Point distributions in new ranks

[Nephilim]

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.

just want you to know, bud, i always appreciate your posts, even if i don't understand your graphs and math. but i have to disagree w/ you. you make a big fat assumption when you say that most 2000+ know other 2000+. just not good, brother, it's not true in my case and i know i'm not alone. and remembering ranks: i find that to be a weak argument. it's like saying we're incapable of remembering more than 2 ranks. come on, man, w/ a little time we can get used to anything.

and your second point. i'm in favor of pushing the limits, like you and twill. better to set high limits now and let the ranks stay the same for a long, long time. but i never suggested we remove any lower rankings, altho they are a bit silly, imo. we just really need 1 or 2 more between 2K and 3K. and this whole thread is designed to give lack some feedback on the update, not kowtow to what he would like to do.

lack, i love your site and appreciate everything, just want a little more love for your most loyal customers

cheers

[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.




What do CC players think?

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....

you are right, my bad, overlooked the 2500 rank, glad that was implemented, all a lot of cc players are saying is that there should be more ranks at the top, how they do it is up to them, but maintaining that is hard. I have no problem with lack adding ranks for the lower ranks too, it was a smart idea, just wish that 2500 plus had 1 or 2 extra is all, and a 200 or 300 point gap near the top, well that is a lot, big difference. All we ask is you consider an extra rank or two somewhere between 2500 plus and 5000 rank

[MeDeFe]

/start rant

Store the high score list somewhere so people can brag about how good they used to be.
Reset everyone's scores.
Implement a new system.
Watch the players complain.


Damn, this whole "discussion" is starting to annoy me, you are arguing about the cosmetic details of a "change" that effectively changed nothing. It doesn't matter whether the ranks are called general, colonel and major or Shakespeare, QWERTZ and PeanutButterJelly and whether they are 50 points apart or 500. The points are still calculated exactly the same way as before, as soon as everyone has calmed down about this the same old complaints about doubles and singles players, sequential and freestyle players, escalating and no cards players and Bob knows what else having to share the same highscore list will re-emerge and everything will be the same as it used to be. If you want to find out how many points a player has click on his username or search for him on the scoreboard there's a handy field where you can enter someones username, you can even copy and paste into it. YES, it's that simple to find out. Try it and you'll see. It worked with the old ranks and it still works, at least for me and I don't think I'm doing something wrong and getting additional functions.

/end rant

[Molacole]

all a lot of cc players are saying is that there should be more ranks at the top, how they do it is up to them, but maintaining that is hard. I have no problem with lack adding ranks for the lower ranks too, it was a smart idea, just wish that 2500 plus had 1 or 2 extra is all, and a 200 or 300 point gap near the top, well that is a lot, big difference. All we ask is you consider an extra rank or two somewhere between 2500 plus and 5000 rank

I understand what you're getting at with this. My only arguement is inflation and what the scoreboard looked like when I first signed up here. I saw mostly majors on the first 100 ranks with a single general (pilate) and now (just before rank update) it's cluttered with colonels and has around 10 generals.

I'm going to give the new ranking about 1 year to change from mostly majors and captains to mostly colonels and majors. This scoring system should probably last around 3-4 years tops. Hopefully by then it gets reset so new players aren't discouraged to join due to the rank game... Only reason I say this is because of the cliks that have emerged who tend to cycle their points with each other and the majority of people who shy from playing low ranked players while protecting their points.

I would've much more prefered a 5-10 year scoring system and basically give everybody rookie ranks for the first 2 years. What we have now is definitely better than the old ranks though so I'm happy with the change.