Earlier in this thread I put forth proposed aggregates with examples for:

1. CP and GR

2. CP, GR, Team and Tourney

However, we have not come to consensus as to whether the composite score should include Team and Tourney.  I do not harbor any hope that we will be able to agree, but I offer this path forward if any are interested.

First, put forth a vote/tally on what scores should be included in the composite, 1 or 2 from above or we can include other options.  If more than two options are offered then I suggest a voting system where the lowest vote getting option is dropped and another vote is taken on the remaining options - rinse and repeat.

Second, based on the winner from above. I/we can present formulaic options for the composite which will then be voted upon.

 Let me know what you all think.

berickf wrote:

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

Some of the fact based parts of your last argument were some of the best I’ve heard yet.  But, I think the problem with the conversation Erick is that on this topic you’re a zealot.  You’ve spent so much time and energy investing in and building up your position and “banging your head” that you can’t even see the other side.  You are repeatedly mistaking personal preference for some greater ideal, which is probably why you just can’t see how those with well founded opinions could possibly disagree with you.

A value by definition is an opinion. The core of what we are talking about built upon the OPINION based difference of what people value most in a player. This is not something that can be “proven” right or wrong.  After that the other major considerations are also things that can be argued, but will never necessarily have a “right” answer.  The fact that you “know” you have the right answer is making you lash out and ignore the possibility that your whole voluminously and extremely well argued position is based on your own preference. 

You think it’s boring to try different boards, and apparently that it rewards point grabbing con artists.  Others find it exciting and fresh and the true mark of skill/ability because it shows differentiation and the ability to win across different platforms.  You feel everything on the site should be part of a greater system to define who’s “best”  Others feel only certain parts should be included because it would cloud or obscure the benchmarks they think are most relevant.  The fact that you personally disagree with the opposing position doesn’t mean you’re right, or have some monopoly on truth. 

Just because you think everything will be “highlighted” doesn’t mean it will be.  And, in this case basic psychology is against you on this one. The act of highlighting “everything” is the same as highlighting nothing.  Get out a page of text and a highlighter and try it.  See what stands out after every word is neon yellow. 

I am thinking though by “improving” the CP aggregate to be more reflective of competition will get closer towards your greater aggregate ideal, and it might move people closer to your position on what to include next.

berickf wrote:

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?

I think you're overreaching and glossing over a number of factors.  It's not a pay to win model. It's a pay to play more games model at one time model.  You have to win games to move up.  The more games you play the more likely you are to win.  Whether that takes you a weeks, months, or years depends on a whole bunch of factors, but the biggest one is choice.

If you are choosing to stay standard and only play 10 games at a time you are choosing to limit yourself to only 10 different boards at a time. It doesn't mean you can't rack it up.  I'd say Cona is the number one example. It also didn't take Luieuil or Smoke very many games edge up the list either. 

You are also completely ignoring the issue of personal investment.  The top players are all premium? Hmmm... I wonder if that has something to do with their game count.  Those people who want play lots of games at one point or another made the decision to ante up and kick in.  I did it i my first week.

ratsy wrote:

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.

+1

Sigh, I should probably just step aside from this conversation then because if it is perceived that I am simply a zealot at this point who's doing more harm then good to the side of adopting aggregate... Well, that's not who I want to be or what I want to do.  Sometimes I might push the limits of the conversation to explore ideas or faults in a system, but more as an exercise of thought then as a die-hard position.  Especially when I say "food for thought".  When I say that I am more in a brainstorming/thinking mode and things I write should not be taken so literally to the point that it should come up as me becoming the zealot... That's not who I am.  I might throw out some ideas here and there, and they might come off as zainey or thought provoking, but they usually are based on some set of facts more-so then just a raw feeling of "rightness".  One thing that this conversation has enlightened, however, is that many see flaws in most of the ranking systems.  A question on that with regard to an aggregate.  By combining a set of ranks which all have their inherent flaws, does the net result of combining them dampen the flaws to give a more enlightening and true result, or magnify the flaws to make the sum even worse then its parts?

SquintGnome wrote:

Earlier in this thread I put forth proposed aggregates with examples for:

1. CP and GR

2. CP, GR, Team and Tourney

However, we have not come to consensus as to whether the composite score should include Team and Tourney.  I do not harbor any hope that we will be able to agree, but I offer this path forward if any are interested.

