SquintGnome, I agree with all of the columns but one. Can you provide what the difference would be if the CP's were eliminated from consideration?

I recognize myself as player A, so I'd like to mention that I actually have a higher GR rank (#50) than my CP rank (#72).  I'm not sure if that supports or undermines Babbalouie's point.

I'd also like to point out that there are many others here with advanced degrees and close familiarity with maths.

As far as CP v. GR, I still like CP as a better reflection of a broader play style.  Wargear has 100+ map -   It's kind of its distinguishing feature among this genre of online gaming, and I think the 'champion of wargear' should be someone who excels across many many maps.

That said some kind of rejiggering of CP to award more CP for maps that require more effort to top the rankings seems like a good idea.  Initially I thought I liked itsnotatumor's idea, and say 1 CP for each player over 1500 that you are ranked above, but other than WGWF and Colossal Crusade this doesn't even affect any other boards. 

Since WGWF is really the special case driving all this, I suggest we treat it as a special case (all #s pulled from my ass):

#1) Increase CP scale for all boards to give CP to the to 20.  Start at +30 for 1st place and 2000 points, and go down from there.

#2) Give WGWF it's own special CP scale.  Make 1st place @ 3000 pts worth 100, and go down from there, giving points to the top 50.

That said some kind of rejiggering of CP to award more CP for maps that require more effort to top the rankings seems like a good idea.  Initially I thought I liked itsnotatumor's idea, and say 1 CP for each player over 1500 that you are ranked above, but other than WGWF and Colossal Crusade this doesn't even affect any other boards. 

 

Since WGWF is really the special case driving all this, I suggest we treat it as a special case (all #s pulled from my ass):

#1) Increase CP scale for all boards to give CP to the to 20.  Start at +30 for 1st place and 2000 points, and go down from there.

#2) Give WGWF it's own special CP scale.  Make 1st place @ 3000 pts worth 100, and go down from there, giving points to the top 50.

 

 

+1 to this point.  I also really harmonized with the idea of finding a way to award more CP for the more played maps, and less for the less played.  Bottom line: more competition - greater champion

As for doing away with CP, I disagree. It's an important score, and it should be kept and rewarded -Just imo - should our ranks be based on it? Perhaps.  It's definately less volatile than my GR.  But then again, I think we should be mashing them all up into an aggregate, that weights each category accordingly -  and then being ranked on that.  I'm also in favor of the aggregate because it includes tourney and team scores too - as well as H rating - and these are important indicators of a players skill levels. 

Babbalouie, none of the ranking systems (CPs, GRs, or any of the aggregate systems people are talking about) are perfect.  All have some flaws, and all can be gamed.

Global ranking is just as flawed as CPs - the current top ranked player on GR got the overwhelming majority of his points by playing 2p games against noobs on a couple boards that are quite difficult to play on.  You can specialize in just one board and be the top ranked player on GR - not sure that's what we want for this site.

And it doesn't favor the players who were here when the site first launched necessarily.  I joined WG a few years ago (long after the site launched) and at the time I think BlackDog was the leader in CPs with well over 200 at the time.  It took a while, but I eventually did get the number 1 spot, and most of that time I was in no more than 15 active games at any given time (including tournaments).  Not everyone wants to do this, but I'm saying it's possible.  It's hard to hang onto all your CPs when you have so many.

ratsy wrote:

Bottom line: more competition - greater champion

That a little simple, ratsy. Depends on who. Lotsa noobs and so-so players tend to play WGWF and fill up the games. It's one reason I don't play it anymore. (The other is it's really boring, unless you're playing a top player, and even then ... it's just very predictable. Unless toto's playing, of course.) And lots of wins are tallied up in 1 on 1 games. Again, that's not so tough, just as Cona was describing above.

Granted, there are excellent players in the top 20, but I'm dubious that the games themselves are some how tougher to win than other maps. 

[just 13 posts to go for my next badge!]

[oh, I see this is pretty much what Mad Bomber said above, in his own very special style]

For our rank system you could do an either/or system to satisfy both parties.  For example, a General could be either 100 CP or 2000 GR etc.  That might just be making things too complicated, not sure...just throwing it our there

I just noticed that Mad Bomber made this same suggestion above...so +1 to his idea.

