Moderator: Community Team
the Society of Cooks training program no longer existscooldeals wrote:This would be a tragedy for the Society of Cooks training program. They'd have no one to teach.

qwert wrote:little experiments on how ranks will could look in diferent angles


and they should have the right to be ranked differently, while those who like the old ways can still be ranked the old way.Conquer Club members are initially given a score of 1000. At the end of each game, the winner takes points away from each loser. The points to be awarded is calculated as (loser's score / winner's score) * 20, up to a maximum of 100 points from each opponent.
Is that an Official Rejection of this suggestion then?rdsrds2120 wrote:Concerning the rank system, graphically, we'll be staying the same unless something wild happens. As for new ranks, maybe, but I feel that this is mostly preference, and that most people don't mine either way in the grand scheme of all things Conquer Club.
This is a suggestion to change the graphics of the rank icons and the score requirements for the ranks. It is not a suggestion to change how points are awarded (or add additional systems for doing so). If that is what you want you need to post in a different thread.Fewnix wrote:I urge those who like the current ranking system for themselves to allow options for others. That is why I agreed with the concept of 3 different Military Paths, each with its own rank.and voted Yes the old path should still be an option (4-Path),
There are people who do not like their rank to be based on the current points system:
and they should have the right to be ranked differently, while those who like the old ways can still be ranked the old way.Conquer Club members are initially given a score of 1000. At the end of each game, the winner takes points away from each loser. The points to be awarded is calculated as (loser's score / winner's score) * 20, up to a maximum of 100 points from each opponent.
One suggestion I find interesting is that points be awarded on a straight 20 points gain for a win, a straight 20 points loss for a defeat . So both a cook (5 finished games, minimum score 1) and a colonel (100 finished games, minimum score, 2500 points) in a 6 player game, standard setting, would gain 100 points for 5 wins by being the last one standing and lose 20 points if eliminated I may not chose this option for my ranking but would allow others the right.
Why not allow different ranking systems for those who chose different paths, say those who"enlist" joining a clan and going to war? The score is calculated per team in team games so it should be possible to get as an option a ranking system tied into clan wars or various Leagues, Conquer Cups?
Bottom line: we are talking about allowing different options> Please vote Yes.
I have to agree with the majority on this one. Good work, but Sorry qwertNo, the ranks are fine as they are - 47%

isnt the 53% who want to change it is the majority ? O_omorleyjoe wrote:I have to agree with the majority on this one. Good work, but Sorry qwertNo, the ranks are fine as they are - 47%
True - I guess I was thinking along the lines of Canadian elections results where that would be a landslide victory....lol....silversun6 wrote:isnt the 53% who want to change it is the majority ? O_omorleyjoe wrote:I have to agree with the majority on this one. Good work, but Sorry qwertNo, the ranks are fine as they are - 47%

That 53% percent go to choose from 4 different options though, so you can't really say that it is fair. The 11% that voted for 'new ranks, but keep the graphics' are completely distinct from the people that voted for option 3, while options 1 and 2 are the most closely related. It slightly careless to bunch all of them together since they all have different wants. That's why the 47% is the 'majority' in this context.silversun6 wrote:isnt the 53% who want to change it is the majority ? O_omorleyjoe wrote:I have to agree with the majority on this one. Good work, but Sorry qwertNo, the ranks are fine as they are - 47%
I argued this earlier in the thread silversun, it's no use.silversun6 wrote:isnt the 53% who want to change it is the majority ? O_omorleyjoe wrote:I have to agree with the majority on this one. Good work, but Sorry qwertNo, the ranks are fine as they are - 47%


well its going down when we speak,, need more and fast new implementations. I dont know if these will attract more new players, but i think its worth to try.Agent 86 wrote:Yes it's difficult with this poll to gauge anything actually. Small percentage of voters as well..current membership number of 13729.
Qwert wrote:well its going down when we speak,, need more and fast new implementations. I dont know if these will attract more new players, but i think its worth to try.Agent 86 wrote:Yes it's difficult with this poll to gauge anything actually. Small percentage of voters as well..current membership number of 13729.