So we all know the rank system is not perfect, because lets be honest, nothing can be perfect, but that doesnt mean we cant attempt to fix the problems that we know of.
When most of you read the title you were probably curious how a rank system would work with out a point system well first off let me explain the major problems with the point based rank system
1) the first major problem is the inflation/deflation of points in CC. what this means is that the number of points total divided by the number of players is constantly changing. Let m explain with an example. let us say that CC is composed of a total of 5 people. Well this means that the total points in the system would be 5000. This is because they all start with 1000 and 5*1000=5000 and even when people play games together, if one person loses X points, another person must gain X points simply because that is the nature of the beast. Thus the ratio of points to players will always be 1000, ergo if one player is to have say 1500 points, we could say that this person is generally better than most players as he/she controls 30% of the points when he/she started with only 20%. Now let us say a person joins the site, the total points in the system is now 6000, but there are 6 players, so the ratio is still 1000 points per player. Now a common phenomena is that the new player will get bored of the site and leave, either removing points from the system (by leaving with a score > 1000) or adding some (by leaving with a score < 1000) which will offset points per player ratio. now the same five exist but because the number of points available are different so each player will artificially appear to have more or less points than they had before simply because points have been taken away or added artificially.
2) the next problem is a point system assumes, beating 6000 cooks is equivalent to beating a field marshal. Although i am not smart enough to vouch either as far as the validity of this, i can say that i can logically come to the conclusion that the above statement is most likely false. This does not happen becuase the point system wants it to happen but simply because the point system assumes that you should always get a reward for beating a cook. once again i cant vouch for this, but i can logically conclude that beating even 50% of the cooks you play shouldnt be very hard if you are say a field marshal.
this brings me to the incomplete suggestion that i have. Once again i know this isnt fool proof or anything, just a skeleton for a better system, i hope.
The system is simple in that it deals with probabilities. basically you have a chart set out, where it shows a rank, then the % of this rank that you have beaten vs lost against. Then if your % is significant (which we can define later) against a certain rank, then you are boosted to the next rank. So lets say you beat a significant % of cooks, cadets, privates, and priv 1st class players, then your rank will be a corporal.
possible limitations that should/might be added
- minimum opponents beaten - that way if you played one field marshal total, and beat him with luck, that doesnt mean you have 100% win and should be conqueror
- must have all ranks below beaten - so if you say have beaten the significant % of captains, then you will only become a major if you have beaten a significant % of all the rank below. (lets be honest, if you are claiming you can beat captains but cant beat a corporal 1st then u have more to worry about than rank
) - only considers last X opponents - this way someone cant get to major rank, then just maintain that by playing cooks just to stay active. Also say a player sucked for the first 100 games against sergeants, then he/she has to work twice as hard for the next 100 games to get their % up, but if someone is able to perform at such a high level for 100 games they should deserve a higher percentage. Also this should be a variable that changes by rank, quite frankly because one cant be expected to play as many generals as they play cooks
also i want to say is that i dont know how to implement this. there are two options
1) start over, if someone is a general right now they should be more than able to get back up there is no time.
2) assume everyone's current rank is right and start the system from this point on.
also a side benefit from this,
- if a general say lost a couple games to cooks by bad luck (it happens) their score wont dive bomb as long as they beat more cooks than they lost too.
- creates a diversity in playing as people like generals have to play cooks else too many games will pass that you dont play enough cooks and your rank will drop back down to cook level
ok so the final thing i want to say is that i see room for abuse. a player could purposely drop their rank just to play and screw over higher ranks. So say someone who should be a general could avoid/lose to cadets so their score is a cook, then they could completely screw over high ranks. there are two solutions to this, you could use the foe list extensively, or we could make an addition to the rules so that the % is percent of unique opponents. So it would be # unique defeats divided by the number unique opponents ever played.
What do you think?
