I agree that many stats require the team.  Note, that I chose stats for my example that do not need the team so I could avoid the grey zone like assists and RBI.  For this site it is much simpler, if you play a game alone it is an individual stat, if you play with a team it is a team stat - no grey.

I am not sure where you are going with your discussion on the aggregate.  If you don't think that an aggregate of CP and GR has any value then why would an aggregate of four stats that you propose have value?  I think that both aggregates have value.  I don't disagree with the aggregate you propose, I would just prefer an individual composite if there were only one stat and had to chose between the two. 

SquintGnome wrote:

I agree that many stats require the team.  Note, that I chose stats for my example that do not need the team so I could avoid the grey zone like assists and RBI.  For this site it is much simpler, if you play a game alone it is an individual stat, if you play with a team it is a team stat - no grey.

I am not sure where you are going with your discussion on the aggregate.  If you don't think that an aggregate of CP and GR has any value then why would an aggregate of four stats that you propose have value?  I think that both aggregates have value.  I don't disagree with the aggregate you propose, I would just prefer an individual composite if there were only one stat and had to chose between the two. 

I disagree that playing with a team is a team stat - no grey. I have played with teammates and won in unison with them and have played with teammates and have won in spite of them.  Some people get how to be a good teammate, and others, don't have a clue.  So, one's individual team ability either floats the boat, or sinks it, and their teammates either have to win with them, or, win in spite.  I have won team games before with a less then desirable ally.  I have also played with great teammates and through a series of events, be it being out maneuvered, or out-lucked, have lost.  But, that is the nature of playing risk be it in a team game or not.  Even in non team games, a rogue player can tank your game, but, that doesn't take that game out of the ranking even though it might not truly reflect your individual ability.  It happens.  With team games all kinds of new individual game-play variables come into play when playing team games, and mastering those individual team-play skills makes a difference.  One has to learn how to provide the assist, and not just go for the goal!  Over many games, those with the highest team rankings should be those who have mastered these individual team skills and those who can't get their rank up are those who are usually those who have not mastered their individual team skills.  A lot of grey there, and a lot of individual ability reflected in the ranking!

For your second point, I thought I explained it before, but, it must have been muddy.  An aggregate that encompasses, not just the four I say most often (actually 5, because I usually include team-tourney as well), but as much as possible is my preference, yes.  It could even include a roving h-ranking and have 6 components... and possibly more, for instance, I have heard it said before that tournament Wins (trophies) might be included as well, as trophies do not focus as much on the 1v1 nature of the top tournament players and rewards longevity to the site and success in tournament games irregardless of one's 1v1 prowess.  The reason why my preference is to include as much as seems reasonable is because by encompassing as many individual skills as possible something "new" is captured by the rank, this being, completeness in all areas of the game.  By amalgamating each player's individual rank in each area into a comparable aggregate rank, then all these apples and oranges can be turned into banana's through an equivalent conversion method and then players can compete for being the most "complete" player.

GR and CP alone miss out on capturing so much of one's individual skill set.  They might be based on different things, but, their prestige as the "top" ranks makes them the apples of the ranks that one might look at.  Tourney, Team, Team-Tourney, Roving-h, tournament trophies, etc.  These are a fruit salad already, but, as the less prestigious ranks, I'll call them oranges.  So, to me, when I look at an aggregate of apples, all that comes out is a hybrid apple.  I want an aggregate to be a Fruit Sunday with whipped cream on top!

I know that I am relatively new to this site but could someone explain to me this total concept of "championship points".  Someone could have a high score and 0 "championship points" and be ranked a Private and another could have a real low score but has let's say 10 "championship points" and be ranked a Captain. This makes no sense to me or maybe I'm stupid. I understand that only the top ten players on a board can earn "championship points". How do you become a top ten player if you are not allowed to earn "championship points"? What if you only play wargear warfare like the majority of the players do? To me personally everything should only be based on your score. Again, I am relatively new to this site so I need to be instructed on the whole philosophy of "championship points". I would rather be a Private with a high score and 0 "championship points" then a Captain with 10 "championship points". Can there possibly be 2 separate ranks? A scoring rank and a "championship points" rank?      

