M57 wrote:

This is a somewhat radical thought regarding updating the CP.  It’s based on the premise that we keep trying to drive square pegs into round holes (or is it the other way around).

Simply calculate CPs by taking a player’s board rating and subtracting 1000.

If you have a 1750 rating on a board - that’s 750 CPs

negative ratings are thrown out - So no score is generated from a board ratings below 1000.

Attributes of such a system.

1. The scale starts at 1, so anyone that can win on any board will gain some CPs and a corresponding  promotion.
2. Players don’t have to wait until they climb into the top 20 on a given board to see results.
3. The top players will have large scores. Certainly in the 10s of thousands.
4. The direct correlation between Board Rank and CPs makes it easy to understand how CPs work.
5. CPs become a much more dynamic score.
6. Boards that are played more carry more weight (though it is linear and not logarithmic - I suppose logs could be employed)
7. a much larger number of players (especially on boards like Colossal and WGWF) get a piece of the pie.
8. An aggregate between Team, Tourney, Normal, etc could be normalized or not.   I like NOT - again, let market forces decide what’s important.
9. It wouldn’t be necessary to use GR in an aggregate because the GR and CPs are so closely aligned.

Just throwing it out there.   It was generated on two cups of coffee and a bagel.

 

 

I miss bagels... and cream cheese.

M57 wrote:

This is a somewhat radical thought regarding updating the CP.  It’s based on the premise that we keep trying to drive square pegs into round holes (or is it the other way around).

Simply calculate CPs by taking a player’s board rating and subtracting 1000.

If you have a 1750 rating on a board - that’s 750 CPs

negative ratings are thrown out - So no score is generated from a board ratings below 1000.

Attributes of such a system.

1. The scale starts at 1, so anyone that can win on any board will gain some CPs and a corresponding  promotion.
2. Players don’t have to wait until they climb into the top 20 on a given board to see results.
3. The top players will have large scores. Certainly in the 10s of thousands.
4. The direct correlation between Board Rank and CPs makes it easy to understand how CPs work.
5. CPs become a much more dynamic score.
6. Boards that are played more carry more weight (though it is linear and not logarithmic - I suppose logs could be employed)
7. a much larger number of players (especially on boards like Colossal and WGWF) get a piece of the pie.
8. An aggregate between Team, Tourney, Normal, etc could be normalized or not.   I like NOT - again, let market forces decide what’s important.
9. It wouldn’t be necessary to use GR in an aggregate because the GR and CPs are so closely aligned.

Just throwing it out there.   It was generated on two cups of coffee and a bagel.

I'd have to think about.  Definitely a different direction.  My impulse is that I don't really like it but it might just be because it is unfamiliar. 

ratsy wrote:

Okay, I understand the calculation.  Now in really simple terms, this means what?

 

That the current system will be improved because it will now reward more points to more players for boards that get played alot, while still doing what it did before - which was encourage diverse play.   ---right?

Yeah I think so.  One way to look at it, is that being ranked #55th on WGWF is worth the same as being ranked #10 on an average board, or ranked #5 on a relatively new board, which seems about right to me.  If anything a bit unfair to the player ranked #56th on WGWF, but IMO CP should also help promote diversity of play, so it does reward players a bit for playing on less popular boards, and I'm fine with that.

AttilaTheHun wrote:

I like the idea that most boards stay at the 20/1500/10 but think the upper end of 80 and 110 is too high.  It doesn't seem like WGWF should be worth 4X - 6X the CP of other "normal" boards.  Maybe instead of 10, 20, 35, 55, 80, 110 just go with simple 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, etc.  This still gives WGWF 2.5X the weight of a normal board and is a simpler progression to follow.

Well the 110 won't happen for a few years, and by then more other maps will be in the 35CP category too so just assume 80 for now.  Frankly I think I prefer a simpler 10,20,30,40,... etc. scale too.   In my opinion WGWF is kind of boring - so much so that I think I only played it once in my first 4 years on WarGear.

But you have to admit it is a lot harder (about 4x?) to get top ranked on WGWF than some other 'average' board.

For example, Crystal Caves - about 400 games played on it.  half of the top 10 have played less than 5 games on it:

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Crystal+Caves/Rankings

In contrast for WGWF, only a few people in the top 100 have less than 50 games on it, most have played 100s of games.

I think in the end where exactly you put the #s on the scale is basically a matter of opinion, and IMO the latest scale I created represents a reasonable middle position (even if it's not exactly where I would put it either).

I was thinking today about my CP proposal, which is really more of a interpretation of GR than a modification of CPs - and the more I thought about it, the more flawed I found CPs.

