Point distributions in new ranks

[richnpoor]

A battle Royal is fair to all I believe and gives everyone a shot at a massive point gain

where is Death to all ?

[richnpoor]

Muhammad Ali fought over 50 title defenses and not once did he ever tell Howard Cossell he wasnt gonna fight this contender cause he stood to lose more (the championship) than he stood to gain (some more money)

still waiting for response to this



or this

Tell me were there colonel games when YOU were a private ?

a honest one please



rich

[poo-maker]

1) Boxing isn't as based on luck as risk.

2) Yes there was, i just wasn't invited.

[Scott-Land]

As in poker-- the more money in distribution the more you can win. Even though the very low limit players will never play the superstars , their money reaches the high limit games. The better players will win money from the low limit games and in turn will play higher and higher limits -- eventually getting to the top high limit games. Without going into greater detail, you can apply this same theory in the point structure here at CC.
When running my rts, although most of the regulars don't like to see new faces cause of their 'unpredictability', I invite recently promoted majors / captains now with the new rank to play . Although he is a high rank and playing in a high rank game-- his points were obtained through lower ranks. So in theory, cooks, privates, new recruits or whatever....... they are not playing in the high rank game but their points are. When asking if someone will reach 5000 points, one has to ask how many points are in distribution........... how quickly will those points reach the high rank games and how many new promoted players will only play high ranks to keep the points in circulation.

There Abs-- I capitalized beginning of each sentence.

[sully800]

as in poker-- the more money in distribution the more you can win. even though the very low limit players will never play the superstars , their money reaches the high limit games. the better players will win money from the low limit games and in turn will play higher and higher limits -- eventually getting to the top high limit games. without going into greater detail, you can apply this same theory in the point structure here at CC. when running my rts, although most of the regulars dont like to see new faces cause of their 'unpredictability', i invite recently promoted majors / captains now with the new rank to play . although he is a high rank and playing in a high rank game-- his points were obtained through lower ranks. so in theory, cooks, privates, new recruits or whatever....... they are not playing in the high rank game but their points are. so when asking if someone will reach 5000 points, one has to ask how many points are in distribution........... how quickly will those points reach the high rank games and how many new promoted players will only play high ranks to keep the points in circulation.

Now here is a man that I agree with!

[detlef]

Muhammad Ali fought over 50 title defenses and not once did he ever tell Howard Cossell he wasnt gonna fight this contender cause he stood to lose more (the championship) than he stood to gain (some more money)

still waiting for response to this



or this

Tell me were there colonel games when YOU were a private ?

a honest one please



rich

OK as to Muhammed Ali. There are 18,000 members of Conquer Club. The col. games (forgive me, I haven't completely recalibrated yet) include about the top 250. Old Majors or better about the top 1000. Pretty much anyone in those ranks has no trouble finding a game against the top players.

When Ali said he'd take on anyone, do you really think he'd waste his time with a boxer ranked outside the top 1000? Not likely.

Besides, let's just say that none of us here are quite the competitor or champion that Ali was. Isn't that setting the bar a little high?

I'll say this, I'm not even over 2000 yet but in terms of hoping to get there, it is a bit frustrating to play a 5 player game against guys who are hardly bad players, fight it out and get a total of 50 pts for my effort, knowing that, had the wrong guy won, I'd have lost almost 40 pts. That's a pretty bad pay-off considering the fact that none of us can overcome a combo of crappy dice, cards, and/or placement.

[ABSOLUTE_MASTER]

As in poker, the more money in distribution the more you can win. Even though the very low limit players will never play the superstars , their money reaches the high limit games. The better players will win money from the low limit games and in turn will play higher and higher limits -- eventually getting to the top high limit games.

Without going into greater detail, you can apply this same theory in the point structure here at CC; when running my rts, although most of the regulars dont like to see new faces cause of their 'unpredictability', i invite recently promoted majors / captains now with the new rank to play . Although he is a high rank and playing in a high rank game-- his points were obtained through lower ranks; so in theory, cooks, privates, new recruits or whatever....... they are not playing in the high rank game but their points are.