You have a score for each board.   Just like your global ranking your board scores start at 1000, and go up or down when you win on that board.  Your champion points are based on your board scores.  Good ranking/board score on a board gets champion points.

Want to go up in rank?  Try playing some other boards.  Join a tournament or start a private game to try out a board with low risk.  Pick one board (sort by popularity or rating & filter by difficulty on the board page), watch a history or two of top ranked players to figure out strategy.

Why should you have to play a different board that you don't like. I have done some research and players get championship points by playing on boards that are not played much which makes no sense. So, if there is a new board and you play it a lot right away you immediately get championship points. This championship point system should be abolished. It favors players who started playing on this site in its infancy. Let's see someone like you start from scratch with 1000 meaningless points and 0 championship points and play only wargear warfare and see if you can become a Brigadier General.  

Babbalouie wrote:

This championship point system should be abolished. 

Go B, Tell us how you really feel.. 

To be clear, I am definitely in the "Aggregate should equally weight everything" camp, but in defense of Championship Points, I recognize that they are good for the site in that they encourage players to play different boards.  Yes, perhaps I am biased because I am a designer, but I wouldn't disagree with those who argue that recognition of solid play across the site is a valid indicator of a number of different skills. I simply feel that CPs shouldn't be placed on the pedestal that they currently inhabit. When you click on the Rankings tab, players are not only listed and ranked by CPs by default, but they now get additional recognition in the form of a Rank that follows the player's icon, etc.

CP's are flawed as a primary indicator in that they completely disregard Team Play, Tournament Play, and if you're a glass half empty kind of guy, they penalize those who play "only the best" boards.

In my perfect world.  CPs are just another stat; there should be an aggregate that equally weights CPs with all of the above mentioned areas; and THAT should determine player ranks.

..and that's how I really feel.

M57 wrote:

Babbalouie wrote:

This championship point system should be abolished. 

Go B, Tell us how you really feel.. 

To be clear, I am definitely in the "Aggregate should equally weight everything" camp, but in defense of Championship Points, I recognize that they are good for the site in that they encourage players to play different boards.  Yes, perhaps I am biased because I am a designer, but I wouldn't disagree with those who argue that recognition of solid play across the site is a valid indicator of a number of different skills. I simply feel that CPs shouldn't be placed on the pedestal that they currently inhabit. When you click on the Rankings tab, players are not only listed and ranked by CPs by default, but they now get additional recognition in the form of a Rank that follows the player's icon, etc.

CP's are flawed as a primary indicator in that they completely disregard Team Play, Tournament Play, and if you're a glass half empty kind of guy, they penalize those who play "only the best" boards.

In my perfect world.  CPs are just another stat; there should be an aggregate that equally weights CPs with all of the above mentioned areas; and THAT should determine player ranks.

..and that's how I really feel.

+1

Although, I don't mind if an aggregate weighting system is devised to keep some of the CP/GR diehards happy, for the most, I can't disagree with what M57 has said here.  And, I also think that what babbolouie has said really brings some voice to the plight of the new arrival to WarGear, which also adds increased validity to the idea of a well constructed, all inclusive aggregate, so as not to discourage the new arrival to WarGear from feeling that they can't get a promotion for just being a good player alone.

Babbalouie: This bias grew out of the site many of the early members came from. On that website, the novelty wasn't online Risk. It was the customization of new games designed for our enjoyment that were more interesting and complicated than Risk and also requiring more skill to play than Risk. Since tom was the #1 player on that site, which also rewarded "diverse play", that preference carried over here.

I'd agree that the system could use some overhaul, especially if our customer base really is centered towards Wargear Warfare. Reward systems are arbitrary to me. But I do take more pride in being competitive on a competitive board. I was #1 on Wargear Warfare last year, and that took a lot more effort to gain (and ultimately lose) the 20 CPs than I put into the 20 CPs that I have from Escalation. I agree that, in principle, competitive boards should be more heavily weighted with rewards stretching out much farther than top 10.

