so the new ranks: i think everyone would agree that they needed to be revamped. but what we got seems a little crazy: there are five different ranks between 1000 and 2000 points. between 2000 and 3000? 1 distinction.
now, i've read the reasoning for this in another thread: to make it easy to gain rank in the beginning and then to progressively raise the difficulty of moving up.
here's the problem: i think that's ridiculous reasoning for a ranking system. shouldn't the purpose of ranks be the ability to distinguish players from each other? one problem with the old rankings was this: there was no distinction in rank between a player with 2999 points and a player w/ 2001 points. this has hardly been addressed at all. we have all these distinctions in the lower ranks but effectively none once you get above 2000. i really don't get it. it's like the whole new system is basically devoted to the kids. there is a whole lot less for vets to shoot for. we got screwed in the ranking updates all the way around.
, cause it seems that only a few will ever get to General or Field Marshall (under this new scheme).
, cause you'll lose a lot of points, play in every battle royale CC set up (if you have a chance because if you're in someone's ignore list, specially a "Mod" you won't be able to play it), and of course don't play rt's.
LOL chess. You think by playing low rankers, the high rankers will reach 5000? Only in trips would that be possible, even then. Surely its easier to build up high scores by playing people of similar ranks.