So when asking if someone will reach 5000 points, one has to ask how many points are in distribution........... how quickly will those points reach the high rank games and how many new promoted players will only play high ranks to keep the points in circulation.

I agree with you...

I could have probably agreed with you faster if you had use some punctuation..

PM me so we can schedule those punctuation lessons....

[richnpoor]

Muhammad Ali fought over 50 title defenses and not once did he ever tell Howard Cossell he wasnt gonna fight this contender cause he stood to lose more (the championship) than he stood to gain (some more money)

still waiting for response to this



or this

Tell me were there colonel games when YOU were a private ?

a honest one please



rich

OK as to Muhammed Ali. There are 18,000 members of Conquer Club. The col. games (forgive me, I haven't completely recalibrated yet) include about the top 250. Old Majors or better about the top 1000. Pretty much anyone in those ranks has no trouble finding a game against the top players.

When Ali said he'd take on anyone, do you really think he'd waste his time with a boxer ranked outside the top 1000? Not likely.

Besides, let's just say that none of us here are quite the competitor or champion that Ali was. Isn't that setting the bar a little high?

I'll say this, I'm not even over 2000 yet but in terms of hoping to get there, it is a bit frustrating to play a 5 player game against guys who are hardly bad players, fight it out and get a total of 50 pts for my effort, knowing that, had the wrong guy won, I'd have lost almost 40 pts. That's a pretty bad pay-off considering the fact that none of us can overcome a combo of crappy dice, cards, and/or placement.

i meat you req of major under old system but i believe the number of these is higher than 1000 probably around 2000

rich

[Scott-Land]

As in poker, the more money in distribution the more you can win. Even though the very low limit players will never play the superstars , their money reaches the high limit games. The better players will win money from the low limit games and in turn will play higher and higher limits -- eventually getting to the top high limit games.

Without going into greater detail, you can apply this same theory in the point structure here at CC; when running my rts, although most of the regulars dont like to see new faces cause of their 'unpredictability', i invite recently promoted majors / captains now with the new rank to play . Although he is a high rank and playing in a high rank game-- his points were obtained through lower ranks; so in theory, cooks, privates, new recruits or whatever....... they are not playing in the high rank game but their points are.

So when asking if someone will reach 5000 points, one has to ask how many points are in distribution........... how quickly will those points reach the high rank games and how many new promoted players will only play high ranks to keep the points in circulation.

I agree with you...

I could have probably agreed with you faster if you had use some punctuation..

PM me so we can schedule those punctuation lessons.... :wink:

I'm free all this week

[detlef]

Muhammad Ali fought over 50 title defenses and not once did he ever tell Howard Cossell he wasnt gonna fight this contender cause he stood to lose more (the championship) than he stood to gain (some more money)

still waiting for response to this



or this

Tell me were there colonel games when YOU were a private ?

a honest one please



rich

OK as to Muhammed Ali. There are 18,000 members of Conquer Club. The col. games (forgive me, I haven't completely recalibrated yet) include about the top 250. Old Majors or better about the top 1000. Pretty much anyone in those ranks has no trouble finding a game against the top players.

When Ali said he'd take on anyone, do you really think he'd waste his time with a boxer ranked outside the top 1000? Not likely.

Besides, let's just say that none of us here are quite the competitor or champion that Ali was. Isn't that setting the bar a little high?