But, rewards ARE arbitrary :)

Hugh wrote:

Since tom was the #1 player on that site, which also rewarded "diverse play", that preference carried over here.

In the beginning I think the main ranking was on Global Ranking, but a community discussion occurred in which tom changed the main ranking over to CPs...at least I think that's how it happened.

berickf wrote:

To me it seems that some kind of over-focus is occurring on the fear of team and tourney games as if an aggregate is supposed to overshadow the value of CP or GR... Which it would NOT!  It is not supposed to drown out GR or CP, or any of it's component parts for that matter, but rather be an alternative way of compiling an individual's skills into a complete package rank.  

Except that, IT WOULD! IT WOULD! IT WOULD! 

Why are we shouting?  

Anyway, whatever number determines the rank is going to be the most valued.  Period.  That's basic psychology.  As Freakonomics teaches the intention of policy matters a lot less than what results from a policy change.  No matter how you want to couch it that is what will happen.  I don't understand other than your dedication to your position how your supporting that statement.  

 

Yertle wrote:

Hugh wrote:

Since tom was the #1 player on that site, which also rewarded "diverse play", that preference carried over here.

In the beginning I think the main ranking was on Global Ranking, but a community discussion occurred in which tom changed the main ranking over to CPs...at least I think that's how it happened.

I am a retired manager from an automotive company who excelled in workforce allocation and number crunching. I have a law degree as well as a management degree and an MBA. I have also been a Key User in the implementation of the SAP system for the company. 

This "Championship Points" ranking system is severely flawed and should be immediately scrapped. The Global Ranking system is definitely the way to go. Here are some number to ponder for various "officers" with "Championship Points". They show the board, games played on that board, games won on that board, and "Championship Points" earned on that board. 

PLAYER A: BRIGADIER GENERAL with 170 total games played and 40 "Championship Points"

A Maze Maze Maze Maze World  2 played 2 won 2 CP's

Deadwood 12 played 7 won 10 CP's

Hoarding LEGO 4 played 2 won 4 CP's

Lego Factory Battle 14 played 12 won 3 CP's

Olympics 9 played 2 won 1 CP's

Pirates of the Caribbean 3 played 3 won 6 CP's

Simple World 14 played 6 won 8 CP's

Ten-Propagate 23 played 14 won 2 CP's

There Will Be Blood 7 played 3 won 4 CP's

 

PLAYER B: COLONEL with 202 total games played and 26 "Championship Points"

Feudal Japan 7 played 3 won 6 CP's

Holy Land 3 played 2 won 4 CP's

Hordes of China 8 played 3 won 3 CP's

King of the Mountains 5 played 2 won 10 CP's

World War 23 played 6 won 3 CP's

 

PLAYER C: LIEUTENANT with 119 games played and 5 "Championship Points"

9 Blocks 4 played 3 won 3 CP's

Hawaiian Islands 2 played 2 won 2 CP's

 

PLAYER D: COLONEL with 119 games played and 21 "Championship Points"

Duck Hunt 3 played 3 won 1 CP's

Throne Defense 7 played 3 won 3 CP's

Rescue 7 played 3 won 3 CP's

Electoral College 4 played 3 won 4 CP's

Moon Base 6 played 5 won 10 CP's

 

PLAYER E: CAPTAIN with 101 games played and 6 "Championship Points"

Connect Some 5 played 5 won 1 CP's

Hoarding LEGO 1 played 1 won 1 CP's

Hordes of Africa 26 played 10 won 4 CP's

 

PLAYER F: COLONEL with 105 games played and 24 "Championship Points"

King of the Mountains 3 played 3 won 12 CP's

Manifest Destiny 1 played 1 won 1 CP's

Resource 3 played 2 won 8 CP's

Warp 1 played 1 won 3 CP's

 

Enough said. I could go on and on. I rest my case and stand my ground. I speak for the overthrow of the "Championship Points" ranking system fluently. Whoever supports using this "Championship Points" ranking system does not have a leg to stand on. There are "Privates" that have better stats then "Generals".