First, put forth a vote/tally on what scores should be included in the composite, 1 or 2 from above or we can include other options.  If more than two options are offered then I suggest a voting system where the lowest vote getting option is dropped and another vote is taken on the remaining options - rinse and repeat.

Second, based on the winner from above. I/we can present formulaic options for the composite which will then be voted upon.

 Let me know what you all think.

+1

I'll start: 

I say: CP, GR, Team and Tourney (and their associated permutations) and the roving H rating if it comes into being.  

-the aggregate should represent all the aspects of a players abilities that are currently tracked.

berickf wrote:

 One thing that this conversation has enlightened, however, is that many see flaws in most of the ranking systems.  A question on that with regard to an aggregate.  By combining a set of ranks which all have their inherent flaws, does the net result of combining them dampen the flaws to give a more enlightening and true result, or magnify the flaws to make the sum even worse then its parts?

Good question.  It would probably dampen, which is a vote for the agg, but I would argue for to try fixing the most glaring flaws first.  

I do think this thread has become a little too epic though.  If people don't mind I'm going to split off the "fixing CP" question to another thread:

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/3542/Updating_CP:

I also recommend someone start a new Universal Aggregate thread with a brief listing of the different possible options.  I think it's been partially done in here a few times, but might be  a bit lost in the bazillion posts.  A fresh thread might help clarify the conversation, and give people a clearer starting point.

I wonder too, if the CP gets improved, then that might change some opinions on whether a aggregate is needed, or at least how the weighting in the aggregate should happen.

smoke wrote:

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.

Epic thread is too epic.

I'm working on this, but it's gonna take some time. 

I think the aggregate should include individual scores only. The way to incentivize team play is through the clan/ guild competitions we talked a few months back.

Similarly to smoke I used to play (and win) a lot of team games and really enjoyed it. Then it got too frustrating to organize teams.

itsnotatumor wrote:

berickf wrote:

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

Some of the fact based parts of your last argument were some of the best I’ve heard yet.  But, I think the problem with the conversation Erick is that on this topic you’re a zealot.  You’ve spent so much time and energy investing in and building up your position and “banging your head” that you can’t even see the other side.  You are repeatedly mistaking personal preference for some greater ideal, which is probably why you just can’t see how those with well founded opinions could possibly disagree with you.

A value by definition is an opinion. The core of what we are talking about built upon the OPINION based difference of what people value most in a player. This is not something that can be “proven” right or wrong.  After that the other major considerations are also things that can be argued, but will never necessarily have a “right” answer.  The fact that you “know” you have the right answer is making you lash out and ignore the possibility that your whole voluminously and extremely well argued position is based on your own preference. 

You think it’s boring to try different boards, and apparently that it rewards point grabbing con artists.  Others find it exciting and fresh and the true mark of skill/ability because it shows differentiation and the ability to win across different platforms.  You feel everything on the site should be part of a greater system to define who’s “best”  Others feel only certain parts should be included because it would cloud or obscure the benchmarks they think are most relevant.  The fact that you personally disagree with the opposing position doesn’t mean you’re right, or have some monopoly on truth. 

Just because you think everything will be “highlighted” doesn’t mean it will be.  And, in this case basic psychology is against you on this one. The act of highlighting “everything” is the same as highlighting nothing.  Get out a page of text and a highlighter and try it.  See what stands out after every word is neon yellow. 

I am thinking though by “improving” the CP aggregate to be more reflective of competition will get closer towards your greater aggregate ideal, and it might move people closer to your position on what to include next.

I almost totally agree with Erick. He has made the most sense of anybody. If everybody insists on keeping those coveted "CPs" let them all have Boy Scout ranks and leave the military ranks to an aggregate which includes team, tournament, and global. Cheers to Erick for bringing out more facts on those coveted "CPs".

Babbalouie wrote:

I almost totally agree with Erick. He has made the most sense of anybody. If everybody insists on keeping those coveted "CPs" let them all have Boy Scout ranks and leave the military ranks to an aggregate which includes team, tournament, and global. Cheers to Erick for bringing out more facts on those coveted "CPs".

