Damn - So far, it looks like we're kind of split down the middle RE: CPI or CPI+.

The good news is that there does seem to be consensus that either are acceptable.

RE: 20 vs 40, I agree that if you're going to do it, make it worth something.

It's notable that with the CPI+ system, there's really only room for the top three because of the steep fall-off of the bonus, which got me to thinking. If the site is going to have two components, they will likely be presented separately.  So why not run with it.  Two columns.. Global Points, and Championship Points, where GP is straight CPI, and CPs are based on CPI.  Might as well make the metric full out for the updated CP rules: 1st = 100%, 2nd = 50%, 3rd = 25%.  So it's a straight medal race. You could extend it out to 4th, 5th, as far as rounding down works: I.e., most boards will only have 3 awards.

This keeps the paradigm for CPs being based on position, and GR/GP on overall play.  If you went with, or converted to a 40,20,10 metric, you could have a CPI+ composite, which wouldn't necessarily have to be published, but what-the-hey, it's just another column..  If the site goes with CPI+ People are going to want to see it broken down anyway - and with two new metrics, we can all still argue about who is the best!

Time for Tom to weigh in here?

Xrayjay wrote:

Time for Tom to weigh in here?

Xrj. What's your preference?

Option I, the simple version.

Ozyman wrote:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ScNMYxTV2rvoLFsOuN-_V1bF4wiZgBMFSxrAgPAJ8RU/edit?usp=sharing

I'm not able to edit..

M57 wrote:

Ozyman wrote:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ScNMYxTV2rvoLFsOuN-_V1bF4wiZgBMFSxrAgPAJ8RU/edit?usp=sharing

I'm not able to edit..

my bad - had it set to view only. I changed it to editable - try again.

Ozyman wrote:

M57 wrote:

Ozyman wrote:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ScNMYxTV2rvoLFsOuN-_V1bF4wiZgBMFSxrAgPAJ8RU/edit?usp=sharing

I'm not able to edit..

my bad - had it set to view only. I changed it to editable - try again.

All good. Thanks!

These are the top 12 CP holders (active players).

Of course, others could be in the top 12 ICP list because I only checked the top 12 CP positions.

UPDATE: completed the first page of all players who have been to the site in the last month.  asm is a notable move up.

This list is on sheet 2 of ozyman's google spreadsheet. I'll add a few more people - including those that have participated in this thread as I get the chance.

MB is still on top thought the gap has narrowed significantly (for the moment). Amidon got a nice (probably deserved bump) to get to second (above Cona).  Though it looks like Quaz should be above asm though.  

Cona? Thoughts?

Yeah, it looks bad for Cona, but I think that's because he usually gets to 20CP on a board and then stops playing it.  Seems like this would give him incentive to play more to strive for equilibrium, and I imagine once he adjusted his meta-strategy for which games to play, he'd have a good shot at rising up in the rankings.

Ozyman wrote:

Yeah, it looks bad for Cona, but I think that's because he usually gets to 20CP on a board and then stops playing it.  Seems like this would give him incentive to play more to strive for equilibrium, and I imagine once he adjusted his meta-strategy for which games to play, he'd have a good shot at rising up in the rankings.

It would be better if Cona Chris could offer his opinion as he's the one that stands to lose the most, not so much in the standings (just one slot) as much as with relative points..

It's clear that CC plays 'the CP game' just as much as he does 'THE game,' garnering over 4x the amount of first place positions that MB has accumulated. To his credit, he does it both methodically and meticulously, rarely securing his #1 positions with more than a 100 point margin. No doubt, if it took 2000 GR to get 20 CPs, he would be doing it. So I don't think it would out of line to make the case on his behalf that ICPs are unfairly changing the rules of 'the CP game.'

On the other hand, it's pretty clear that people like MB and A37 are not 'playing' the CP game. They are simply playing THE game, though we need to accept that it could be argued that at some level, we all have been playing the CP game but are in denial because we don't play it as well as CC.

Personally, I like the idea of an independent Championship Points stat based on 100, 50 and 25% of ICPs, or even a Championship Medal system, where players can collect gold, silver and bronze to put in their trophy cases. The term "Championship" can retain its syntactical meaning and CCs accomplishments will be rewarded. That said, I feel that the most highly coveted ranking should be based on ICPs alone, and named something like Global Points or WarGear Points, and these should be the points that determine your military ranking on the site.

>Championship Points stat based on 100, 50 and 25% of ICPs

What does this mean?

Ozyman wrote:

>Championship Points stat based on 100, 50 and 25% of ICPs

What does this mean?

..as described in my post #88.

Standard ICP points are NOT awarded.  Similar to the current system, points are only awarded for the top positions, but the points awarded are based on ICPs.

1st Place is awarded 100% of the that player's ICP points for each board
2nd place gets 50%, and on down until 0 points are awarded (probably down to 3rh and 4th place with most boards, but maybe down to 5th or 6th with the most popular).

It's an improvement on the current system in that awards are scaled by the popularity/difficulty of the board.

In other words, we would modify but keep CPs as a way of rewarding the best players of each board, but would have ICPs (renamed WarGear Points) as the metric that determines the military ranking (preferably by category - i.e. Teamplay/Tournament, etc).