I'll say this, I'm not even over 2000 yet but in terms of hoping to get there, it is a bit frustrating to play a 5 player game against guys who are hardly bad players, fight it out and get a total of 50 pts for my effort, knowing that, had the wrong guy won, I'd have lost almost 40 pts. That's a pretty bad pay-off considering the fact that none of us can overcome a combo of crappy dice, cards, and/or placement.

i meat you req of major under old system but i believe the number of these is higher than 1000 probably around 2000

rich

Well, there are 990 players with a rank of 1600 or higher. That's what I based it on. Frankly, if this number were higher, it would just better make my point. That point being, your Ali comparison is rather weak. The high ranked players defend their ranks against more and lower ranked players than Ali ever did. If some dude who hadn't been in boxing at all or had fared rather poorly in the lower tiers called him out, that fight would have never happened and nobody would have thought any less of Ali for refusing the bum a chance.

That's essentially what you are talking about when you chastise players with 3000+ points for not seeking out games against those with 1000 or so. The latter are either brand new players or have been treading water against mediocre players.

As for players like us who are just a cut below in terms of rank, there are plenty of old majors rank or better games out there that are interesting and challenging. Not to mention the occasional open game that happens to include some higher ranked players.

One thing that often gets lost by those who belly ache about ranked players staging ranked games is that, those aren't the only games they play. Further, the points won/lost ratios sort of make it a wash in terms of which is the best way to preserve your ranking. Obviously there are more points to be had and less points to be lost if high ranking players join ranked games. Then again, you can pretty much count on the fact that nobody is going to squander lucky dice or cards with poor play. On the other hand, that same player can often overcome these things against lower ranked players but the risk/reward payoff is rather weak. In the example I gave in my post, I earned 50 pts in a 5 player game but would have lost as many as 40 depending on who else won. And I don't even have 2000 pts.

[richnpoor]

well in as to the boxing comparison I have about 1700 points major vs col under the old system. Boxers often defend their title against other boxers in the top ten you dont have to be ranked number 1 or 2

Im not trying to chastise anyone Im just urging players to play at least 1 outta every 10 games or so against lower ranked players

I won two games this week that had 6 players in them and only gained 66 points each time but I was happy with that 66

[richnpoor]

the other thing i noticed is alot of these 'high ranked' players have an extremely high number of team games. Im sure they could easily recoup the loss of one game to a lower ranking player with a win there.

In addition you assume that the lowest rank player wins the game what happens in a game where there are 2 colonels 2 majors a captain and a private if the major wins

my understanding is the points awarded are based on the difference in rank between the winner and the loser not the winner and the lowest ranked player

can someone do the math for this the loss might only cost him 18 points since the winner is close in rank (i am using the old ranking system in this example but I believe the pricipal still applies to a current capt who loses to a sgt first class)

Moderator math please

rich

[podge]

Why do we need a moderator you have already lost the argument or discussion or whatever else you want to call it.

You lost it when you started splitting hairs about the difference in point loss between ranks

[detlef]

well in as to the boxing comparison I have about 1700 points major vs col under the old system. Boxers often defend their title against other boxers in the top ten you dont have to be ranked number 1 or 2

Im not trying to chastise anyone Im just urging players to play at least 1 outta every 10 games or so against lower ranked players

I won two games this week that had 6 players in them and only gained 66 points each time but I was happy with that 66

I don't know about you, but I don't really have that much trouble finding games against people ranked ahead of me. In fact, I never have. I promise you that if you went into the public games right now, you'd find a couple. In fact, if you head into the callouts section, you'll see more still and most of the old majors or better games had one or two cols. in them as well.

It's simply not the epidemic that it is painted to be.

Once again, to your boxing analogy. At 1700, you are ranked about #600 of 18000. Let's say there are 5,000 boxers world wide in a given weight class. That is a very conservative estimate. What you are suggesting is far from taking on guys in the top 10. The equivalent would be the champ taking on the 138th ranked boxer in his class. Basically, Rocky. However, that is so rare they made a fictional movie about it. So, once again, your analogy is sort of lame. Especially considering that I would like to assume that you are suggesting that they play players not only of your rank but of those lower. After all, if you're suggesting that they make the cut off at you, that would be rather hypocritical wouldn't it. So, how low should they be "expected" to go in this 100% voluntary leisure exploit?

