Highscore rank

[SoN!c]

I've been on CC since 2021, so im still new but not that new too.

One of the big problems, if not the biggest, i found that many players don't wanna join games for the sole reason of losing points that will affect their rank.

So by all means it's a negative feature. I think a lot of players would be more happy if the rank symbol just presents the high score.

So a player who got to field marshal stays field marshal, a player who got to major rank stays a major.

I mean in the army -if you get promoted -you stay on that rank until retirement or new promotion. Only very severe infractiopns will get you degraded (that could be a punishment too for cheaters).

You can even add a few ranks if wanted to have even more difference.

Icon (Free and Premium) Description Minimum Experience Minimum Score

New Recruit N/A N/A
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
Sergeant 20 finished games 1300
Sergeant 1st Class 20 finished games 1400
Master Sergeant 30 finished games 1500
Second Lieutenant 40 finished games 1600
Lieutenant 50 finished games 1700
Captain 60 finished games 1800
Major 70 finished games 2000
Lieutenant Colonel 80 finished games 2200
Colonel 100 finished games 2500
Brigadier 150 finished games 3000
Lieutenant General 200 finished games 3300
General 200 finished games 3500
Field Marshal 250 finished games 4500


This way loys of players would play more games and with declining numbers that is the first issue that needs to be handled..

Ofc conqueror is the only rank not affected by this. There can be only one..
Also it would not be much work to impliment, as to some other suggestions i've read over the years. I believe any good suggestion should be easy to get done by site develloppers.

[Aba]

unfortunately they can't even get that part right. the high score is not accurate. for example it says my high score is 2667 when I have in fact been over 3000, so best to just let this one die.

I also see your logic about it being a negative feature, but you must also consider the positive aspects to it.

[SoN!c]

unfortunately they can't even get that part right. the high score is not accurate. for example it says my high score is 2667 when I have in fact been over 3000, so best to just let this one die.

I also see your logic about it being a negative feature, but you must also consider the positive aspects to it.

That (highscore affected) was due to site changes. I can imagine it is still a big deal. I remember bogangod who"s highscore rank was affected this way. Any player who can proof former high score should be able to do so. I'd work for free to keep this site running. You can't find maps like this anywhere else´. Its Just big fun and you play peeps minds here, no AI. That is golden

[SoN!c]

And WHAT positive affects if it keeps peeps from playing more? Josko was a cook once on purpose so that shows there are no real positive affects because some fanatics will suicide on high ranks if they get the chance just to see them drop in rank. Knowing it won't affect anything as it stays that way it will solve that issue aswell.

[Aba]

Yes having Ranks has positive effects on the site as well. I will not go into the myriad reasons why, but I believe the positive reasons to have Rank on the site far outweigh any negatives as you state. I do see your point, but I think you are missing the forest for the trees.

Rank allows us to quickly identify the player we are up against. It allows us to do fun things like reset our Rank like josko did and then rebuild it. It allows us to use gamification to create incentive to play and strive to get better. I think this is common practice on most game sites, especially board games. I do not mean to undermine your suggestion in any way, these are only my thoughts.

[SoN!c]

Yes having Ranks has positive effects on the site as well. I will not go into the myriad reasons why, but I believe the positive reasons to have Rank on the site far outweigh any negatives as you state. I do see your point, but I think you are missing the forest for the trees.

Rank allows us to quickly identify the player we are up against. It allows us to do fun things like reset our Rank like josko did and then rebuild it. It allows us to use gamification to create incentive to play and strive to get better. I think this is common practice on most game sites, especially board games. I do not mean to undermine your suggestion in any way, these are only my thoughts.

I agree with whay you say but if rank symbol stays on highscore you have all the things in play you mention here too, except not the negative traits.

[Kingm]

I get what you are saying SoN!c, and I kind of agree at some of the points, but I agree more with aba.

Going over to your system would probably do more harm then good, like look at the scoreboard, now its 12 freemiums there, and like probably just 10 of top 25 would qualify for "running scoreboard" I bet, so if you get rid of the scores, I would think that would just give those highrankers even less inventive to "play"

I think we should do the opposite, more stats, more leaderboards, lets "reward" players for actually playing, and not letting people stay on the "main leaderboard" with just 1 completed game pr. month.

[SoN!c]

I get what you are saying SoN!c, and I kind of agree at some of the points, but I agree more with aba.

Going over to your system would probably do more harm then good, like look at the scoreboard, now its 12 freemiums there, and like probably just 10 of top 25 would qualify for "running scoreboard" I bet, so if you get rid of the scores, I would think that would just give those highrankers even less inventive to "play"

I think we should do the opposite, more stats, more leaderboards, lets "reward" players for actually playing, and not letting people stay on the "main leaderboard" with just 1 completed game pr. month.