Mad Bomber wrote: I think wgwf is boring.....so is watching the history to "learn a strategy". You might have fun playing a board fresh out of the box, after reading the rules.

Wgwf is riddled with noobs and fills fast..........

Playing the same board over forty times is " boring work"....not dud though....he's a legend

By your math in fifty games I could gain an easy 120 cp points....go get em....there are two board that are very similar to THE board......that's another 30 right there in a short amount of games.....no new strategy or history watching required

That concludes the good cop bad cop portion of our show....

So now that we're playing devils advocate... Ok, I'll take a shot at the other side of the coin here and while what you are saying is doable (albeit boring) it's not really practical for most, especially standard members.  Can you imagine waiting the month that it might take some of those obscure boards to fill when you only have ten games to spare!  If you need to lock in 10 games to get those 12 CP, well as a standard, that's it for you.  Now, to do that ten times over to get 120 CP, there goes the whole year primarily waiting for games to fill.  Only premium members truly have that sort of luxury of leaving games on the back burner waiting for them to fill.  Looks like what you have highlighted through expanding on my example is that the board scour method for growing CP is truly only accessible to premium members, so, if you're not premium, don't bother and you'll always be limited on where you can go and how fast you can get there when it comes to CP.  Another interesting message that is being sent there. ;-)

Some food for though, and a debate starter... Considering the top 10 in CP, everyone with 200+CP, is premium whereas the top ten for GR and everything else is riddled with standard members... Does that mean by making CP the preeminent rank that WarGear is pay to win?

My current opinions..

-1 Either/Or CP/GR based ranks: Too confusing - besides needs to include Team and Tourney.  I really prefer an inclusive aggregate.

+1 Usage Weighted CPs - with or without WGWF being a special case.  My inclination would be to have a some kind of regressive system such that the uber-popular boards are not too influential.

E.g., give the top 16 boards extra CPs linearly:

WGWF top player = 100

Colossal Crusade top player = 95

..90, 85, 80,..   ..30, 25, 20, 20, 20,..

M57 wrote:

E.g., give the top 16 boards extra CPs linearly:

WGWF top player = 100

Colossal Crusade top player = 95

..90, 85, 80,..   ..30, 25, 20, 20, 20,..

+1 to that - good idea!

berickf wrote:

 If you need to lock in 10 games to get those 12 CP, well as a standard, that's it for you.  Now, to do that ten times over to get 120 CP, there goes the whole year primarily waiting for games to fill.  Only premium members truly have that sort of luxury of leaving games on the back burner waiting for them to fill.  

Not necessarily true - I very rarely had more than 15 games going at any time during my time on WG - only lately have I gone over 15 consistently.

smoke wrote:.

Granted, there are excellent players in the top 20, but I'm dubious that the games themselves are some how tougher to win than other maps.

I strongly agree with this statement. Yet at the same time, some CPs we get just because we show up. There is no competition. There is something about the presence of competition.

But I'd agree with anyone who says Invention is a harder map, and also popular enough to have competition. So, in my heart of hearts, WGWF is worth more than an obscure map with no competition, but Invention is worth more than that, because it's actually hard AND competitive. (I'm not making a proposal here - just stating an ideal that I have in my mind.)

Hugh wrote:

smoke wrote:.

Granted, there are excellent players in the top 20, but I'm dubious that the games themselves are some how tougher to win than other maps.

I strongly agree with this statement. Yet at the same time, some CPs we get just because we show up. There is no competition. There is something about the presence of competition.

But I'd agree with anyone who says Invention is a harder map, and also popular enough to have competition. So, in my heart of hearts, WGWF is worth more than an obscure map with no competition, but Invention is worth more than that, because it's actually hard AND competitive. (I'm not making a proposal here - just stating an ideal that I have in my mind.)

Just trying to get a better handle on what you mean when you say "harder." Are you saying Invention harder to win because it is harder to understand (advanced mechanics, etc.)?  How do we not know that some of the simpler designs are in fact the 'hardest' boards to win?  I agree in principle with your ideal, but it seems like these are impossibly subjective issues with which to grapple.

Cona Chris wrote:

M57 wrote:

E.g., give the top 16 boards extra CPs linearly:

WGWF top player = 100

Colossal Crusade top player = 95

..90, 85, 80,..   ..30, 25, 20, 20, 20,..

+1 to that - good idea!

