I was digging  for old threads, and found this one:

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/22p1/Ranking_system

Back from 2009, and they were having a lot of the same discussions we are having now.  I  am not even through it all, because it is dense, but I recommend everyone read Post #3 - Tom's post about how and why he created the GR & CP system and what his goals were, and Hugh's post (#9) giving the mathematical background.

Amidon37 wrote:

ratsy wrote:

So right now we allocate points at the player level, what I just proposed allocated them at the game level, but maybe we should really be trying to allocate them at the level of skill. Points based on ranks... or possibly on H rating... or something less obvious... 

My understanding/hope was that a trueskill type of ranking would accomplish this.

Ok - I finally read through this.  TrueSkill is private, but is basically just a variation of ELO or Glicko which are both public and not that complicated to implement.

Check out the wikipedia page on Glicko:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glicko_rating_system

Yeah it's got a crazy hairy mess of formula in the middle of it, and it would take me 10 years to derive it, but to translate it to code is probably just a few hours.   If Tom is interested, I'm sure we could hammer out the details (mostly figuring out a few constants). 

Even simpler is the formula Hugh lays out in the post I linked above.  Again, we'd have to argue over some constants. 

But, that does bring us back to the one drawback of it, that if it's too complicated no one can tell if it glitches... 

itsnotatumor wrote:

But, that does bring us back to the one drawback of it, that if it's too complicated no one can tell if it glitches... 

This is true, but then it must also true of all sites that use the system.  I've never seen it in action, but I'm assuming that when you win or lose, some kind of math appears in a pop-up that shows gain/loss and some other relevant markers where a player could suspect glitches and report them.  From there it might be good enough to keep track of your own score in a manner not unlike balancing a check-book.

itsnotatumor wrote:

[It's okay to hijack this thread. Important to cure Tumor of his optimism that we might reach agreement.]

Bwahaha!  

just know I'm coming for your spot no matter we're ranking it!  =D

I have to point out, you just dropped behind me again.

itsnotatumor wrote:

But, that does bring us back to the one drawback of it, that if it's too complicated no one can tell if it glitches... 

Edited from Hugh's old post that I linked above:

L = loser's rating, W = winner's rating

New Rating = Old Rating + V*[(PA^ (L/PH)) / (PA^ (L/PH) + PA^ (W/PH))]

(for the winner, minus that expression for the loser - note the winner can only gain)

The parameter V is how much variation is desired for a given game (this is WF's 20).  The PA and the PH mean that if a player is ranked PH points higher than another player, he has a PA to 1 probability advantage over the lower ranked player. 

This one is not so complicated that someone with a calculator couldn't check the math.  And the glitches in ranking seem to be more that a win or loss gets counted twice, not that the formula is wrong.

So then it just comes down to us picking a V, PA, & PH.  If we can agree on that, Tom can code it up and we can see how it plays. 

It sounds like PA & PH could almost be arbitrary, but here's my thoughts on where they should sit to be comparable to the current system.

V - for simplicity, just keep this at 20.

PH - 1000

PA - 5

So a player who is 1000 points higher would have a 5 to 1 probability advantage.   To put more specific numbers to it, Player A with 2000GR would beat player B with 1000GR 80% of the time.  (Did I do that right?)

Tell me again what PA and PH are.

This is just summarized from Hugh's post, but:

>The PA and the PH mean that if a player is ranked PH points higher than another player, he has a PA to 1 probability advantage over the lower ranked player.

Keep everything the same and move forward with the 4 rank system, which was received favorably, but never implemented. This would allow all players to pursue the areas of wargear to their liking. This would favor increased competition and recruitment of new players. Several players, such as Cona Chris (who would like a 5 rank system), Toto, Atilla the Hun, liked the concept. It should be implemented on a trial basis to see how well it is received. New players would  immediately be promoted to Private First Class if they win their first game (Ratsy liked that idea).  

Babbalouie wrote:

Keep everything the same and move forward with the 4 rank system, which was received favorably, but never implemented. This would allow all players to pursue the areas of wargear to their liking. This would favor increased competition and recruitment of new players. Several players, such as Cona Chris (who would like a 5 rank system), Toto, Atilla the Hun, liked the concept. It should be implemented on a trial basis to see how well it is received. New players would  immediately be promoted to Private First Class if they win their first game (Ratsy liked that idea).  

