Conquer Club

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.

Well, I mean we have a rank for 5000+ yet nobody (as far as I know) has ever made it that far. And IF somebody were to make it that far, they'd certainly be at the top of the scoreboard, and in which case would have the special star rank.

I think I saw Ruben Cassar complaining about this somewhere and I sort of agreed. I think the top ranks (Field Marshall, etc) need to be taken down by at least 500 points so that all the new captains and majors can be compressed

I like the fact that there are new ranks, but i dont like the huge gaps for the higher ranks to progress.

The shuffling around of the requirements for ranks has also gotten quite confusing.

Agrees with Neph

ptlowe wrote:Agrees with Neph

yepp

I think it would be good with just 1 less rank betwen 800 and 2000 and 1 more rank between 2000 and 3000. maybe instead of having the 2500 rank, split that into 2300 and 2600.

Then again I don't really care that much. Just the fact that theres a new rank added between 2000 and 3000 is a huge improvement.

Yes I was complaining in the other thread. I think that the points should be more evenly distributed. It makes no sense to have 5 ranks in 500 points. At least make gaps of 200 or 300 between them.

The top ranks are a bit too high as well. Honestly no one will ever touch the 5,000 points mark. Maybe this would be better?

Cook Cook Cook 5 finished games 1
Cadet Cadet Cadet 5 finished games 500
Private Private Private 5 finished games 700
Private 1st Class Private 1st Class Private 1st Class 5 finished games 850
Corporal Corporal Corporal 10 finished games 1000
Corporal 1st Class Corporal 1st Class Corporal 1st Class 10 finished games 1200
Sergeant Sergeant Sergeant 20 finished games 1400
Sergeant 1st Class Sergeant 1st Class Sergeant 1st Class 20 finished games 1600
Lieutenant Lieutenant Lieutenant 40 finished games 1800
Captain Captain Captain 60 finished games 2100
Major Major Major 80 finished games 2400
Colonel Colonel Colonel 100 finished games 2800
Brigadier Brigadier Brigadier 150 finished games 3200
General General General 200 finished games 3600
Field Marshall Field Marshall Field Marshall 250 finished games 4000

In general, I agree with the sentiments here. That said, I do think it is less important to distinguish between the higher ranks than the lower ones (of course the powers that be have certainly seen to that).

In terms of representing the community at large, the number of players over 2000 pts don't even fill up the first page of the over all rankings, thus make up about 1.5% of the total. Thus, there are actually a disproportional amount of division within that small sector of CC already.

I like the fact that the lower ranks are more divided. There's a big difference between somebody who is treading water at 1000 and somebody who's around 500. The first has a much better chance of at least putting up a good game than the other. On the other hand, anyone over 2000 has proven themselves to be very strong so it doesn't really matter.

I agree.

It's also way more difficult to gain points once you're over 2000. The new ranking system needs some tunning.

Agree with Neph

Also,

Mayor can be at 2000,
Coronel at 2500,
Brigadier at 3000
General at 3700
Field Marshall, at 4600

Give us a chance to get at least to brigadier , cause it seems that only a few will ever get to General or Field Marshall (under this new scheme).

Regards

Shace

Ruben Cassar wrote:Yes I was complaining in the other thread. I think that the points should be more evenly distributed. It makes no sense to have 5 ranks in 500 points. At least make gaps of 200 or 300 between them.

The top ranks are a bit too high as well. Honestly no one will ever touch the 5,000 points mark. Maybe this would be better?

Cook Cook Cook 5 finished games 1
Cadet Cadet Cadet 5 finished games 500
Private Private Private 5 finished games 700
Private 1st Class Private 1st Class Private 1st Class 5 finished games 850
Corporal Corporal Corporal 10 finished games 1000
Corporal 1st Class Corporal 1st Class Corporal 1st Class 10 finished games 1200
Sergeant Sergeant Sergeant 20 finished games 1400
Sergeant 1st Class Sergeant 1st Class Sergeant 1st Class 20 finished games 1600
Lieutenant Lieutenant Lieutenant 40 finished games 1800
Captain Captain Captain 60 finished games 2100
Major Major Major 80 finished games 2400
Colonel Colonel Colonel 100 finished games 2800
Brigadier Brigadier Brigadier 150 finished games 3200
General General General 200 finished games 3600
Field Marshall Field Marshall Field Marshall 250 finished games 4000

There are only 15 people who rank among the top 4 ranks in your system. I understand that, as you move up in rank, there are fewer and fewer, but the new system does address this. You guys are asking for a system that is very skewed towards the top players.

I agree with Nephilim!

...and I usually don't

Boring I know but I also agree with Nephilim- very few will ever make it past 3000 and above that the ranks are set impossibly high. Even guys with huge experience like Blitz and JR have found it difficult to maintain that level ,so what chance is there of anyone reaching 5000 points unless there is an increase in mega games which would make the whole thing a farce.My big fear is that a higher percentage of the good players will stop playing singles in order to protect points,team games are good fun but it aint Risk !

Ruben Cassar wrote:The top ranks are a bit too high as well. Honestly no one will ever touch the 5,000 points mark. Maybe this would be better?

That's what they said about 3000 and 4000 points as well! I think Blitz hit 4000 way earlier than anyone would have ever expected. He was ahead of his time, but if you look at the people who have gotten above 3000, you will see more and more are doing it and the scores at the top are still ever increasing. If you don't think 5000 will be reached, I think you have a limited view of the future. And besides, why not set a goal that no one has reached yet? It might take some work, but 5000 will be reached. Believe it.

As for the reason why there are so many ranks at the bottom and so few at the top- the same was true for the old rank system, if you hadn't noticed, and its true in every military group as well. There will always be lots of people at the bottom of the ranks, and very few at the top, thats the nature of the game! And the higher you get the harder it is to climb- once again, that should be expected.