 

 

 

Babbalouie, could you spell out what point you're making with this list of players and their source of CPs? It's not evident to me.

Hugh wrote:

I'd agree that the system could use some overhaul, especially if our customer base really is centered towards Wargear Warfare. Reward systems are arbitrary to me. But I do take more pride in being competitive on a competitive board. I was #1 on Wargear Warfare last year, and that took a lot more effort to gain (and ultimately lose) the 20 CPs than I put into the 20 CPs that I have from Escalation. I agree that, in principle, competitive boards should be more heavily weighted with rewards stretching out much farther than top 10.

But, rewards ARE arbitrary :)

Collider also recently brought this up on another thread.

While, I'm against a new aggregate all inclusive I would definitely support some adjustment to make Championship points more fairly reflect ability. Some boards are a lot harder to get in the points than others, but that's not reflected in the rankings.

1st place on any board is worth 20 CP as long as you score over 1500, but some like wgwf need over 2600 for first and 2050 just to be in the points and Civil War is even higher.  

I'm not sure what math would be the most fair, but maybe something like +1 to every player over 1500 for every player over 1500 (just using the current border).  

It would make everyone over the mark "in the points" and would make 1st place on wgwf worth around 120 CP's to first place.  Not sure if that might be overkill or on the money.  

Or, + X% to each player for each player over 1500. (No idea the number)

Or, maybe it's time to just extend the current threshold: to say 2000 and pay out the top 20?

 

1500+ score - 20 Championship Points 1450+ score - 15 Championship Points 1400+ score - 12 Championship Points 1350+ score - 10 Championship Points 1300+ score - 8 Championship Points 1250+ score - 6 Championship Points 1200+ score - 4 Championship Points 1150+ score - 3 Championship Points 1100+ score - 2 Championship Points 1050+ score - 1 Championship Points

I've no personal favorite. Or, know which would be the most "fair", but maybe fixing the current CP aggregate to be more reflective of effort/ability would be something a little easier to get consensus on than the greater one we're talking about.  

It might be a way to reflect more GR in the current CP since it should bump up those people who got a high GR specializing in a popular (tougher) board.  Like the 4th place on wgwf is only a captain.  Even if all boats rise getting an extra 100 points should push him up a bit.   

Thoughts?

Preferences?

Anyone wanna crunch some numbers?

Would it make a big change in the top 20? 

 

 

Babbalouie wrote:

Enough said. I could go on and on. I rest my case and stand my ground. I speak for the overthrow of the "Championship Points" ranking system fluently. Whoever supports using this "Championship Points" ranking system does not have a leg to stand on. There are "Privates" that have better stats then "Generals".

It goes back to the fact that to get more CPs you have to play more Boards, which normally means more variety of boards than just playing a single board to move your Global Ranking up.  I'm still a fan of CPs over Global Ranking (when just between the two options) due to this fact.  It's really a simplified version of doing what the rest of this thread is talking about in relation to an aggregate score and trying to show how well rounded a player is on all the different types of gameplays available on WarGear.  

That said, to base the "Rank" off of CPs I'm in the "eh" boat as I don't put much weight in my Rank (other than it's cool to have them), but it probably makes most sense as CPs are currently the defining rank.

Babbalouie wrote:

Yertle wrote:

Hugh wrote:

Since tom was the #1 player on that site, which also rewarded "diverse play", that preference carried over here.

In the beginning I think the main ranking was on Global Ranking, but a community discussion occurred in which tom changed the main ranking over to CPs...at least I think that's how it happened.

I am a retired manager from an automotive company who excelled in workforce allocation and number crunching. I have a law degree as well as a management degree and an MBA. I have also been a Key User in the implementation of the SAP system for the company. 

