Conquer Club

qwert wrote:

Blitz
Excellent Job on implementing more ranks and they seem to be well thought out and distributed fairly.

my change of your 23 ranks on score would be this:

You like mine ranks,thanks,blitz,but people more like Mrbeen, so for now i quit work on ranks. For these its need very large support.

yes, I like them

mr bean are nice too

both did great with this

I created a three examples tables of how the percentage value could work. I borrowed Mr.Benn's ranks for it.







By the way, I just thougt... Maybe (just maybe) the solution could be having a triple system. So, in order to have a certain rank you need to have a minimum percentile, a minimum number of finished games, and a minimum score. I am not sure about it, but is an option to consider.

i think yu only need percentile or score, because tehy both mean the samer thing

apart from that they all look so similar it won't reli make a differance, but the 2nd on e looks best to me

I think a percentile system is a great idea.

lozzini wrote:i think yu only need percentile or score, because tehy both mean the samer thing

I find arguments to support both approaches. A pure percentile system would be completely immune to inflation and deflation (in the unlikely event it ever happens). But maybe it could have some odd results resulting in high ranks with very low score. That is why I say that maybe a minimum score per rank would be good. But certainly, I don't know.

lozzini wrote:apart from that they all look so similar it won't reli make a differance, but the 2nd on e looks best to me

The only difference is that the second places a bit more people in the lower ranks, and the third even more than the second.

About a percentile system (either mixed with minium score or pure without minimum score) The only problem that I find is, what would happen as active number of players changes? The way that I can think to solve it is to update the rank only when a player finishes a game. Then, if he does not play for 30 days but still participates in the forums, he would be listed as the rank he had adter his last game (could be considered some sort of retired sergeant, captain, major, wathever). If he plays again, he will still have his last rank, and it will only change when he finishes another game.

max is gr8 wrote:I think a percentile system is a great idea.

I also do. That's is why I took some time to make an example of three of the many possible ways in which that system could be implemented.

OliverFA wrote:

lozzini wrote:i think yu only need percentile or score, because tehy both mean the samer thing

I find arguments to support both approaches. A pure percentile system would be completely immune to inflation and deflation (in the unlikely event it ever happens). But maybe it could have some odd results resulting in high ranks with very low score. That is why I say that maybe a minimum score per rank would be good. But certainly, I don't know.

lozzini wrote:apart from that they all look so similar it won't reli make a differance, but the 2nd on e looks best to me

The only difference is that the second places a bit more people in the lower ranks, and the third even more than the second.

About a percentile system (either mixed with minium score or pure without minimum score) The only problem that I find is, what would happen as active number of players changes? The way that I can think to solve it is to update the rank only when a player finishes a game. Then, if he does not play for 30 days but still participates in the forums, he would be listed as the rank he had adter his last game (could be considered some sort of retired sergeant, captain, major, wathever). If he plays again, he will still have his last rank, and it will only change when he finishes another game.

i think if a player is active (in any way - just signing in is enough) in a month, they should appear on the scoreboard with a score

even if someone doesn't play games, they still deserve a rank, and a position

I am not saying they don't deserve a rank or a position. I only say it because of the way in which the scoreboard works. It says that "Only players that have taken a turn within the past 30 days are listed." It looks like it could be a potential issue with a percentile system. Logic dictates that the percentile used for the rank would be the one in the scoreboard of active players. And that creates the issue of which rank assign to a player who has not played in the last 30 days. Which rank assign to a player that is not in the scoreboard?

That is why I suggested to update a player rank only after each game he finishes, and not continuously. Then, if a player stops taking turns during 30 days, he will keep his rank even if he is not listed in the scoreboard anymore. That player could be listed as a "Retired (rank)" of "Inactive (rank)" for example, "Retired captain" or "Inactive captain".

ahh yes i get yu know, like showing they are inactive and finished at the rank 'x', yes i think that is the best way around that issue

I should have my own rank

call it: rank JR

I think its bad because no one would obtain Field Marshall right now and this ranking system is fine.

i almost forget on these sugestion, its these still consider active sugestion?

qwert wrote:i almost forget on these sugestion, its these still consider active sugestion?

Any suggestion in the main forum can be considered active. However the real activity is the community's input, and their opinions.

Your first list looks good, though I'd throw out "Specialist" and "Staff Sergeant" and adjust the score minimums a tad.

"Your first list looks good, though I'd throw out "Specialist" and "Staff Sergeant" and adjust the score minimums a tad."

List no 1?

i dont think they should go that high. no one not evan the conquer has 6000 points. that is the practically the most points that this sight has ever seen.

200 points difference over 2k pts
is too little difference

My adjustments:

Field Marshal: 4500
General: 4000
Brigadier: 3500
Colonel: 3000
Lieutenant Colonel: 2500
Major: 2300
Captain: 2100
Lieutenant: 1900
Warrant Officer: 1700
Officer Candidate: 1500
Sergeant First Class: 1400
Sergeant: 1300
Corporal First Class: 1200
Corporal: 1100
Private First Class: 1000
Private: 900
Cadet: 800
Cook: 1
New Recruit: N/A

I still think a three requisite system (number of games played, minimum score and percentile) would be a more fair system. Then in the event that there is point inflation, the percentile requisite would prevent the board from getting crowded with too many high ranked players.

Victor Sullivan wrote:My adjustments:

Field Marshal: 4500
General: 4000
Brigadier: 3500
Colonel: 3000
Lieutenant Colonel: 2500
Major: 2300
Captain: 2100
Lieutenant: 1900
Warrant Officer: 1700
Officer Candidate: 1500
Sergeant First Class: 1400
Sergeant: 1300
Corporal First Class: 1200
Corporal: 1100
Private First Class: 1000
Private: 900
Cadet: 800
Cook: 1
New Recruit: N/A

i like that suggestion, would be fun, even if ranks means nothing ( i could win 10-straight ass. doodle ) but i like this, make a poll about it

well victory,your adjustment all ready exist,just look on ranks page,and you will be same adjustment, so you propose to stay same?
If you look on scoreboard,you will see that no1 player have 5500 points.
Thanks to mods who add poll.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the unique ranking system which we currently employ. Why complicate matters?

JoshyBoy wrote:In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the unique ranking system which we currently employ. Why complicate matters?

QFT

OliverFA wrote:I still think a three requisite system (number of games played, minimum score and percentile) would be a more fair system. Then in the event that there is point inflation, the percentile requisite would prevent the board from getting crowded with too many high ranked players.

Not sure about percentile - that'd be really hard to increase, but I agree with keeping game minimum requirements. I just put points for my list for the time being.

Well with new revolution, maybe its time for some add new ranks and new(more military) view of Ranks. They could look like shoulder rank insignia.