It makes perfect sense to have ranks every 100, 200 or 300 points at the bottom because that is where the majority of players fall. At the top, dividing by 500's still encompasses a small group at each rank, and thats how it should be. Finally, I think this is a good visual cue of why the current point levels work well:



The scores of players would look awfully similar- tons of people at the bottom, all of similar score....then very few at the top and much more spread out in comparison. In other words, an exponential graph.

The change in the game count requirement removed a fun element of scanning the scoreboard for over achievers... I really enjoyed the process of being a lower rank in a list of higher ranks due to having less games & more wins... also, it made it really easy to see the peak performers and allowed for "highest ranked X" games.

I've put my ideas in green, any thoughts?


Cook 5 finished games 1
Cadet 5 finished games 800
Private 5 finished games 900
Private 1st Class 5 finished games 1000
Corporal 10 finished games 1100
Corporal 1st Class 10 finished games 1200 20 games
Sergeant 20 finished games 1400 40 games
Sergeant 1st Class 20 finished games 1600 60 games
Lieutenant 40 finished games 1800 80 games
Captain 60 finished games 2000 100 games
Major 80 finished games 2500 150 games
Colonel 100 finished games 3000 200 games
Brigadier 150 finished games 3500 300 games
General 200 finished games 4200 400 games
Field Marshall 250 finished games 5000 500 games

Intresting topic been looking for something like this....

Nephilim ur point of view is defineltly every high scores point of view but still as u said too many diffrent ranks for lower ranks then 1000 points to distinguish between high rankers...however what i have in mind is this....400+ new comers every day to the website!!!!!!!!!!!!!

what lack was thinking is : with the website getting bigger by the end of June all colonels would be Generals ofcourse with the circle of points wondering around from noobies and new players. specially multies! to the higher ranked players which is absolutely not appropriate i am happy with whatever ranking i am...If u r looking for the easy way out to maintain ur ranking or ur score...well I disagree with u cuz i am looking for the hard way to do that...with that i conclude saying the rankings are now more difficult suck it up and start giving it ur best to get to MAJOR!

Cheers
Chessplaya

Shacekenhall wrote:Agree with Neph

Also,

Mayor can be at 2000,
Coronel at 2500,
Brigadier at 3000
General at 3700
Field Marshall, at 4600

Give us a chance to get at least to brigadier , cause it seems that only a few will ever get to General or Field Marshall (under this new scheme).

Regards

Shace

nonesense...get urself a solid standard tactics and win most of the 6 players games...instead of the 8 points u gain in trips or dubs...and u will hit field marshall in no time

Robinette wrote:The change in the game count requirement removed a fun element of scanning the scoreboard for over achievers... I really enjoyed the process of being a lower rank in a list of higher ranks due to having less games & more wins... also, it made it really easy to see the peak performers and allowed for "highest ranked X" games.

I've put my ideas in green, any thoughts?


Cook 5 finished games 1
Cadet 5 finished games 800
Private 5 finished games 900
Private 1st Class 5 finished games 1000
Corporal 10 finished games 1100
Corporal 1st Class 10 finished games 1200 20 games
Sergeant 20 finished games 1400 40 games
Sergeant 1st Class 20 finished games 1600 60 games
Lieutenant 40 finished games 1800 80 games
Captain 60 finished games 2000 100 games
Major 80 finished games 2500 150 games
Colonel 100 finished games 3000 200 games
Brigadier 150 finished games 3500 300 games
General 200 finished games 4200 400 games
Field Marshall 250 finished games 5000 500 games

I agree. The minimum number of games that lack chose were kind of last minute. We had talked about a few progressions similar to the one you posted, but with the point progression we never listed corresponding number of games. I don't like the numbers of games particularly

LOL i dont care really what the rank symbol is...... I am only looking at the scoreboard, There is only one positon 1st. everybody else is behind that . That is what I, and just guessing here but all the top players are shooting for. I dont care if it is a bunny rabbit symbol!

Yes,

It's very interesting how exponentials do, and how only exceptional players will reach 5000 points, (in light years from now probably).

Well is not very difficult, if you don't lose any of your games and only play with higher rank players (hopefully they will let you because they're reaching the same objective), let's say 6 player standard games, etc.... probably one day someone will reach Marshall status.

So my suggestion is this: don't play with lower ranks, especially cooks , 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.

Anyway the new ranks are cool, and it will be fun watching Blitz, JR and company figthing to get there.

Regards

Shace

Big Yuma Ripper wrote:LOL i dont care really what the rank symbol is...... I am only looking at the scoreboard, There is only one positon 1st. everybody else is behind that . That is what I, and just guessing here but all the top players are shooting for. I dont care if it is a bunny rabbit symbol!

I forgot that, but yeah Yuma, it's true, I'd like to see ecuadors flag in top ten even if I'm not a coronel

Shace

Perhaps we should leave it a while and see how it plays out. If point inflation occurs at the rate that Sully and Lack's ranks are suggesting then fair enoughb but if the top players are still in the 3000s in a few months time then I think that we need a rethink

IF U ONLY PLAY THE HIGH RANKED GAMES THE LOW RANKS WILL KEEP THEIR POINTS NO MATTER WHAT THEY R ( LOW RANKS =1500 AND BELOW) AND THE HIGH RANKS WILL KEEP THEIR POINTS AS THEY R..AND THEN NO1 WILL BE ABLE TO GO 4000 OR 5000..... sorry for caps just had to do it...if the players dont change ur points wont change maybe it will go up for a bit...but then down ...u will lose to the same players which r the 200-300 how many they r i dont know leaving outside that circle 15000 players...now if u profit their points and put them inside that circle SCORES WILL DEFINETLY GO HIGHER!

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.