For the curious above is how the top 10 players in CP's would shake out under option I.  

"Boards" is the number of boards they currently have a score of over 1000.

I think this shows that I tends to reward players with points on a variety of boards.

Here's an extra column showing what kind of scores were achieved on each of those boards on average.  IRSmart is doing fairly well as a specialist, but he doesn't stand a chance against those who spread the love.

Okay, I get your point about diversity. I didn't consider that degree of breadth. But it's also a bit of a "participation award" this way. And I congratulate you on your participation. 

smoke wrote:

Okay, I get your point about diversity. I didn't consider that degree of breadth. But it's also a bit of a "participation award" this way. And I congratulate you on your participation. 

Absolutely. It's a participation award. Certainly in this sense, "Championship Points" is a misnomer, but it's been a misnomer from the start.  Currently, you don't have to be #1 on any board to amass championship points.  The stat needs a name make-over too.

smoke wrote:

. But it's also a bit of a "participation award" this way.

I'm not picking on you smoke - I'm addressing your concerns - which I think are valid.

Large number of first-time players probably lose their first few games - and on WGWF. The payoff doesn't come until they work their way into the black, so it's hardly a participation award. You have to win - and that's what champions are, right?  Winners. Yes, option 'I' would put many more players on the CP list earlier, but this can only be a good thing, it will give them their first taste of what it takes to get into the hunt. Even before they reach equilibrium, playing other boards to obtain more CPs faster should be a no-brainer. 

That said, if we want to make it less of a participation award we could simply raise the threshold.  E.g., subtract 1100 and throw out all scores below 0.  Personally, I think the earlier players start receiving CPs, the better for the site. Besides, simpler is better, but I would be OK with a higher entry threshold

I do wonder though if it would create a barrier for "top 10 overall" status for newer players.

Under the current system players who leave (like asm and Norseman who were each #1 once) gradually lose CP's as they leave the top 10 on boards.  Under this system your points would be fixed.

Amidon37 wrote:

I do wonder though if it would create a barrier for "top 10 overall" status for newer players.

Under the current system players who leave (like asm and Norseman who were each #1 once) gradually lose CP's as they leave the top 10 on boards.  Under this system your points would be fixed.

Yes, the points would be fixed, but they did not lose their GRs for each board, which are the determining CP factors.  Rather, those numbers were bested.  I'm not sure why I think it should work, but I'll speculate that as there are more players, GR inflation comes into play. The points may be fixed, but the position in the rankings is fluid. Does that make sense, or is my argument flawed?

I think that makes sense, because if asm/Norseman lost CPs on a board, it was because they were overtaken in GR on that board.  So it's kind of similar.

Main difference is that previously they could get to zero CP and end up essentially tied with someone who had never even played the board, but under Option I, they would always have those CP. 

I have to say, I was not that big of fan of option I when it was introduced, but I'm warming up to it. 

I do think that CP is not that great a name.  If we do move to option I a more descriptive name would be something with overall, comprehensive, or global in the name.

Actually now that I think about it some this method would be better to make an "active player" top 10 list since you could remove someone from the rankings without effecting anybody else's points.

Amidon37 wrote:

Actually now that I think about it some this method would be better to make an "active player" top 10 list since you could remove someone from the rankings without effecting anybody else's points.

+1.  After x months of inactivity (or more specifically, x months of inactivity after a Premium membership expires) a player is removed from the list, but they keep their points in perpetuity. There could be a retirement/Hall of Fame archive page for these accounts. Return to the site and play a game, and they're back in the mix. 

I'm thinking there's no reason this couldn't be done with GR and R for individual boards right now, no? That would instantly take away all CPs from retired players.

“I” recognizes the value of more heavily played boards by way of proportionally producing more CPs. WarGear Warfare would produce well over 300,000 total CPs. Over 1500 WGWF players would receive points, with most of them receiving less than 100 CPs. 200+ players would get 20 CPs or less.  7 out of 8 WGWF players would NOT recieve any CPs.

When looking at those averages I can’t help but be reminded of the strategy players curently use to maximize CPs. They bring thier scores to 1500, grab the max CPs and then move on if there’s no competition ..or if the next rung on the ladder would take a lot of work. Option I isn’t the only option that addresses this problem, but it does it in a non-arbitrary way that scales with GR inflation or recession.

Looking at the standings, Amidon37 benefits from the system, while Cona Chris and poloquebec take hits. I think it's fair to say that the system overtly encourages players to play more boards. I don't think it's quite as overt, but the current system encourages players to max out on a board before moving on to the next, and once there, only play that board to protect their lead.