Itsnot has started a thread that addresses some of the weaknesses of CP http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/3542/Updating_CP.  Some interesting ideas floating around there that could do some good, but, some of the weaknesses would still be permanently inbuilt that would be difficult if not impossible to remove.  This mostly has consequences against new and standard players, but, also for old timers who prefer only a few boards, popular or not.  The CP ranks would shift moderately with the new proposals, but, the net result would still be to over-reward only one type of player. I still think that for the sake of the new player, as well as the old, that an all encompassing aggregate is the way to go.  It dampens the flaws of all ranks through its all-inclusiveness and rewards all areas of play and all types of players.  You'd have to do everything well instead of any one area, and the end result would have some noticeable shifts.  A moderate reshuffling at the top (because many there already do most everything pretty well) and then I think many new faces would jump into the 15-50 range who otherwise had went largely unnoticed.  They'd be sending the message that they're on the way up though and new players would be able to show up on the radar far quicker then by CP alone.

So, since we're into the mode of prescribing solutions now, let me try one.  Most of the opposition for an aggregate seems to stem from getting bad teammates for team games.  The threat of that makes them feel like team somehow doesn't belong.  Even though many standard games can be spoiled in the same fashion by drawing a suicidal maniac as a neighbor, it is also true that good team work is a combination of personal team skills as well as trust, familiarity and communication with one's teammates.  Many good players who have played team games in the past and present will even acknowledge that a different individual skill set is required for team games, but still, the fear of drawing the short straw with random teammates, and unwillingness to arrange their preferred teammates to all jump in at the same time, still seems to makes such players fear its inclusion in an aggregate.  With this in mind I have put some thought into addressing this fear.  How about if in all team games the first member to join a new team is given the option to leave their team open to all (default), or to toggle the choice to fill by invitation.  They would then have the duration of the game clock, 1 day, 2 days, 3 days or 7 days to fill their team by invitation (maybe 1 hour to fill by invitation for lightening team games).  So as not to hold up the game from launching, if they don't fill their team by invitation according to the game clock duration then it would revert to open if they have not done their job by that point.  This way instead of asking for one's team to be left open for their invites (which many do respect - by the way), it can instead be done automatically as a game option.  This would encourage more team play and make team play more competitive by allowing players the flexibility and time to form their desired teams.  No player would be barred from the game though as anyone is free to be the first to join a team and then decide on how they want their team to be filled.  I know this would allow me to play a lot more team games, and I already play a fair amount.

berickf wrote:

So, since we're into the mode of prescribing solutions now, let me try one.  Most of the opposition for an aggregate seems to stem from getting bad teammates for team games.  The threat of that makes them feel like team somehow doesn't belong.  Even though many standard games can be spoiled in the same fashion by drawing a suicidal maniac as a neighbor, it is also true that good team work is a combination of personal team skills as well as trust, familiarity and communication with one's teammates.  Many good players who have played team games in the past and present will even acknowledge that a different individual skill set is required for team games, but still, the fear of drawing the short straw with random teammates, and unwillingness to arrange their preferred teammates to all jump in at the same time, still seems to makes such players fear its inclusion in an aggregate.  With this in mind I have put some thought into addressing this fear.  How about if in all team games the first member to join a new team is given the option to leave their team open to all (default), or to toggle the choice to fill by invitation.  They would then have the duration of the game clock, 1 day, 2 days, 3 days or 7 days to fill their team by invitation (maybe 1 hour to fill by invitation for lightening team games).  So as not to hold up the game from launching, if they don't fill their team by invitation according to the game clock duration then it would revert to open if they have not done their job by that point.  This way instead of asking for one's team to be left open for their invites (which many do respect - by the way), it can instead be done automatically as a game option.  This would encourage more team play and make team play more competitive by allowing players the flexibility and time to form their desired teams.  No player would be barred from the game though as anyone is free to be the first to join a team and then decide on how they want their team to be filled.  I know this would allow me to play a lot more team games, and I already play a fair amount.

+1

Yes, tournaments might take longer to fill because of the wait for registered teammates (a certain # of whom will fail to show). But I believe even this would be mitigated by the fact that the system will encourage more people to join in the first place.  I for one almost never start a team.  I watch and try and join up with someone who I know or want to play with.

One possible addendum might be to add a check box:

Withdraw the team from the tournament if my partner(s) do not join in the allotted time.

Though it might make more sense to go with Erick's original proposal and just revert to open - and the player who starts the team has to take the initiative to withdraw.

