K might be wishful thinking ..and I just realized that 'I' was my proposal, so of course I like it.  Just wanted to add that for those who want the top players of a given board to be additionally rewarded, I suggested a modification in this thread..

Here's a link to the wiki for those who just want the down and dirty..

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

I strongly agree with the last part of Andernut's statement.* Hence, my vote is

1) K ONLY

Anything else works against board diversity. Even (I), which is also terrifically gamable. I could, for instance, just keep playing a game I'm good at and racking up CPs, without actually achieving anything.

*I agree with Andernut about nothing else, though.

smoke wrote:

I strongly agree with the last part of Andernut's statement.* Hence, my vote is

1) K ONLY

Anything else works against board diversity. Even (I), which is also terrifically gamable. I could, for instance, just keep playing a game I'm good at and racking up CPs, without actually achieving anything.

*I agree with Andernut about nothing else, though.

How is "I" gameable by playing one board??  I'm not sure you understand how it works. Let's say you keep playing 1 board until you reach equilibrium using K or the current, it doesn't matter. Eventually the # of CPs you get reaches equilibrium. Let's take you for example.

Let's say all you play is the board you rock at, Castles, currently with an 1802 Global Rating.  That gives you 802 Championship points.  Let's say you're able to raise it to 2000, netting you 1000 CPs.

I am a much weaker player than you by any stat you want to pull out, but let's say I play only three of the boards I have designed, and let's also speculate that I'm unable to raise my score because I have reached equilibrium.  Here are the CPs I would currently be awarded under method "I"

Assassin 398
Go-Geared 467
War of the Roses 412

for a net 1277 CPs 

The only way to 'game' "I" is to play as many boards as possible and just make sure that you get above 1000 GR points on each. Exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting. Anyone that can get  a GR of 1200 on 5 boards would have 1000 CPs.  This has got to be much easier than getting to 2000 on one board.

M57 wrote:

smoke wrote:

I strongly agree with the last part of Andernut's statement.* Hence, my vote is

1) K ONLY

Anything else works against board diversity. Even (I), which is also terrifically gamable. I could, for instance, just keep playing a game I'm good at and racking up CPs, without actually achieving anything.

*I agree with Andernut about nothing else, though.

How is "I" gameable by playing one board??  I'm not sure you understand how it works. Let's say you keep playing 1 board until you reach equilibrium using K or the current, it doesn't matter. Eventually the # of CPs you get reaches equilibrium. Let's take you for example.

Let's say all you play is the board you rock at, Castles, currently with an 1802 Global Rating.  That gives you 802 Championship points.  Let's say you're able to raise it to 2000, netting you 1000 CPs.

I am a much weaker player than you by any stat you want to pull out, but let's say I play only three of the boards I have designed, and let's also speculate that I'm unable to raise my score because I have reached equilibrium.  Here are the CPs I would currently be awarded under method "I"

Assassin 398
Go-Geared 467
War of the Roses 412

for a net 1277 CPs 

The only way to 'game' "I" is to play as many boards as possible and just make sure that you get above 1000 GR points on each. Exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting. Anyone that can get  a GR of 1200 on 5 boards would have 1000 CPs.  This has got to be much easier than getting to 2000 on one board.

No hijacking.

smoke wrote:

No hijacking.

Can only comment if you have a vote with it?

A discussion on I if interested:

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/3782p1

Hey, they're not my rules. To quote the opening post:

"people just put in order their TOP THREE choices, NOTHING ELSE (except maybe a SUPER BRIEF explanation of your vote). "

That's what I did. I'll join you two over at the "I" discussion when I get a chance.

But, yeah, I'm probably wrong about "I" not promoting diversity. But I'm not sure what it does do, per M's example, is desirable.

smoke is right - I hijacked the thread, or at the very least was setting it up to be hijacked. Thanks @A for moving the discussion.