As to your question about points. Yes, your point loss is only relative to the ultimate winner unless you're playing terminator. That said, the inclusion of lower ranked players does diminish the upside and it's not impossible for a lower ranked guy to get hot dice and win the thing. I know I did in one of my first games.

[bryankratz]

i hate the new rankings as well, they need more upper level stuff, even though i am a lower level guy in the rankings, i still know what was brought up with the problem of the older better guys not advancing as often.

in another game i play you need to invest 100billion bucks for one ranking, and then 200billion bucks for the next. Only problem is before the first billion you put in there were 6 rankings... the next 100billion there is one.

[Blitzaholic]

I Agree with Nephilim and to be fair, something like this could be implemented in the near future. It keeps the newcomers and vets satisfied, and minimum games requirements is a must, cause it adds activity to the site.


Cook 5 finished games 1 rank
Cadet 5 finished games 700 rank
Private 10 finished games 1000 rank
Private 1st Class 20 finished games 1200 rank
Corporal 30 finished games 1400 rank
Corporal 1st Class 50 finished games 1600 rank
Sergeant 80 finished games 1800 rank
Sergeant 1st Class 100 finished games 2000 rank
Lieutenant 150 finished games 2200 rank
Captain 200 finished games 2500 rank
Major 250 finished games 2800 rank
Colonel 300 finished games 3000 rank
Brigadier 400 finished games 3200 rank
General 500 finished games 3500 rank
2 Star General 600 finished games 3700 rank
3 Star General 700 finished games 4000 rank
4 Star general 800 finished games 4200 rank
5 Star general 900 finished games 4500 rank
Field Marshall 1000 finished games 5000 rank

Please consider something along these lines, because it is much more challenging to manage a rank past 2500 once you reached this high, or at least incorporate a rank of 2500 as Nephilim said, there should be some distinction between 2000 and 2999, I think all would agree that this is not only fair, but right.

Also it is one thing to reach 3000 rank, and quite another to maintain it, maintaining this is 20x more difficult, it's like owning a bonus, but maintaining that is much harder.

Finally, only 20 some odd players have done this (3000 rank) and about 100,000 then have been on here, so at least considering adding some more ranking for 2500 plus, ty sully.

What do CC players think?

[Blitzaholic]

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.

I don't agree with you. Blitz managed to reach the 4000 mark only for a short time and then he came tumbling down. Also note that to reach that mark he used to play only triples games.

I believe he stretched the points curve to the limit by using that technique. Personally I find that there is a kind of elastic limit to the points that one can garner. I am stuck at the 2100 mark for example...can't go past that because when I lose a game I have to win four to make up for it. Perhaps I have reached my limit or perhaps I can get lucky and get some more points in the future.

However I am sure I won't be reaching 5000. I think Blitz has already gone beyond the elastic limit with his 4000 points because of the technique he used. Anyone else who plays different styles of the game will never make it that far, let alone reach 5000 points.

I think you are right that theres an elastic limit to how far you can get. But the limit is really how far you can get above your fellow players. When Blitz got to 4300 he was over 1000 points ahead of anyone else which makes it very hard to maintain. But now there are way more people in the 2700-3400 point range than there used to be, and that will continue to grow. As it does, it will make it easier for people to stay in the 3500 point range, and that pattern keeps continuing. That's why I said Blitz was ahead of his time, because no one else was close to him.

If gibbom or one of the top 10 win a battle royal it could happen, other than that it will take about year or so to achieve a 5000 rank and that is only if a ton more players MAINTAIN 3000 rank, but not many are, yes, it is possible, but as it is now NO, many more must get higher ranks and hold them, but so hard to do, I played half my games trips when i reached almost 4400, and the other half were singles and doubles combined, at had to win and maintain a win rate of 90 percent plus, almost impossible to do especially if the dice got cold on you and they will.