Why 20 points per board? Why not 100?  Why only give CPs to the top 10 players?

The answers to these questions reveal how arbitrary and flawed the entire CP system is.  Top ten may have made sense back when less players played on the site, and yes, some of the new proposals attempt to make the system scalable, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that I pretty much dislike everything about the current CP system.

I particularly dislike that CPs have an elitist smell in that they ONLY give points to top players.  Now some may argue "That's the point.  After all, they are CHAMPIONSHIP points." To which I would respond, "Then I don't like the idea of CPs at all."  I don't mind calling them Championship Points, but I would prefer that they be more "accessible." I think this would be much better for the site.  Under the current system, as the site grows, an ever smaller percentage of players will find themselves in the top 10, or top 20 or top whatever. I dislike that the current CP system doesn't easily align to a GR score system that makes sense.

And so it is that I'm liking my morning caffeine fueled suggestion, and probably not to anyone's surprise, even more-so as I contemplate it over a glass of cabernet sauvignon this evening.

Counting anything over 1000 as a Championship Point instantly brings anyone that can win into the hunt. Players who have an affinity to one or two boards will rise to their equilibrium and soon realize that it's easier to pick up more points by playing other boards.  Disclosure: The designer in me really likes this.

Boards like WGWF will EASILY yield by far the most CPs, and not so much because of the level of the highest GR, but much more because of the sheer numbers of players.  Remember, EVERYBODY who has more than a 1000 board points is in the money to the tune of how many points they have, and these points get them promotions.  Think of the number of players who will be enticed to play other boards to get more points, raise their rank and in the process discover the real strengths of this site.

Regular GR points could remain as they are, recognizing scores below 1000.   But an "Aggregate" could essentially be the total of all CPs across disciplines (Team Tourney Public etc.) - or the mean of these.  No need to mix GRs in the aggregate, again simplifying the system so that more can actually understand how it works.

---

As far as "Rank" is concerned, I'm a fan of recognizing the highest (revised) CP score in any individual category, ..but I just had an alcohol induced idea that tempers this..

The Rank of 1 Star General is the highest rank achievable if you only excel in one discipline.  If you achieve the Rank of General in two categories (e.g. Tournament Play and Public Play), you are a 2-Star General.  3 categories = 3 stars.

The only way to become a 5 star General would be to be a General in ALL four categories, and if more than one person does this, the rank (which is normally reserved for only one person) would go to the highest mean.

Categories are Public Games, Tournament, Team, and Team Tournament games.

I like the second idea. Keep drinking.

(no comment on the first part)

M57 wrote:

I particularly dislike that CPs have an elitist smell in that they ONLY give points to top players.  

Ya, I think this is one of the main points of CPs...I think the "fight" for the top positions on a Board and that you potentially have to maintain your top seat is a good thing in the long run for rankings.  I believe the system you're proposing is a lot like the system from ToS, in which if you hit a ranking (1550+) then you would just retire from that board and never play it again because your "CPs" were set, the top 10 concept means a Top Player may have to revisit an old board to gain some CPs back.  In the long run I think the top X concept is the best, although as I proposed earlier, I could see a set bonus being available at some Ranking which would guarantee some CPs for those players that hit that mark.

Yertle wrote:

 >>I believe the system you're proposing is a lot like the system from ToS, in which if you hit a ranking (1550+) then you would just retire from that board and never play it again because your "CPs" were set, the top 10 concept means a Top Player may have to revisit an old board to gain some CPs back. <<

I don't remember the ToS system, and I'm not sure that the current system we use here doesn't equally encourage  players to gain their position and never play the board again until their position has been challenged.  Sure, in my proposed system a player can't lose their CPs by not playing (which can happen in the current system), however, they do lose 'relative' CPs by virtue of the tide rising all around them. 

Nonetheless, I understand your point, and if I'm understanding your suggestion, I think I might be turning it on its head with this compromise solution.

What if (using a system such a the one I proposed), there could instead be Bonus CPs awarded to the top X players?  Again, I'm not a fan of arbitrary numbers, so I would propose something where each position gets an additional straight percentage of their current Rating for that board. For instance, something like..

#1 = 100%, #2 = 95%, #3 = 90%, #4 = 85%, etc..

So take a board like Invention..

#1 YeahBuddy doubles his Rating from 2112 to get     4224-1000 = 3224 total CPs

#3 Andernut adds 90% of his 2016 (+1814.4) - 1000 =                  2830 

#10 Baraquisha, 55% of 1673                                                         1593

#20 Chinnie, 5% of 1363                                                                  431

#24 itsnotatumor still gets his rating - 1000                                      304

#136 Quazimoto gets his rating - 1000                                               13

#420 M57 gets 0 for his 981 rating                                                       0

This also has the effect of not only amplifying the CPs of the top 20 players for each board, but also the relative values of "harder" more competitive boards themselves, and it could be further modified if people felt the need for more differentiation in that regard.