+1 for the 4 rank (aggregate-like) system, but still want the criteria within each system to make sense.  I really don't like the current GP system - and would hate to see that decision put off just because "something" has been done.

smoke wrote:

itsnotatumor wrote:

[It's okay to hijack this thread. Important to cure Tumor of his optimism that we might reach agreement.]

Bwahaha!  

just know I'm coming for your spot no matter we're ranking it!  =D

I have to point out, you just dropped behind me again.

How about now? =P

M57 wrote:

Babbalouie wrote:

Keep everything the same and move forward with the 4 rank system, which was received favorably, but never implemented. This would allow all players to pursue the areas of wargear to their liking. This would favor increased competition and recruitment of new players. Several players, such as Cona Chris (who would like a 5 rank system), Toto, Atilla the Hun, liked the concept. It should be implemented on a trial basis to see how well it is received. New players would  immediately be promoted to Private First Class if they win their first game (Ratsy liked that idea).  

+1 for the 4 rank (aggregate-like) system, but still want the criteria within each system to make sense.  I really don't like the current GP system - and would hate to see that decision put off just because "something" has been done.

I'm not necessarily against it, but no point in having a fancy roof if the walls are no good...

itsnotatumor wrote:

M57 wrote:

Babbalouie wrote:

Keep everything the same and move forward with the 4 rank system, which was received favorably, but never implemented. This would allow all players to pursue the areas of wargear to their liking. This would favor increased competition and recruitment of new players. Several players, such as Cona Chris (who would like a 5 rank system), Toto, Atilla the Hun, liked the concept. It should be implemented on a trial basis to see how well it is received. New players would  immediately be promoted to Private First Class if they win their first game (Ratsy liked that idea).  

+1 for the 4 rank (aggregate-like) system, but still want the criteria within each system to make sense.  I really don't like the current GP system - and would hate to see that decision put off just because "something" has been done.

I'm not necessarily against it, but no point in having a fancy roof if the walls are no good...

C'mon, itsnotatumornater, try it, you'll like it. Give peace a chance.

Babbalouie wrote:

C'mon, itsnotatumornater, try it, you'll like it. Give peace a chance.

Once CP (load bearing wall) is "fixed" I'll be open to a number of roofing options.  =)

Right... so shall I go ahead and implement the 4 rank system?

Just so I am clear... the 4 ranks are: Global Rank, CP Rank, Tourney Rank, Team Rank. Is Babbalouie's post 283 the agreed ranking definitions? http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1854p6/Debate:_Board_Championship_and_Global_Ranking#post_283

tom wrote:

Right... so shall I go ahead and implement the 4 rank system?

Just so I am clear... the 4 ranks are: Global Rank, CP Rank, Tourney Rank, Team Rank. Is Babbalouie's post 283 the agreed ranking definitions? http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1854p6/Debate:_Board_Championship_and_Global_Ranking#post_283

You know how I feel. It would be great. I think Post #280 defines it, but it is only an example.

it's not bad but I do agree with itsnot "I'm not necessarily against it, but no point in having a fancy roof if the walls are no good..."

In particular I think the GR score has got to go away as a global score.  Since GR is fixed if you don't play any games Falker is going to be really hard to move off the top here.

And of the other 3 ranking lists "tourney score" and "team score" are also a form of global GR.  I just don't think that works good as a way of measuring skill across different boards.  Too easy to manipulate by specializing.

Amidon37 wrote:

it's not bad but I do agree with itsnot "I'm not necessarily against it, but no point in having a fancy roof if the walls are no good..."

In particular I think the GR score has got to go away as a global score.  Since GR is fixed if you don't play any games Falker is going to be really hard to move off the top here.

And of the other 3 ranking lists "tourney score" and "team score" are also a form of global GR.  I just don't think that works good as a way of measuring skill across different boards.  Too easy to manipulate by specializing.

I think CP points are the worst ranking by far. That's why 4 different rankings allow a player to pursue any of the 4 areas he desires. The 4 rank system will not make anyone happy in all 4 areas, but it will allow them to concentrate on 1, 2, 3, or all 4 areas. Having choices is good. Instead of 1 number 1, there will be 4 number 1s. Then again, maybe 1 player can become number 1 in more than 1 area.