So, as we are look forward to the future, lets try to implement a ranking system as i've suggested and set some achievable goals, if sully: your vision is correct, then another update could be made to set it more appropriately, but to set the bar that high now, well, quite frankly, it appears hopeless to many, why not set cc players up for success rather than failure? Just a thought. Later, respects, Blitz

[Nephilim]

ok, finally have time to catch up w/ this and say some more. seems that everyone is adding their little pet peeves.

all i was trying to say: i think of ranks as ways to distinguish players. i want be able to tell what kind of player i'm getting when i look at a rank. the problem w/ the old system was too big of a point spread in the major rank (1600-1999) and WAY too big a spread in colonel (2000-2999). there was no way to distinguish between, say, robinette or maniacmath at 2800 and tony1 or ken hutchinson at around 2000.

i agree w/ mm17's comment: that system was so bad that any improvement is pretty nice. but i'd just think if we're going to change the system positively, why not give it our best shot? we still have huge 500 point gaps.

lest anyone think i'm complaining b/c i'm now a captain or b/c it's still hard to move up in rank, that's not my concern. my points are still around the same and i'm still shooting for the top at the end of the day. i dont care that i might need 500 pts to get a new rank. i just want a ranking system that properly indicates something about skill level. with categories this large, it's just plain ridiculous.

i also want to add that detlef's arguments are very bad

[GreecePwns]

Code: Select all

Cook                  5 finished games      1
Cadet                 5 finished games      500
Private               5 finished games      1000
Private 1st Class     5 finished games      1100
Corporal              10 finished games     1200
Corporal 1st Class    10 finished games     1300
Sergeant              20 finished games     1400
Sergeant 1st Class    20 finished games     1500
Lieutenant            40 finished games     1750
Captain               40 finished games     2000
Major                 80 finished games     2250
Colonel               100 finished games    2500
Brigadier             125 finished games    2750
General               150 finished games    3000
High General          150 finished games    3500
Field Marshall        200 finished games    3750

This is my idea of how the rankings should be. You can't say I'm biased towards high scores, since my score is about 1100 right now. I think these are more reachable goals than 5000. Also, I don't like the Conquerer symbol.

[Blitzaholic]

I Agree with Nephilim and to be fair, something like this could be implemented in the near future. It keeps the newcomers and vets satisfied, and minimum games requirements is a must, cause it adds activity to the site.


Cook 5 finished games 1 rank
Cadet 5 finished games 700 rank
Private 10 finished games 1000 rank
Private 1st Class 20 finished games 1200 rank
Corporal 30 finished games 1400 rank
Corporal 1st Class 50 finished games 1600 rank
Sergeant 80 finished games 1800 rank
Sergeant 1st Class 100 finished games 2000 rank
Lieutenant 150 finished games 2200 rank
Captain 200 finished games 2500 rank
Major 250 finished games 2800 rank
Colonel 300 finished games 3000 rank
Brigadier 400 finished games 3200 rank
General 500 finished games 3500 rank
2 Star General 600 finished games 3700 rank
3 Star General 700 finished games 4000 rank
4 Star general 800 finished games 4200 rank
5 Star general 900 finished games 4500 rank
Field Marshall 1000 finished games 5000 rank

Please consider something along these lines, because it is much more challenging to manage a rank past 2500 once you reached this high, or at least incorporate a rank of 2500 as Nephilim said, there should be some distinction between 2000 and 2999, I think all would agree that this is not only fair, but right.

Also it is one thing to reach 3000 rank, and quite another to maintain it, maintaining this is 20x more difficult, it's like owning a bonus, but maintaining that is much harder.

Finally, only 20 some odd players have done this (3000 rank) and about 100,000 then have been on here, so at least considering adding some more ranking for 2500 plus, ty sully.

What do CC players think?

Well Nephilim, wouldn't this list of ranks be better suited for all?

