itsnotatumor wrote:

Is there any movement to get back on topic?  I just noticed another person is retiring or thinking about retiring boards in a related topic, and CP calculation came up as a factor.  

Yeah - that would be me.. 

I've been trying simmer down a bit and re-visit my statement about CPs in that thread.  I made it somewhat hastily ..and Yertle rightly called me to task on it.  I need to think about it more; I don't want my argument to be a red herring.

So rambling on a bit.. If you take a small niche dueling board like Waterloo, where with a total of 88 players, under "Option I" where 1001 GPs nets you 1 CP.. ~23% would be in the CPs.  

Surprisingly, 218 of ALSO ~23% of Invention players would be in the pink.

Global Warfare:  23%!  This is getting weird.

Antastic!: 20.5%  Whew!

So in the case of Antastic, which looks to be on the lower side of the curve where popular boards are concerned.  if it were to be retired today, 20.5% would end up with CPs, which is a whole lot better than 0.5%

I know this hypothetical where retiring a board is concerned, but it is relevant to the this thread in that it points to possibility of having a  system that certainly doesn't 'hand out' the CPs (well south of 1/4 of the players of any given board would have any under Option I, and most of those that earn points would find themselves with only a handful.  Only a small percentage of players get to 1100 on most board.  Hmm.. there's another stat to look at..

I guess the theme that ties these two threads together for me is the idea that points should be fairly and equitably earned.   As separate an issue as it may seem superficially, the option of having unranked play is part of the calculus of such a system.  20-23% will be a smaller number of people if those who wish to play competitively self-select.