I haven't done an analysis of the modified CPs, but my guess is that Cona Chris would overtake Mad Bomber in CPs, but of course he would lose ground with WGPs (WarGear Points).  Damn - too many acronyms.

I just did a quick breakdown of the proposed improved CPs (based on ICPs but not awarding all ICPs) Sheet #3 of Ozyman's google sheets. Here's a direct link to the sheet..

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ScNMYxTV2rvoLFsOuN-_V1bF4wiZgBMFSxrAgPAJ8RU/edit?pli=1#gid=72401357

Cona Chris TOTALLY dominates with 722 CPs, and Mad Bomber hopelessly trails with 217, which makes sense - Cona Chris has more than 4Xs the number of top spots. I'd be surprised if anyone else is doing much better than MB, forget about touching CC's accomplishment, but I think this also makes it clear that Board Place/Ranking is not the right all-around metric for the site.

It's interesting to note that Cona Chris gets 1 point for holding 6th place on the Invention board.

Not to be too wishy washy, but I really don't have much of a opinion on what the change should be.  I do think the current system of CPs isn't the best way to rate/tank players - but many of the alternatives are pretty involved and complex.  I definitely play for points on boards that I like and then move on, but have lately been more into tournaments.  If we change the system to something that people like more than CPs and I lose ground, that is fine with me, the better measurement is more important. 

Cona Chris wrote:

Not to be too wishy washy, but I really don't have much of a opinion on what the change should be.  I do think the current system of CPs isn't the best way to rate/tank players - but many of the alternatives are pretty involved and complex.  I definitely play for points on boards that I like and then move on, but have lately been more into tournaments.  If we change the system to something that people like more than CPs and I lose ground, that is fine with me, the better measurement is more important. 

+1 

I don't have a strong opinion between ICP and ICP+ either, though that might change down the line

M57 wrote:

Ozyman wrote:

>Championship Points stat based on 100, 50 and 25% of ICPs

What does this mean?

..as described in my post #88.

Standard ICP points are NOT awarded.  Similar to the current system, points are only awarded for the top positions, but the points awarded are based on ICPs.

1st Place is awarded 100% of the that player's ICP points for each board
2nd place gets 50%, and on down until 0 points are awarded (probably down to 3rh and 4th place with most boards, but maybe down to 5th or 6th with the most popular).

It's an improvement on the current system in that awards are scaled by the popularity/difficulty of the board.

In other words, we would modify but keep CPs as a way of rewarding the best players of each board, but would have ICPs (renamed WarGear Points) as the metric that determines the military ranking (preferably by category - i.e. Teamplay/Tournament, etc).

I haven't done an analysis of the modified CPs, but my guess is that Cona Chris would overtake Mad Bomber in CPs, but of course he would lose ground with WGPs (WarGear Points).  Damn - too many acronyms.

This sounds like a nice idea, though probably unnecessary. It is a viable alternative to ICP+ as it would help drive competition for the top spots on boards, but if the military rankings are coming from ICP's (now WGP?) then I don't see a whole lot of good reason to really pursue the top spots unless you care about medals...and most people don't even see your medals unless they're looking for them. So I guess what I'm saying is that if this becomes a reality then I would like the medals to be more displayed more publicly or for there to be some other reward for climbing the CP ladder.

In a previous thread, I mentioned that CC had 4x the number of top positions than MB.  This was based on the fact that CC had 22 "twenties" and MB had 5. In fact, Mad Bomber is tops on 19 boards, but because he has not played them to 1500, he is not maxing out the scoring potential of the current system.

My apologies to Mad Bomber for my misrepresentation.  It was an honest error. I was trying to process the data quickly and made assumptions.

--

I'd also like to thank Cona Chris for his gracious willingness to support whatever system is arrived at.  With some of the proposed systems, his multiple of change may be lower than most any of the top players. I just checked mine because I thought it might be disadvantageous as well, but my multiple is pretty much average.

AfroDaby wrote:

..but if the military rankings are coming from ICP's (now WGP?) then I don't see a whole lot of good reason to really pursue the top spots unless you care about medals...and most people don't even see your medals unless they're looking for them. So I guess what I'm saying is that if this becomes a reality then I would like the medals to be more displayed more publicly or for there to be some other reward for climbing the CP ladder.

I've been more and more concerned about this as this conversation has developed.  If there are no Championship Points as a separate category, there are still a number of prominent places where the board leaders are recognized.  One is each board's view page - and on numerous tabs of that page, like Rankings, etc. Also, on the player pages, where all of a player's medal are on display. There could also be Medals page, with a breakdown of the top medalists.

But I agree in principle that medals are cumbersome.  I think there is enough recognition via the pages described above, and I personally have as much regard for the medal game, so CPs have little value in my opinion and I would just do away with them, institute WG Points, and leave medals in place.  But I realize there are many who see it differently. This is why I think a separate 'revised/updated' CP system (based on ICPs) is probably the way to go.  Because it would be based on ICP's, which are in turn based on GR, there would be continuity across the system, paving the way for direct comparisons and hybrid stats that could be calculated by those who enjoy these things.  For instance WGP + CP, or WGP + 40% of CP.