[Nephilim]

I Agree with Nephilim and to be fair, something like this could be implemented in the near future. It keeps the newcomers and vets satisfied, and minimum games requirements is a must, cause it adds activity to the site.


Cook 5 finished games 1 rank
Cadet 5 finished games 700 rank
Private 10 finished games 1000 rank
Private 1st Class 20 finished games 1200 rank
Corporal 30 finished games 1400 rank
Corporal 1st Class 50 finished games 1600 rank
Sergeant 80 finished games 1800 rank
Sergeant 1st Class 100 finished games 2000 rank
Lieutenant 150 finished games 2200 rank
Captain 200 finished games 2500 rank
Major 250 finished games 2800 rank
Colonel 300 finished games 3000 rank
Brigadier 400 finished games 3200 rank
General 500 finished games 3500 rank
2 Star General 600 finished games 3700 rank
3 Star General 700 finished games 4000 rank
4 Star general 800 finished games 4200 rank
5 Star general 900 finished games 4500 rank
Field Marshall 1000 finished games 5000 rank

Please consider something along these lines, because it is much more challenging to manage a rank past 2500 once you reached this high, or at least incorporate a rank of 2500 as Nephilim said, there should be some distinction between 2000 and 2999, I think all would agree that this is not only fair, but right.

Also it is one thing to reach 3000 rank, and quite another to maintain it, maintaining this is 20x more difficult, it's like owning a bonus, but maintaining that is much harder.

Finally, only 20 some odd players have done this (3000 rank) and about 100,000 then have been on here, so at least considering adding some more ranking for 2500 plus, ty sully.

What do CC players think?

Well Nephilim, wouldn't this list of ranks be better suited for all?

ya, those are fine point levels. even though we don't have anyone over 4000 and it would seem superfluous to some to continue the same point breakdowns above that number, i think it's good planning for the future. we will have more people up that high after a while, so those levels are good. we won't have to change things again later.

i don't like your games finished levels tho. i think you may be overreacting a little to the gibbom scenario. i don't see a need to have games finished as much of a signifier. cheers on your post tho

[sully800]

This is a response to a PM blitz sent me asking him to look at his proposed rank levels. I think its valid for everyone in the thread as well.

You of all people Blitz!! You reach 4300 points months ago....you don't think its possible you will top that, even with the amount of people ranked very highly (much higher than before).

I've looked at the point levels you proposed and I don't think they make sense...they jump back and forth between 200 and 300 level increments with no real pattern. Also the ranks at the top are very close together, which I guess you like, but there will only ever be a few people in that area anyway. If you break the ranks up that much at the top you will rarely have more than a person or 2 on each level.

And a final problem is that you created even more levels than we currently have. I had talked about adding more than we finally ended up with, but to do that you have to come up with even more new symbols. People are already complaining that there are two many symbols and its too confusing, adding more would obviously make that problem worse. And you can't just have 1, 2, 3 and 4 stars to distinguish the general ranks. They work as a title but not as symbols...I tried it and fitting 4 stars in an 18 by 18 pixel box is simply ugly.

Finally, you say that we could adopt a system that is lower at the top, and then when people reach those scores we could bump it back to 5000. Thats the exact situation we wanted to avoid, because new ranks take a lot of getting used to and people don't like change (as evidenced by this and many other threads). If you have to keep changing ranks to keep up with the scores it would be even more of a headache for everyone. The system we created was to allow for some growth of the site. 5000 may not be reached soon, but it will happen eventually. I once knew a guy named Blitz who saw no score as a limit and won an absurd amount of games that no one though would ever happen.

Whos to say that won't happen again?

[sully800]

Oh and 2 more things:

1) Neph I agree that 500 point gaps are still pretty big, but there aren't that many people in those gaps. If you break them down into 200 or 300 point gaps at the top, you will have just as hard of a time remembering which rank is above which, and there will only be a few people in each level. I know theres a big difference between 2000 and 2499.....but I also would guess that you can recognize pretty many of the players in the top 100 by name and predict their score pretty accurately without looking.