M57 wrote:

“I” recognizes the value of more heavily played boards by way of proportionally producing more CPs. WarGear Warfare would produce well over 300,000 total CPs. Over 1500 WGWF players would receive points, with most of them receiving less than 100 CPs. 200+ players would get 20 CPs or less.  7 out of 8 WGWF players would NOT recieve any CPs.

	Boards	Total	per/board	Current CPs	Current Standing
Mad Bomber	120	26872	1,224	549	1 - 2
Amidon37	170	24276	1,143	284	4
Black Dog	82	21302	1,260	463	3
Cona Chris	52	20309	1,391	549	1 - 2
IRSmart	32	14856	1,464	247	6
Hugh	72	14831	1,206	245	7
Sportlust	78	14082	1,181	231	8
poloquebec	33	12634	1,383	262	5
smoke	30	9728	1,324	208	9

When looking at those averages I can’t help but be reminded of the strategy players curently use to maximize CPs. They bring thier scores to 1500, grab the max CPs and then move on if there’s no competition ..or if the next rung on the ladder would take a lot of work. Option I isn’t the only option that addresses this problem, but it does it in a non-arbitrary way that scales with GR inflation or recession.

Looking at the standings, Amidon37 benefits from the system, while Cona Chris and poloquebec take hits. I think it's fair to say that the system overtly encourages players to play more boards. I don't think it's quite as overt, but the current system encourages players to max out on a board before moving on to the next, and once there, only play that board to protect their lead.

How were these averages calculated?  Is the boards column, any boards played, or just ones with score > 1000?   Is the total calculated as sum of points - 1000 for any board with a score > 1000?

Ozyman wrote:

M57 wrote:

“I” recognizes the value of more heavily played boards by way of proportionally producing more CPs. WarGear Warfare would produce well over 300,000 total CPs. Over 1500 WGWF players would receive points, with most of them receiving less than 100 CPs. 200+ players would get 20 CPs or less.  7 out of 8 WGWF players would NOT recieve any CPs.

	Boards	Total	per/board	Current CPs	Current Standing
Mad Bomber	120	26872	1,224	549	1 - 2
Amidon37	170	24276	1,143	284	4
Black Dog	82	21302	1,260	463	3
Cona Chris	52	20309	1,391	549	1 - 2
IRSmart	32	14856	1,464	247	6
Hugh	72	14831	1,206	245	7
Sportlust	78	14082	1,181	231	8
poloquebec	33	12634	1,383	262	5
smoke	30	9728	1,324	208	9

When looking at those averages I can’t help but be reminded of the strategy players curently use to maximize CPs. They bring thier scores to 1500, grab the max CPs and then move on if there’s no competition ..or if the next rung on the ladder would take a lot of work. Option I isn’t the only option that addresses this problem, but it does it in a non-arbitrary way that scales with GR inflation or recession.

Looking at the standings, Amidon37 benefits from the system, while Cona Chris and poloquebec take hits. I think it's fair to say that the system overtly encourages players to play more boards. I don't think it's quite as overt, but the current system encourages players to max out on a board before moving on to the next, and once there, only play that board to protect their lead.

How were these averages calculated?  Is the boards column, any boards played, or just ones with score > 1000?   Is the total calculated as sum of points - 1000 for any board with a score > 1000?

I just checked smoke's player info to check.. I ONLY used scores from the 30 boards for which he has >1000 points. He has a total of 39728 points accumulated on those 30 boards.  Subtracting 1000 for each board confirms the 9728 number.

I think that team board scores should be factored in somewhere (especially for team only boards). I have a decent score on Tug of War, but it doesn't count towards championship points or anything else for that matter. You can't even see the score anywhere besides the ranking messages inside the games (I'm pretty sure the top 3 list is bogus). http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Tug+of+War/About

Korrun wrote:

I think that team board scores should be factored in somewhere (especially for team only boards). I have a decent score on Tug of War, but it doesn't count towards championship points or anything else for that matter. You can't even see the score anywhere besides the ranking messages inside the games (I'm pretty sure the top 3 list is bogus). http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Tug+of+War/About

At first I was thinking this was OT.  Championship Points are an individual score, and there has been a recent thread or two covering an aggregate score, but your post got me to thinking that the IPoint system would likely be applied to Team  and Tournament scores.  The resulting IPoint scores would be compatible with Individual play Ipoints because the number of points in circulation should be directly proportional to the number of plays.  So an Individual/Tournament/Team CP aggregate could simply be a matter of adding all your IPoints up.