 

berickf wrote:

 If you need to lock in 10 games to get those 12 CP, well as a standard, that's it for you.  Now, to do that ten times over to get 120 CP, there goes the whole year primarily waiting for games to fill.  Only premium members truly have that sort of luxury of leaving games on the back burner waiting for them to fill.  

Not necessarily true - I very rarely had more than 15 games going at any time during my time on WG - only lately have I gone over 15 consistently.

Well, the fact that standard members don't crack the top 10, let alone top 5 for CP, yet are capable of getting in the top 5 for other ranks supports the conclusion I have drawn, so, while you might say that it's not necessarily true from your perspective, the rank evidence does say otherwise.  Anyway, even reserving half of those 15 games for CP scouring while using the other half for some fun games to keep the days going, still allows a significant amount of flexibility over the 10 game max for standard, so, maybe that is all it took?  Anyway, it was just an observation I made after MD's comment led me to look at the ranks with regard to premium versus non premium, and, it does bring up an interesting perspective that I had never considered before, so, like I said, food for thought.

>Well, the fact that standard members don't crack the top 10, let alone top 5 for CP, yet are capable of getting in the top 5 for other ranks supports the conclusion I have drawn, so, while you might say that it's not necessarily true from your perspective, the rank evidence does say otherwise.

This could be more that players who stick around longer are both more likely to try new boards and more likely to pay for premium.  i.e. they are both caused by a 3rd factor, not any direct causation between them.

Considering I can barely keep up with this thread, I doubt Tom is following it, but I was thinking:

>even reserving half of those 15 games for CP scouring while using the other half for some fun games to keep the days going, still allows a significant amount of flexibility over the 10 game max for standard,

How about if the # of games standard members could have was increased (say to 15-20), BUT they have an additional limit on the # of games on the same board.   So they could play 15 games, but only 5 on the same board at a time.  That way they would not be as limited in a quest for CP.

Ozyman wrote:

How about if the # of games standard members could have was increased (say to 15-20), BUT they have an additional limit on the # of games on the same board.   So they could play 15 games, but only 5 on the same board at a time.  That way they would not be as limited in a quest for CP.

..an interesting idea.  It should foster interest in exploring the site, which might in turn encourage upgrades to premium.

Ozyman wrote:

How about if the # of games standard members could have was increased (say to 15-20), 

 

Somewhere in here (as the number gets higher) your infringing on one of the big benefits of membership.  Most of us are only playing 20-30 games anyways, and I bet we might think about our membership if we could do it with a standard.

M57 wrote:

Just trying to get a better handle on what you mean when you say "harder." Are you saying Invention harder to win because it is harder to understand (advanced mechanics, etc.)?  How do we not know that some of the simpler designs are in fact the 'hardest' boards to win?  I agree in principle with your ideal, but it seems like these are impossibly subjective issues with which to grapple.

Right now, this is a subjective opinion of mine. I don't just mean mechanics. Once past the noob level, I believe it requires greater skill to play well than WGWF. It at least seems that way, but it is just a subjective judgement.

On obtaining objectivity - This would require research, but one of the things I read about the Trueskill ranking algorithm is that it can quantify the "levels of skill" a game has. If there is any calculation that can do that, I know a lot of us would find that sort of stat very interesting!!

Ozyman wrote:

>Well, the fact that standard members don't crack the top 10, let alone top 5 for CP, yet are capable of getting in the top 5 for other ranks supports the conclusion I have drawn, so, while you might say that it's not necessarily true from your perspective, the rank evidence does say otherwise.

This could be more that players who stick around longer are both more likely to try new boards and more likely to pay for premium.  i.e. they are both caused by a 3rd factor, not any direct causation between them.

 

Considering I can barely keep up with this thread, I doubt Tom is following it, but I was thinking:

>even reserving half of those 15 games for CP scouring while using the other half for some fun games to keep the days going, still allows a significant amount of flexibility over the 10 game max for standard,

 

How about if the # of games standard members could have was increased (say to 15-20), BUT they have an additional limit on the # of games on the same board.   So they could play 15 games, but only 5 on the same board at a time.  That way they would not be as limited in a quest for CP.