This "Championship Points" ranking system is severely flawed and should be immediately scrapped. The Global Ranking system is definitely the way to go. Here are some number to ponder for various "officers" with "Championship Points". They show the board, games played on that board, games won on that board, and "Championship Points" earned on that board. 

Enough said. I could go on and on. I rest my case and stand my ground. I speak for the overthrow of the "Championship Points" ranking system fluently. Whoever supports using this "Championship Points" ranking system does not have a leg to stand on. There are "Privates" that have better stats then "Generals".

Okay, you're good with numbers. Got it.  But, people here are a bit smarter than the average bear so psychological appeals to authority aren't going to get you very far. 

CP system is flawed. Agreed. Just posted on the subject myself.    

Tossing the whole system is the only answer followed by semi-random data? Not following.   

I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, but I think you need to do a resting case - ground standing - one leg check.

Bombast wise you are doing great.  We kind of excel at that around here, but you're going to need provide some better data and analysis to sway public opinion.   

I love the enthusiasm though, and I'm happy you've joined the conversation.  I'm curious to hear where you're going with this or what you think of my last post.

itsnotatumor wrote:

berickf wrote:

To me it seems that some kind of over-focus is occurring on the fear of team and tourney games as if an aggregate is supposed to overshadow the value of CP or GR... Which it would NOT!  It is not supposed to drown out GR or CP, or any of it's component parts for that matter, but rather be an alternative way of compiling an individual's skills into a complete package rank.  

Except that, IT WOULD! IT WOULD! IT WOULD! 

Why are we shouting?  

Anyway, whatever number determines the rank is going to be the most valued.  Period.  That's basic psychology.  As Freakonomics teaches the intention of policy matters a lot less than what results from a policy change.  No matter how you want to couch it that is what will happen.  I don't understand other than your dedication to your position how your supporting that statement.  

 

 

Tumor,

It wouldn't to me, at least.  For instance, according to your (freakonomics) theory CP should overshadow GR as it stands right now... Which to me, and many others, it doesn't.  I value a good GR over CP any day of the weak simply because I like playing good boards and find it difficult to find the gusto to study a lot of histories for some less then desirable boards and then to play a lot of crap games just to compete in that stat.  So, CP is not the most "valued" to me by any measuring stick simply because it is an inherently flawed stat based on a poor weighting system that overvalues some medium played boards and undervalues boards that are played a lot, i.e., the popular boards that are actually the most fun to play on.  Pretty much the only benefit of CP is to encourage play on more boards, which is fine, but I don't find that that encouragement should be greater then encouraging players to play more tournament games or team games either... Or, to excel as a GR baron, which can be done on one or many boards by the taste of the individual player.  In fact, the whole point of an aggregate actually highlights the component parts such that even ones that were overshadowed before, come out into the light.  For instance, without CP, most players probably wouldn't give a hoot about the individual board rankings for most boards, but, because CP is a board aggregate, CP hunters scour boards where they can try and grab a few points for as little effort as possible... Even if the games take forever to fill because most just aren't interested in those boards.  An aggregate rank, as I and others have suggested, would have the same effect in that regard, as players would become more acutely aware of it's underlying components and where they would need to apply their efforts to increase their aggregate rank.  People would more closely follow, not only CP and GR, but the other component parts as well.  Nothing would be overshadowed, all would be highlighted.  The difference being that to build any component rank, except for CP, one can do it on whatever board they enjoy to play on, so, everyone can have fun building their aggregate rank!, even if they decide to largely ignore CP in the process and stick with the 30-40 points that they got off playing their few preferred boards alone.

I can see how this new achievement system with an icon rank based on CP can be really offsetting to new players like Babbalouie and wonder, is that really the best way to entice new players, many of whom will be perpetually private and never earn a promotion?  Prior to the icon rank (while actually I still do) I would go to the ranking tab and click on everything but CP, because CP is really not a very reflective or important rank to me, but this new icon does seem to bring it a lot more weight then I think it truly deserves.  CP are hard to collect, sure, but are they hard to collect because they are so sought after or because one has to watch histories to master and then play boards that really just aren't that fun...  I think that is what Babbalouie's post was saying up there, that people master a board and then only play it 3-5-7-10 times, so that they can scoop up those 12 CP on that little played board, or whatever, and then never play it again.  Is that really the point of CP?  Does it really deserve all the hype it seems to get once you look at how the top ranks are actually put together?  Or, maybe players, new or old, should feel like they are actually being rewarded for playing well no matter where they decide to ply their efforts?