M57 wrote:

smoke wrote:

. But it's also a bit of a "participation award" this way.

I'm not picking on you smoke - I'm addressing your concerns - which I think are valid.

Large number of first-time players probably lose their first few games - and on WGWF. The payoff doesn't come until they work their way into the black, so it's hardly a participation award. You have to win - and that's what champions are, right?  Winners. Yes, option 'I' would put many more players on the CP list earlier, but this can only be a good thing, it will give them their first taste of what it takes to get into the hunt. Even before they reach equilibrium, playing other boards to obtain more CPs faster should be a no-brainer. 

That said, if we want to make it less of a participation award we could simply raise the threshold.  E.g., subtract 1100 and throw out all scores below 0.  Personally, I think the earlier players start receiving CPs, the better for the site. Besides, simpler is better, but I would be OK with a higher entry threshold

Just to chime in.  Part of the point of CP in the first place was to show you could win on multiple boards.  The problem is it doesn't measure it very fairly anymore.  When the system was set up hitting 1500 was a pretty big deal and if you won a few games you got on the board. 

My 'I' score is 10300 (38 boards), but my two biggest numbers are Civil War 1984 which under the current system earns me 4 count them 4 championship points and Colossal  at 1810 which gets me ZERO CP.  

So only two boards which would make up 18% of my 'I' score net me 4 CP right now. Someone with a single win on a less played board could get more CP than my 30+ big map wins.  

Looking at it that way the current system is a much bigger "participation award" than the 'I' option would be.  The point of option 'I' and all the other options for changing CP is to even out the rewards that popular board players are getting screwed on.  

Okay. Rant over. Go about your business.

itsnotatumor wrote:

Just to chime in.  Part of the point of CP in the first place was to show you could win on multiple boards.  The problem is it doesn't measure it very fairly anymore.  When the system was set up hitting 1500 was a pretty big deal and if you won a few games you got on the board. 

My 'I' score is 10300 (38 boards), but my two biggest numbers are Civil War 1984 which under the current system earns me 4 count them 4 championship points and Colossal  at 1810 which gets me ZERO CP.  

So only two boards which would make up 18% of my 'I' score net me 4 CP right now. Someone with a single win on a less played board could get more CP than my 30+ big map wins.  

Looking at it that way the current system is a much bigger "participation award" than the 'I' option would be.  The point of option 'I' and all the other options for changing CP is to even out the rewards that popular board players are getting screwed on.  

Okay. Rant over. Go about your business.

I'm not sure if this is an endorsement of Option I, but know it's a ringing criticism of the current system. 

Here's an update on how Option I plays out with more members on the list. I included anyone who participated in the Voting Thread. 

A couple notables:

• Babbalouie gets recognition for the 435 games of WarGear Warfare that he has won.
• Xrayjay is a Standard member who finds himself much more in the hunt for his efforts. (Seeing this, maybe he'd be more likely to pull the trigger and purchase a Premium membership).
• I was pleasantly surprised to see that Toto gets a good jump in the standings because of his exceptionally high scores on some of the more popular boards. The system seems pretty balanced; it's not just about playing a lot of boards.

M57 wrote:

itsnotatumor wrote:

Just to chime in.  Part of the point of CP in the first place was to show you could win on multiple boards.  The problem is it doesn't measure it very fairly anymore.  When the system was set up hitting 1500 was a pretty big deal and if you won a few games you got on the board. 

My 'I' score is 10300 (38 boards), but my two biggest numbers are Civil War 1984 which under the current system earns me 4 count them 4 championship points and Colossal  at 1810 which gets me ZERO CP.  

So only two boards which would make up 18% of my 'I' score net me 4 CP right now. Someone with a single win on a less played board could get more CP than my 30+ big map wins.  

Looking at it that way the current system is a much bigger "participation award" than the 'I' option would be.  The point of option 'I' and all the other options for changing CP is to even out the rewards that popular board players are getting screwed on.  

Okay. Rant over. Go about your business.

I'm not sure if this is an endorsement of Option I, but know it's a ringing criticism of the current system. 

Option I is one of my top 3 and arguably the "most fair" of the 15 options for fixing CP. And, I'm so happy people are running with this thread to evaluate it better.   

Oh yeah, and M57 takes a hit in the standings for being a jerk ..for among other things by playing mostly his own boards.