For the first thing you said,

Top Ten CP

29th Nov 2010
14th Nov 2009
4th Apr 2010
14th Oct 2011
24th Feb 2010
7th Nov 2009
8th Jan 2012
29th Jun 2010
1st Sep 2010
26th Feb 2010

Top Ten GR

6th Feb 2011
14th Oct 2011
4th Jan 2010
13th Sep 2010
4th Apr 2010
10th Dec 2011
18th Dec 2009
31st Mar 2012
7th Nov 2009
13th Nov 2009

Top Ten Tourney

4th Jan 2010
31st Mar 2012
24th Jul 2011
31st Jan 2012
30th Jan 2012
9th Feb 2010
13th Jul 2010
28th Nov 2009
29th Feb 2012
13th Sep 2010

Top Ten Team

31st Jan 2012
31st Mar 2012
27th Feb 2012
14th Oct 2011
19th Aug 2011
1st Sep 2011
5th Nov 2010
30th Sep 2010
29th Jun 2010
12th Oct 2011

Standard in bold.  I'm not going to add them all up or anything to see which is the fewest months for premium versus standard, but, while team and tourney are a younger crowd overall (more recently joined WarGear), this is also regardless of account type.  Then for GR and CP, they are both an older group of players, sure.  But for GR, this is again regardless of account type.  Meanwhile CP is devoid of standard members in the top ten while being made up of a group who has not stuck around significantly longer then those of the GR group.  The evidence goes against your argument that CP is coincidentally made up of premium members because it might consist of players who have stuck around longer which also made them more likely to pay for premium.

For your second point, I do think that premium needs to be paying for something and I actually don't have a problem with it being 10 versus unlimited games.  I already asked and received that unlimited board making privileges be open to standard and Tom agreed with the arguments I put forth, and I thank him for that.  I also wouldn't mind a "new message on your wall" blinking icon to even the playing field a bit when it comes to private messaging versus wall-to-wall messaging.  But, I hesitate to continueasking for more as premium has to buy something so I'm fine with the luck charts, 10 versus unlimited games, private messaging and in-game bonus displays being the perks of premium, even if the unlimited games and to a lesser degree the in-game bonus display and private messaging do sometimes leverage advantages, especially, as it seems, for the pursuit of CP.  It just needs to be realized that this is what is actually happening, that CP is mostly a premium club.

So, do we stick with this pay to win model with CP on a pedestal, or, do we adopt an aggregate which, while still favouring those with high CP (as it would still be a very relevant component), does not do so exclusively and thus gives everyone a bit more of a fair shake at making a splash on the aggregate?

Erick, I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove, but in any case your data is quite bad. Most of the people you've bolded were premium players (you can tell by looking at the badges). Accounting for that, you seem to be showing that specialists and/or duelers such as Falker1976 and Harry Chest and, to some extent, bmasera can crack the top 10 except CP.

So your first paragraph is iffy.

Again, I don't object to the idea of "rank" being either/or based on CP, GR, or some other stuff. But as for your aggregate:

(1) I don't see what the benefit is to players outside the top 30 or so, however measured.

(2) It will be seen as the measure of the "best" player on the site. The site's niche is a wide variety of games with an impressive group of board designers. Unless you weigh CP so heavily as to make it essentially CP plus fudge factor (and then, what's the point?), the best player list may largely "reward" win streaks and specialists.

(3) Include Team scores? Really? Come on. An individual measure based on the skills of other people and their ease of communication?  I do strongly feel that all things "team" should be elevated in the site -- I think that will impact many players, not just the top group. (And, btw, Frog and I are winning at the same clip as you and bmasera. So, you know, bring it on.)

smoke wrote:

Erick, I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove, but in any case your data is quite bad. Most of the people you've bolded were premium players (you can tell by looking at the badges). Accounting for that, you seem to be showing that specialists and/or duelers such as Falker1976 and Harry Chest and, to some extent, bmasera can crack the top 10 except CP.

So your first paragraph is iffy.

Again, I don't object to the idea of "rank" being either/or based on CP, GR, or some other stuff. But as for your aggregate:

(1) I don't see what the benefit is to players outside the top 30 or so, however measured.

(2) It will be seen as the measure of the "best" player on the site. The site's niche is a wide variety of games with an impressive group of board designers. Unless you weigh CP so heavily as to make it essentially CP plus fudge factor (and then, what's the point?), the best player list may largely "reward" win streaks and specialists.

