Rank below cook needed - Waiter - POLL !

by **ManBungalow** on Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:27 pm

Hey everyone, I don't know what I'm doing but I was wondering if we could use a rank below the realms of cookliness.
Does anyone think that the gap between 1 and 800 points is insane? What would happen if we introduced a new rank? The waiter?
Having a waiter would improve the site by showing in more detail who you are playing. For example- if a high ranking officer was playing a cook with 700 points and another cook with 300 points and was losing both of them; the officer would lose twice as many points to the 300 pointer cook than he would to the 700 pointer cook, but to the officer's eyes the 2 cooks are equal. I suggest we introduce a "Waiter" rank ranging from say 1 point up to 400 points.

by **Night Strike** on Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:28 pm

The problem with making more ranks for the lower point levels is that it would actually increase intentional deadbeating and throwing games because some people would want the distinction of having the different/new rank.

by **Jackspratt** on Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:30 pm

ManBungalow wrote:Hey everyone, I don't know what I'm doing but I was wondering if we could use a rank below the realms of cookliness.
Does anyone think that the gap between 1 and 800 points is insane? What would happen if we introduced a new rank? The waiter?
Having a waiter would improve the site by showing in more detail who you are playing. For example- if a high ranking officer was playing a cook with 700 points and another cook with 300 points and was losing both of them; the officer would lose twice as many points to the 300 pointer cook than he would to the 700 pointer cook, but to the officer's eyes the 2 cooks are equal. I suggest we introduce a "Waiter" rank ranging from say 1 point up to 400 points.

Brilliant idea, however 'Pan Basher' (Washer Upper) might be more appropiate!? :lol:

by **Timminz** on Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:38 pm

How about we call the new rank "Perma-banned"? Anyone below, say, 300 points can't play anymore. I doubt you'll find anyone below that, who hasn't been losing intentionally anyway.

by **Nickbaldwin** on Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:47 pm

Yes ban people for being shit great idea #-o

by **Timminz** on Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:49 pm

Nickbaldwin wrote:Yes ban people for being shit great idea

Make it 100 points then. I believe strongly that no one can maintain a rank that low, naturally.

by **ManBungalow** on Mon Aug 25, 2008 4:12 pm

Yeah, I love the idea that you get punished in some way for going under something like 100 points. That would sort out anyone who deadbeats on purpose to get 1 point altogether.

by **This Is Sparta** on Mon Aug 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Great idea, I too always thought the gap between 1 and 800 points is too great for only 1 rank to fulfill. I don't see any problem with having an additional below Cook.

by **e_i_pi** on Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:34 am

If we're going to have Waiter, can there be a rank below that called Dumb-Waiter?

by **ManBungalow** on Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:38 am

I guess so lol
I'll be really impressed if they do actually introduce the waiter

by **bedub1** on Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:09 pm

ManBungalow wrote:I guess so lol
I'll be really impressed if they do actually introduce the waiter

Why not? Sounds like a great idea to me!

by **reggie_mac** on Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:21 pm

Brilliant idea, although waiter is probably not the right term, i'd like to see dish-pis (pot scrubber, or some other kitchen name) but my personal favorite would be "Janitor" because it has more implications for how shite they are

by **KoE_Sirius** on Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:30 pm

Timminz wrote:How about we call the new rank "Perma-banned"? Anyone below, say, 300 points can't play anymore. I doubt you'll find anyone below that, who hasn't been losing intentionally anyway.

Yeah then Lack can make loads of money under force pretences .wooohooo :lol:

by **MrBenn** on Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:52 am

This has been suggested before... http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=47578&p=1449421#p1449421

by **FabledIntegral** on Sat Aug 30, 2008 12:44 pm

There is no difference whatsoever amongst cooks whatever their rank - so why make a difference in rank? Personally - I would be fine if the cook rank extended all the way until rank 1200. I can't find even a slight difference between a person with a score of 800 vs 1200... they all just auto attack whatever big number is next to them because of getting nervous. More ranks is a bad thing... it takes away from the distinction in skill gaps. The newly suggested ranks... earning a new rank means hardly anything. There'd be hardly any difference in skill between 3 different ranks even... while now if you look at the difference in skill between a lieutenant and colonel it's phenomenal at how poorly a lieutenant plays.

EDIT: just saw the higher up ranks haven't really been changed... I thought they were MUCH different.. maybe it's a different list than what I last saw. I could care less about the changes in the lower ranks... there is hardly any difference between them anyways atm.

by **chipv** on Sat Aug 30, 2008 12:57 pm

Just one point, when you play 1200s (if at all) do you ever look to see how many games they have played?

I agree an 800 over 500 games is probably no worse than a 1200 over 500 games but every good player starts somewhere so
a 1200 over 3 games is potentially as good as a Field Marshal... you just don't know it yet.

by **ManBungalow** on Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:51 pm

I think a Conscientious Objector rank (or Waiter

) could be a great idea. If i lose to a cook with 700 odd points then I'm only going to lose 40/50 something maybe. If, however, I lose to a cook with say 10 points I will lose 100 points. Unless I check the profile of every cook I play, I won't know when to change my strategy accordingly.

by **FabledIntegral** on Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:57 pm

chipv wrote:Just one point, when you play 1200s (if at all) do you ever look to see how many games they have played?

I agree an 800 over 500 games is probably no worse than a 1200 over 500 games but every good player starts somewhere so
a 1200 over 3 games is potentially as good as a Field Marshal... you just don't know it yet.

Someone who has played 3 games has never played the types of games I play or is a multi - the word "potentially" is the only word that keeps your claim valid...

by **chipv** on Sat Aug 30, 2008 3:00 pm

FabledIntegral wrote:
chipv wrote:Just one point, when you play 1200s (if at all) do you ever look to see how many games they have played?

I agree an 800 over 500 games is probably no worse than a 1200 over 500 games but every good player starts somewhere so
a 1200 over 3 games is potentially as good as a Field Marshal... you just don't know it yet.

Someone who has played 3 games has never played the types of games I've play or is a multi - the word "potentially" is the only word that keeps your claim valid...

The word potentially is the crux of the distinction, but I did like your response (it's a good point) nevertheless even if that was not the intention.

by **FabledIntegral** on Sat Aug 30, 2008 3:02 pm

chipv wrote:
FabledIntegral wrote:
chipv wrote:Just one point, when you play 1200s (if at all) do you ever look to see how many games they have played?

I agree an 800 over 500 games is probably no worse than a 1200 over 500 games but every good player starts somewhere so
a 1200 over 3 games is potentially as good as a Field Marshal... you just don't know it yet.

Someone who has played 3 games has never played the types of games I've play or is a multi - the word "potentially" is the only word that keeps your claim valid...

The word potentially is the crux of the distinction, but I did like your response (it's a good point) nevertheless even if that was not the intention.

Don't take my words as if they were harsh - it's merely the manner in which I post.

by **chipv** on Sat Aug 30, 2008 3:09 pm

Nah, I didn't think you were harsh at all, Fabled. I enjoy your posts and would far rather engage you in conversation than someone who bores the living crap out of me. Carry on.