wrote:

I am in my sickest ****ing run ever, just losing every possible game. it is insane, -800 points in global ranking, break incoming.

As a percentage of your score, that's not any worse than my fall from about 2050 to 1350.

What do people thing of having something like a 25, 50 and 100 game moving average? It could be a cool looking stat/graphic, and I'm wondering if it might serve as a better gauge of a player's abilities.

A moving average is a good idea also. But the problem is the point calculation system, as I already mentionned several times in the forum, with little support. This system allowing to lose 100 points makes the ranking very volatile.

Toto wrote:

A moving average is a good idea also. But the problem is the point calculation system, as I already mentionned several times in the forum, with little support. This system allowing to lose 100 points makes the ranking very volatile.

..thus the value of a moving average.  You simply overlay them on the same graph.

Toto wrote:

This system allowing to lose 100 points makes the ranking very volatile.

How many people have lost 100 points at once?

Yertle wrote:

Toto wrote:

This system allowing to lose 100 points makes the ranking very volatile.

How many people have lost 100 points at once?

Toto, Yertle is alluding to the fact that players almost never lose 100 points at once. You'd have to lose to someone who is rated well below 400 for it to happen to you with your current ranking.

I don't see you complaining about the fact that you have gained close to 200 points in a few of your games. The reality is that people gain 300+ points in one game all the time on WG (all you have to do is win a 16 player game where the average player is rated higher than you).  Even the best players almost never lose more than 50 in a game.

M57 wrote:

Yertle wrote:

Toto wrote:

This system allowing to lose 100 points makes the ranking very volatile.

How many people have lost 100 points at once?

Toto, Yertle is alluding to the fact that players almost never lose 100 points at once. You'd have to lose to someone who is rated well below 400 for it to happen to you with your current ranking.

I don't see you complaining about the fact that you have gained close to 200 points in a few of your games. The reality is that people gain 300+ points in one game all the time on WG (all you have to do is win a 16 player game where the average player is rated higher than you).  Even the best players almost never lose more than 50 in a game.

True, only a few players lose 100 points in 1 game.  But for me losing even 50 points (40 would be acceptable) in 1 game is too much.  Just 1 example, I am about to lose a tournament game against Camajan (http://www.wargear.net/games/view/45423). He is not a bad player and deserves his victory. I am ranked 1819 (number 1 till I lose this game) and he is ranked 395, so I will lose 92 points. In case I had won, I would have got only 4 points.  This ratio is the problem. And you have to try to understand why a good player has such a ranking. I believe because he got booted 83 times, not because he is weak. And I am not speaking again about Genesis.

On the other hand, you cannot compare this with winning a 16 player game, as you have very little chance of winning this kind of games (especially when you have to wear a target on your back because you are supposed to be a rather good player. I don't think I am paranoid).

M57 wrote:

Even the best players almost never lose more than 50 in a game.

It does happen though.

One of my last defeats:

You lost the game 'Castles'.

This game took 10 days 13 hours 19 minutes 11 seconds to finish and you took 11 turns.

Global Ranking Score Change
H0bb3s: 2762/873 x20 = 74
New score = 2762 - 74 = 2688

And I also lost around 140 points in two games a few days ago.

Toto wrote:

 True, only a few players lose 100 points in 1 game.  But for me losing even 50 points (40 would be acceptable) in 1 game is too much.  Just 1 example, I am about to lose a tournament game against Camajan (http://www.wargear.net/games/view/45423). He is not a bad player and deserves his victory. I am ranked 1819 (number 1 till I lose this game) and he is ranked 395, so I will lose 92 points. In case I had won, I would have got only 4 points.  This ratio is the problem. And you have to try to understand why a good player has such a ranking. I believe because he got booted 83 times, not because he is weak. And I am not speaking again about Genesis.

On the other hand, you cannot compare this with winning a 16 player game, as you have very little chance of winning this kind of games (especially when you have to wear a target on your back because you are supposed to be a rather good player. I don't think I am paranoid).

 

I don't see how he is ranked 395. As I type this, camajan's global ranking is 904 and his rank on that particular board is 1067.  I see you losing 32 points on the board and about 45 in the global rankings.