M57 wrote: ---

As far as "Rank" is concerned, I'm a fan of recognizing the highest (revised) CP score in any individual category, ..but I just had an alcohol induced idea that tempers this..

The Rank of 1 Star General is the highest rank achievable if you only excel in one discipline.  If you achieve the Rank of General in two categories (e.g. Tournament Play and Public Play), you are a 2-Star General.  3 categories = 3 stars.

The only way to become a 5 star General would be to be a General in ALL four categories, and if more than one person does this, the rank (which is normally reserved for only one person) would go to the highest mean.

Categories are Public Games, Tournament, Team, and Team Tournament games.

+1 to that.  For now it may be better to implement that rather than trying for an aggregate.  Time may be better spent now improving how each individual stat is calculated.

M57 wrote:

What if (using a system such a the one I proposed), there could instead be Bonus CPs awarded to the top X players?  Again, I'm not a fan of arbitrary numbers, so I would propose something where each position gets an additional straight percentage of their current Rating for that board. For instance, something like..

#1 = 100%, #2 = 95%, #3 = 90%, #4 = 85%, etc..

 

Taking into account that everyone is "in the money" in such a system, there's no need to offer extra CPs to the top 20.  Make those top positions worth a LOT by keeping the number at 10.

#1 = 100, #2 = 90, #3 = 80, etc..

Or make the triangle even steeper at the top by only including the top 5 in the Bonus pool.

#1 = 100, #2 = 80%, #3 = 60%, etc..

M57 wrote:

This is a somewhat radical thought regarding updating the CP.  It’s based on the premise that we keep trying to drive square pegs into round holes (or is it the other way around).

Simply calculate CPs by taking a player’s board rating and subtracting 1000.

If you have a 1750 rating on a board - that’s 750 CPs

negative ratings are thrown out - So no score is generated from a board ratings below 1000.

Attributes of such a system.

1. The scale starts at 1, so anyone that can win on any board will gain some CPs and a corresponding  promotion.
2. Players don’t have to wait until they climb into the top 20 on a given board to see results.
3. The top players will have large scores. Certainly in the 10s of thousands.
4. The direct correlation between Board Rank and CPs makes it easy to understand how CPs work.
5. CPs become a much more dynamic score.
6. Boards that are played more carry more weight (though it is linear and not logarithmic - I suppose logs could be employed)
7. a much larger number of players (especially on boards like Colossal and WGWF) get a piece of the pie.
8. An aggregate between Team, Tourney, Normal, etc could be normalized or not.   I like NOT - again, let market forces decide what’s important.
9. It wouldn’t be necessary to use GR in an aggregate because the GR and CPs are so closely aligned.

Just throwing it out there.   It was generated on two cups of coffee and a bagel.

 

 

+1 I like it. Clear. Simple.

I could be wrong, but this doesn't overtly appear to advantage or disadvantage any one type of board, but I think still rewards diversity, because of the diminishing returns of higher scores. 

itsnotatumor wrote:

+1 I like it. Clear. Simple.

I could be wrong, but this doesn't overtly appear to advantage or disadvantage any one type of board, but I think still rewards diversity, because of the diminishing returns of higher scores. 

@Inat,  I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but I think think it modestly weights boards that have higher value Point leaders, which is a good thing.  And for those who feel strongly that the top players of any board deserve extra "CP" recognition (and I think this is not unreasonable), the added Bonus Structure that I outlined in subsequent posts offers a range of ways to accomplish this.  I'm leaning towards one that rewards the top 10 players (which is what we do now, right?) starting with a 100% bonus and diminishing by 10% for each position.

Looking for flaws in the proposed Bonus System..

As a board is first introduced, the CP related Bonus points doled out to the first few leaders will be significant.

For instance.. Take a player leading the board with 1150 points.

1150 * 2 - 1000 = 1300 CPs, which is a bit much for a couple of wins.  Two solutions..

1. Let it be - this will encourage others to get in and play.
2. Caps based on scores up to 1500 - not dissimilar to what we have now, except using %
   i.e. 1100 = 20%, 1200 = 40%, 1300 = 60%, 1400 = 80%, 1500 = 100%

So I don't flood the thread - I'll try and consolidate everything and put it on the wiki..

M57 wrote:

Looking for flaws in the proposed Bonus System..

As a board is first introduced, the CP related Bonus points doled out to the first few leaders will be significant.