2) lack himself was the one who proposed more levels at the bottom of the scoreboard. I had made a proposal for many more ranks at the top with wide gaps that went all the way up to 10,000 points. A type of "shoot for the stars" system, and a system which would probably never be obselete. As I said earlier twill wanted up to 30,000 points at the top! So anyway, I'm sure lack would not be in favor of removing the bottom ranks and switching to 200 point increments at the top of the scoreboard. They would be unnecessary.

[demigod]

Supposing there are 6 players of 2000 points each who start a series of 6 games. Now if each player only wins one game, the following points would be applicable after each round (correct me if i'm wrong). [The first column is starting points.]


Player1 2000 2100 2081 2062 2043 2024 2005
Player2 2000 1980 2081 2062 2043 2024 2005
Player3 2000 1980 1960 2062 2043 2024 2005
Player4 2000 1980 1960 1940 2043 2024 2005
Player5 2000 1980 1960 1940 1920 2024 2005
Player6 2000 1980 1960 1940 1920 1900 2005
Total points 12000 12000 12002 12006 12012 12020 12030
Point inflation 0 2 4 6 8 10

It would seem that there is natural point inflation regardless of whether lower ranked players filter their points up to the higher rankers. I suspect this has something to do with rounding.
Inevitably therefore, people will likely increase in rank over the long term if they are able to maintain a win/loss ratio equivalent to others (i couldn't be bothered seeing what would happen to total points if the same person won each game; maybe someone with the time could work it out). I think 6-12 months down the track there will be a hell of a lot of captains and up... but then much more privates etc too

[Molacole]

I Agree with Nephilim and to be fair, something like this could be implemented in the near future. It keeps the newcomers and vets satisfied, and minimum games requirements is a must, cause it adds activity to the site.


Cook 5 finished games 1 rank
Cadet 5 finished games 700 rank
Private 10 finished games 1000 rank +300
Private 1st Class 20 finished games 1200 rank+200
Corporal 30 finished games 1400 rank+200
Corporal 1st Class 50 finished games 1600 rank+200
Sergeant 80 finished games 1800 rank+200
Sergeant 1st Class 100 finished games 2000 rank+200
Lieutenant 150 finished games 2200 rank+200
Captain 200 finished games 2500 rank+300
Major 250 finished games 2800 rank+300
Colonel 300 finished games 3000 rank +200
Brigadier 400 finished games 3200 rank+200
General 500 finished games 3500 rank+300
2 Star General 600 finished games 3700 rank+200
3 Star General 700 finished games 4000 rank+300
4 Star general 800 finished games 4200 rank+200
5 Star general 900 finished games 4500 rank+300
Field Marshall ?1000? finished games 5000 rank+500
Please consider something along these lines, because it is much more challenging to manage a rank past 2500 once you reached this high, or at least incorporate a rank of 2500 as Nephilim said, there should be some distinction between 2000 and 2999, I think all would agree that this is not only fair, but right.

Also it is one thing to reach 3000 rank, and quite another to maintain it, maintaining this is 20x more difficult, it's like owning a bonus, but maintaining that is much harder.

Finally, only 20 some odd players have done this (3000 rank) and about 100,000 then have been on here, so at least considering adding some more ranking for 2500 plus, ty sully.

What do CC players think?

right out the gate I'm confused with the logic you used to determine rank seperation. It just doesn't make any sense at all... lol@games finished

there should be some distinction between 2000 and 2999, I think all would agree that this is not only fair, but right.

fair or right by whom? As far as the current system is I see 2000-2500 and 2500-3000 so not sure what you meant by this because...

Captain = 2000
Major = 2500
Colonel = 3000

that is 3 different ranks/distinctions between 2000-3000....

if lack listened to you he would be getting requests for new rank changes around once a year due to inflation...