(3) Include Team scores? Really? Come on. An individual measure based on the skills of other people and their ease of communication?  I do strongly feel that all things "team" should be elevated in the site -- I think that will impact many players, not just the top group. (And, btw, Frog and I are winning at the same clip as you and bmasera. So, you know, bring it on.)

Well, I didn't include myself bolded as standard as I am currently premium, but, since my premium memberships are gifted whenever I get them and thus not reliable for starting too many games as one doesn't want to be caught up when it expires, I actually consider myself standard as my being premium is out of my control.  I, like others, might have a badge for being premium... But what were the circumstances and what was the duration.  So, I can't guess as to the extent of past premium memberships but regardless of if some (not all) were premium or not in the past, there is still NO standard members in the top ten CP regardless of past premium statuses.  So, the point still stands no matter how you want to twist it.

When I decide to work on any rank, I follow it whether I am ranked #100, 50, 30, 20, or top ten, so I don't understand why you say only the top thirty is relevant?

I don't intend to weigh CP so heavily and have the rest as a fudge factor, that would completely defeat the purpose of an aggregate.  I could see CP be given somewhere between 20%-33% of an aggregate depending how many other areas were included.  But, with an aggregate being an aggregate, thus being all inclusive, it will no more favour win streaks and specialists then CP specialists.  Getting caught up in thinking that any one component would carry the day over the rest is bulwark and fear mongering, as far as I'm concerned.

You forgot terriblethunderlizards, most my team games have him in them as well.  I have also enjoyed playing a couple team games with 5rc and a handful with YuriZ, both good teammates as well, amongst others.  There have also been a few who I have played with that I have not enjoyed being their teammate due to poor communication skills and usually ignoring good advice.  Luckily, I & those teams have won most of those games despite it usually because those players were a third or fourth wheel to the team and I could still rely on good communication and strong play from 2/3 or 3/4 of the team.  I do get how 2v2's could be suicidal in a very frustrating way with a completely faulty teammate.  What I could use your help with though is reinforcing my statement that team play is an individual skill too, hence, why you and Frog like to team up so much I gather, because, you know you can rely on each other to do the right "team" plays, and not just bring a pure individual playing style to a team game.  Maybe you can corroborate that when playing team games that you have to think the game/board differently as an individual, and if done correctly, to the betterment of the team.  Some people go into a default... "team can't be an individual skill" mode, but, I completely beg to differ and love the complexity that can come along with playing a board with teammates governed by the dynamics created by the fortification rules, by fog and keeping territory counts to squeeze every last ounce of production out of your foe, by assignment of foes to maximize compounding their production detriment... There is A LOT more to think about and stratigize in team games!  Team play definitely belongs in any true aggregate and I think that if you play team games as much as it sounds like you do, that, you know that different gears click during team games, especially when two top notch teams go head to head!  I know your gut was questioning the inclusion of team play, but, if you have really done team play then roll some of those games through your mind and think about it again.  Think about if you had to think differently, play differently, to be successful as a team.  If the answer is yes, then obviously, team play is an individual skill.  If the answer for you is no then you're right, you need to play harder teammates and take it to the mat and push your individual team game skills to the limit!  In that case, I hope to catch you frog and whomever else in an epic team game one day! Bring it on ;-)

Just responding to your last point now. I'm supposed to be working, actually.

I've teamed with a lot of people too, and I do try to avoid random teaming games, after a couple of annoying experiences, where you get teamed up with some booterific player. I agree with all the things you say that can make team games more interesting and challenging. Back on TOS I almost only played team games for that reason. But, as much of an individual skill planning, coordinating and communicating is, I feel it's swamped by the ability to choose and communicate with a players you know pretty well, such as Frog, KillDawg, MadMax, ratsy or whoever. I know the site, know the players, so know who to play with. To the extent I have won team games despite lousy teammates, it wasn't these skills that made the difference, it was the usual skills that help win individual games. 

But, your response has made me a bit more open to the concept.

A couple of other points:

a) I tend to think that GR is such an erratic, flawed, measure, that a lot of the effort we put into this discussion would be better served by looking at an alternate system, such as Hugh has been talking about.

b) Maybe you, ratsy, Squint, whoever, could put some sort of consensus proposed aggregate system into the wiki. This thread is sooooo long, it's a big effort to understand what's being proposed.