For instance.. Take a player leading the board with 1150 points.

1150 * 2 - 1000 = 1300 CPs, which is a bit much for a couple of wins.  Two solutions..

1. Let it be - this will encourage others to get in and play.
2. Caps based on scores up to 1500 - not dissimilar to what we have now, except using %
   i.e. 1100 = 20%, 1200 = 40%, 1300 = 60%, 1400 = 80%, 1500 = 100%

So I don't flood the thread - I'll try and consolidate everything and put it on the wiki..

Your math is off.  It is the amount over 1000 that matters.  So 150*2 = 300 CPs.

That's a nice bump from 2 games.  And the effect will be to do what CP is supposed to do - encourage people to play those games on lesser known boards.

I like the proposal quite a bit.

btilly wrote:

M57 wrote:

Looking for flaws in the proposed Bonus System..

As a board is first introduced, the CP related Bonus points doled out to the first few leaders will be significant.

For instance.. Take a player leading the board with 1150 points.

1150 * 2 - 1000 = 1300 CPs, which is a bit much for a couple of wins.  Two solutions..

1. Let it be - this will encourage others to get in and play.
2. Caps based on scores up to 1500 - not dissimilar to what we have now, except using %
   i.e. 1100 = 20%, 1200 = 40%, 1300 = 60%, 1400 = 80%, 1500 = 100%

So I don't flood the thread - I'll try and consolidate everything and put it on the wiki..

Your math is off.  It is the amount over 1000 that matters.  So 150*2 = 300 CPs.

That's a nice bump from 2 games.  And the effect will be to do what CP is supposed to do - encourage people to play those games on lesser known boards.

I like the proposal quite a bit.

I was actually proposing doubling the "Score" then subtracting the 1000 as opposed to just doubling the CPs, This to give the top 10 a significant boost.. Remember, the #8 player only gets 30% of the bonus. so using your calculation, a #8 player who has 2000 points would only receive 30% of 1000, or 300, giving them 2300 total CPs.  With my system as proposed, they would get an 30% of the full 2000 - giving them 2600 total CPs.

This is why I additionally proposed putting caps on the amount of bonus CPs early leaders can accumulate.

But if folks prefer your interpretation of order of operations, which I like because I think it is more streamline and elegant - though less heavy-handed when doling out the bonus CPs, we wouldn't even need the caps.

My bad for not reading closely.

I do prefer my interpretation.  I also like seeing CP as more of a reward for playing lots and lots of different boards.

M57 wrote:

itsnotatumor wrote:

+1 I like it. Clear. Simple.

I could be wrong, but this doesn't overtly appear to advantage or disadvantage any one type of board, but I think still rewards diversity, because of the diminishing returns of higher scores. 

@Inat,  I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but I think think it modestly weights boards that have higher value Point leaders, which is a good thing.  And for those who feel strongly that the top players of any board deserve extra "CP" recognition (and I think this is not unreasonable), the added Bonus Structure that I outlined in subsequent posts offers a range of ways to accomplish this.  I'm leaning towards one that rewards the top 10 players (which is what we do now, right?) starting with a 100% bonus and diminishing by 10% for each position.

The current system penalizes people who play popular boards but don't hit the top 10.  Some of the other proposals would penalize dual boards. 

Yours doesn't seem to do either while still encouraging board variety, and addresses Babba's new player concerns. 

I like it. I'm also cool with your top 10 bonus idea.  Still clear and simple, but encourages people to fight for a top 10 rank on a board.  =)

Here's a link to the wiki explaining the system in just a few sentences..

http://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=general_features:championship_points_based_on_board_points&#bonus_cps_go_to_top_10_players

I haven't been following the last few posts, but I want to bring up that some boards have a higher GR for #1 than WGWF, so for example, the top score on antastic or Colossal Crusade would be worth more than #1 on WGWF. 

Ozyman wrote:

I haven't been following the last few posts, but I want to bring up that some boards have a higher GR for #1 than WGWF, so for example, the top score on antastic or Colossal Crusade would be worth more than #1 on WGWF. 

Interesting - I wouldn't have thought this, but it makes sense that equilibrium has been reached with most of the more popular boards, and that some boards for whatever reasons may have a propensity to yield higher game points than others regardless of how many times they are played.

After you get a chance to catch up - do you think this information degrades the validity of the proposed system?  In other words, do you think it is a bad thing that the top Antastic and CC player receives more CPs than the top WGWF player?

BTW, I'll bet that under this system, and even with a higher top Antastic GR, more WGWF CPs are given than Antastic points just because the number of players in the black.

I'll add one of these to the Wiki examples.