I'm a big fan of teamplay options that let you invite teammates.

Even if the team selection is improved, however, I don't think teamplay fits in with any kind of aggregate ranking system.  If the intent is to reward and incentivize more teamplay, the guild/clan system could do this much better.  Also, it would allow a totally new kind of skillset such as "captaining" teammates without even having to be in the game.  For example, a captain could potentially set strategies for multiple games but have other players execute those strategies.

If Teamplay becomes part of the aggregate ranking, I think it would quickly evolve into a guild/clan-type system anyway.  Those targeting high team scores will find teammates they play with consistently and respect the highest to give them the best chances of success.  So why not just make a formal venue to encourage this behavior from the beginning?  Personally i would have a lot more fun with teamplay if this system were in place.

AttilaTheHun wrote:

If Teamplay becomes part of the aggregate ranking, I think it would quickly evolve into a guild/clan-type system anyway.  Those targeting high team scores will find teammates they play with consistently and respect the highest to give them the best chances of success.  So why not just make a formal venue to encourage this behavior from the beginning?  Personally i would have a lot more fun with teamplay if this system were in place.

I was thinking the same thing after making my last post, but my spin on it at the time was that the evolution to guild/clan was an undesirable result.  I'm not sure where I stand now.  Questions I'm asking myself include, "Would such a system encourage players to expand the number of different partnerships they have, or would the tendency be towards a very limited range of partners?" ..and "Does it matter?"

AttilaTheHun wrote:

Those targeting high team scores will find teammates they play with consistently and respect the highest to give them the best chances of success.

Actually, to reduce the effect of score ceiling and to increase one's potential gains, you do the exact opposite of this.  Due to the nature of how GR is calculated it actually goes against sticking to a "clan" or "guild" of high team-rank individuals.  At some point, in order to maximize point gains. one needs to team with lower ranking people so that your combined rank reaps more gains and risks less loss.  Also, I tend to think that WarGear might be more of a mature crowd, and this would probably also reduce the effect of players wanting to clique outright into clans/guilds.  At least that's the feeling I get from the high number of intellectual and civil conversations we have going on around here that largely hum along unmoderated.  I'm sure that you've all been in forums full of attention seeking trolls and immature sensationalists before and somehow we've been able avoid that here.

berickf wrote:

AttilaTheHun wrote:

Those targeting high team scores will find teammates they play with consistently and respect the highest to give them the best chances of success.

Actually, to reduce the effect of score ceiling and to increase one's potential gains, you do the exact opposite of this.  Due to the nature of how GR is calculated it actually goes against sticking to a "clan" or "guild" of high team-rank individuals.  At some point, in order to maximize point gains. one needs to team with lower ranking people so that your combined rank reaps more gains and risks less loss.  ...

True, but you also need to win those games to reap the reward.  It's like saying individual players should seek to only play the highest rated players to maximize gains/minimize losses.  That's well and good if you win, but the risk also goes up that you'll lose.

But to your and M57's point, I think the ideal system is also one that encourages new partnerships and has teams built from experienced and new memebers alike.  One of the coolest things about TOS was the initial invitation you would get from experienced members.  How about this for a proposal:

• Guilds/clans are loosely formed based on whatever criteria to start with.  Possible to be a part of more than one clan/guild but could not compete in a game that has both.  It would be similar to the "Favorite Boards" tagging.  To simplify things, let's assume you just join one.
• Guilds could be dropped at any time.
• Each guild is focused on teamplay, and so members would have various teamplay scores.
• Guild game invitations would be sent to all members of the guild (and in effect could operate just like team games now but just with your Guild option).  The highest teamplay-rated player who joined would automatically be paired with the lowest teamplay-rated player from the same guild to encourage new partnerships and mentoring.  I think if you knew that player was from your guild and you'd likely play with them again, it would be more worth the investment to coach them if you're the higher-rated player.  Similarly, as a lower-rated player, you'd gain from the other teammate's experience.  
• This should allow new partnerships while still allowing high point gains.

I want to be the head of HuffleRat house! -but I want my members to practice on each other before wiping out the other soddy guilds... 

Okay! I'm done with summarizing. It took two days, but I think I captured the main points!. 

First though, I moved the discussion of what Rank should be based on to here:

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/3546p1