I joined SL because its so great. But 4 games played 3-1 won i lost 52 points in 1 game and won 7 points in the 3 other...against the same opponent (sargeant). If you wanna play SL which is the biggest thing then say goodbye to general rank and be happy with colonel ONCE IN A WHILE

Winning 3 games out of 4 makes you loose lots of points... unfair.

And why nobody on general rank wants to join? Hhmmm yes, exactly.

[SoN!c]

I get what you are saying SoN!c, and I kind of agree at some of the points, but I agree more with aba.

Going over to your system would probably do more harm then good, like look at the scoreboard, now its 12 freemiums there, and like probably just 10 of top 25 would qualify for "running scoreboard" I bet, so if you get rid of the scores, I would think that would just give those highrankers even less inventive to "play"

I think we should do the opposite, more stats, more leaderboards, lets "reward" players for actually playing, and not letting people stay on the "main leaderboard" with just 1 completed game pr. month.

I joined SL because its so great. But 4 games played 3-1 won i lost 52 points in 1 game and won 7 points in the 3 other (21 won 52 lost for winning 3-1)...against the same opponent (sargeant). If you wanna play SL which is the biggest thing then say goodbye to general rank and be happy with colonel ONCE IN A WHILE

I understand all too well why you are NOT in SL

[juke]

What is the point of competition, if you have nothing to lose?

[Mad777]

From my years of experience here, most of the top ranked players found themselves, either playing their mastermind map to stay high and/or playing what they discovered liking the most, which is rarely tournaments involving hundreds of player, and loaded with dozens of of games, they do like playing few games involving hardcore settings on hardcore map.
There is few exceptions of course, josko is one, because he didn’t mind having high game load, it never took long for him to move back up where he wanted to be.
If you look at the game amount played for the top ranked, it is not the same as the 2/3rd down. That is the nature of the site and not a scoring failure. Playing few “real” strategy games versus tons of games and easier settings, which lets be realistic, are more often based from luck (drop, spoil type, who get the rainbow set first, starting first, dices, etc…)

To use your “real life” comparison, if I may, same applies, higher the rank you move up, less time you will be asked to deploy in the field, but mainly be asked to be part of the most important stuff involving strategy.

Your idea may not be as bad, however, score (not rank) is also a key to enter some tournament reserved to high “skilled” and based from your actual score (not rank). This to allow this segment of scores to play against each other, mostly because they can expect opponents playing with a strategy that is closer to theirs, instead of encountering
butchery fights like we all have tend to use sometime…LOL…What I meant, the above is not about losing point/rank, but finding a type of play you like.
As a long timer tournament organizer, I had the chance to capture this by checking games over the years and found the gameplay being close by between similar ranked members, I even had categorized the rank ladder in 3 segments

Cook to Sergeant 1st Class (big mixed pot, lots of funny or not funny trash games,)
Lieutenant to Major/Colonel (skilled but free fun gaming)
Colonel/Brigadier and higher (high skilled game, more complex settings, map and strategy, fewer game played).

Bottom line, member who like playing lots of games, shouldn’t really be concern about “rank” nor “scores”, as score will as much vary as the amount of game you play. Consistency is what reward the most in such board game platform.

I did personally care about my score and rank at some point, but found myself becoming afraid facing a cook or sergeant ranked player knowing a loss would cost me up to 40 points in solely one game, but on the other hand I quickly learned I do not have a mastermind map(s), nor a deep understanding of a play (meaning 5 turns ahead strategy), probably because we may not be all wired the same way inside our brain LMAO!
None of the less, I made the decision to prevail the fun participating in whatever tournament/event/game I wanted and completely ignoring my rank, and honestly I found quickly my average always staying/coming back to “Major”, once reached Colonel and very close to Brigadier, but by continuing to play I again quickly returned to the Major segment.

Overall, this suggestion is more based on personal view, some member does like to see they rank icon in their wall, and working around it to keep it, while others (the majority of the active members) don’t really care and join whatever they feel like disregards. By locking up the “icon”, members will still play the same way and maintain their score as that is what this site uses (winning/losing game results with gain or loss of points not rank).

Just my personal thoughts here…no harm not hard feelings either way

[detlef]

This is not the army but rather a very imperfect system of attaching skill level to ranks that we all recognize. It's flawed but it makes sense. Ofc, some players are better than their ranks suggest because they're not afraid to play anyone on any map, while others guard their rank by specializing and only playing maps/settings that give them an edge. So maybe they're not as good as they're rank suggests.

And this would happen whether or not they would lose rank if their score dropped. Because then all we'd care about is score and not rank. So the players who give a shit about their rank now would just give a shit about their score.