I agree with you itsnot that the CP ranking could do with an overhaul in how it is weighted and calculated, but, even that would not erase the fact that even the truly horrendous boards still award CP, even if the recalculation made them worth less.  I still think the priority is to elevate the other aspects that the site has to offer by having an all-inclusive aggregate, and to me, an aggregate is more important then tweaking the flawed CP system.  In fact, by including CP (even with a privileged position) in an aggregate, that in itself masks some of its flaws and allows it to encourage players to play as many boards as they want to while not making that the only priority.

Anyway, you know me, I can go on and on about this, but, sometimes it feels like I'm hitting my head against a wall.  I actually don't get the opposing opinion at all.  Sometimes it seems to me that people are just so proud that they board scoured and took so much CP, that they just want to protect the (boring) work that they put into doing so and don't want to threaten that by having a new rank that could threaten their CP's coveted position... Like an old-boys club of WarGear.  Times can change, but, I've started to give up on some of these people actually seeing the light of what's best for the site, for new players and old, and actually putting our heads together to create an all-inclusive aggregate.  And, like I've said before, an aggregate does not threaten any of these ranks that people seem to be trying to protect.  You'd still have to have a decent CP and GR, and follow them, to place well in an aggregate.  So, all I'm left to do is throw my arms up in the air and surrender that I can not change these minds any more then they can change mine.

Cheers mate,

Erick

Yertle - I completely forgot about that brief global ranking phase. It just came back to me in a strange flashback. Everyone had a fro and there was a disco ball hanging from the ceiling.

Babbalouie: GR also has flaws. One way to boost GR is by playing one of these strange games no one else plays at a high win percentage. But, I understand if you prefer GR to CPs and I agree that skill and "Rank" are weakly correlated. For what it's worth, it's a very new system, and I wouldn't be surprised if it undergoes some modification. tom does stuff. He's a good admin that way.

Erick,

I wish I had time to engage with your many long and interesting posts (I really do; quite satisfying to my core nerdness). But the "old-boys club" stuff in the last paragraph kinda peeves me.

You've spent untold bits arguing for a system whose main effect would be to jump you and the little woman into the top 10, so I don't think it's quite fair to talk about people protecting their existing position.

Per Babbalouie, we apparently need to cite our bonafides to support our arguments. The key one in my case is I don't think your system change would affect me hardly at all (as I'm top 10 in team also, thanks mostly to the skills of my usual partner).

And just a bit of a response to your issue about not getting the opposing opinion at all. Compared to CP, it's, frankly, pretty easy to get to top 10 in GR. Just play boards you're good at. It doesn't take too long, and you don't have to play that many games (I got up to #4, 2950). BlackDog, the long-time CP leader (but not now! Cona!) seemed to almost casually grab a top 5 GR spot recently. I suspect none of us top CP folks are really concerned about being able to compete in other areas, it's just not self-evident that a scoring system that rewards board specialists on a hot streak (whether individual play, teams, or tournaments) is as meaningful as one that takes a variety of playing skills.

[which is not to say I don't sorta agree with Babbalouie. It's the aggregate I disagree with. But someone with a 2000 GR shouldn't just be a Private.]

smoke wrote:

Babbalouie, could you spell out what point you're making with this list of players and their source of CPs? It's not evident to me.

The fact that the ranking system is totally based on these "Championship Points" that can easily be gotten with 1 win on certain boards that nobody hardly plays. The ranking system should be based on the Global Ranks and not on "Championship Points". Sorry for not being totally clear. 

SquintGnome wrote: