reason for minimal games for ranking?

[xiangwang]

Anyone know why there is a reason for minimal games to hit a certain ranking? What's the policy behind it? Seems a little discriminatory to freemiums since we are limited in our games. I really want that star

[Paddy The Cat]

i dont know the exact reason, but i have postulates

first off, I think that someone with under the minimum games might not yet be 'proven' of their rank.

ex. someone has score 1150, but only 6 games played. They'll still be a private 1st class, and i think they should be. They might have won just one game they got really lucky in, maybe against some decent rankers, and then lost the others to high rankers also, making them lose few points from their game. Therefore, I think someone with 1150 point but 40 games played would most likely be a better player, and the rank reflects that.

However, for the case of really high ranks, like yourself, it is clear that you aren't just lucky, and that youll probably still be right up that after another 100+ games. That being said, I do think experience should be a factor. Someone with only 125 games at 4000 points probably isnt as well versed as a person with 5000 games at 4000 points, and the one with more games is probably more skilled on more settings. The rank reflects that.

That being said, I dont think you should be sad, I love looking at the scoreboard and seeing the hat symbol up there with generals and brigs, or a captain symbol with the colonels, etc. And i love clicking on your name and seeing 3943 - Colonel. Very impressive

[xiangwang]

i dont know the exact reason, but i have postulates

first off, I think that someone with under the minimum games might not yet be 'proven' of their rank.

ex. someone has score 1150, but only 6 games played. They'll still be a private 1st class, and i think they should be. They might have won just one game they got really lucky in, maybe against some decent rankers, and then lost the others to high rankers also, making them lose few points from their game. Therefore, I think someone with 1150 point but 40 games played would most likely be a better player, and the rank reflects that.

However, for the case of really high ranks, like yourself, it is clear that you aren't just lucky, and that youll probably still be right up that after another 100+ games. That being said, I do think experience should be a factor. Someone with only 125 games at 4000 points probably isnt as well versed as a person with 5000 games at 4000 points, and the one with more games is probably more skilled on more settings. The rank reflects that.

That being said, I dont think you should be sad, I love looking at the scoreboard and seeing the hat symbol up there with generals and brigs, or a captain symbol with the colonels, etc. And i love clicking on your name and seeing 3943 - Colonel. Very impressive

Well, I just dislike the aesthetic look of a colonel hat compared to a general. And actually, it's 4009

[AndyDufresne]

I think Paddy The Cat hits some pretty good points. I think it comes down to essentially trying to factor in some sort of Experience data into the rank.


--Andy

[ManBungalow]

Anyone know why there is a reason for minimal games to hit a certain ranking? What's the policy behind it? Seems a little discriminatory to freemiums since we are limited in our games. I really want that star

Incentive to buy premium?

[greenoaks]

Anyone know why there is a reason for minimal games to hit a certain ranking? What's the policy behind it? Seems a little discriminatory to freemiums since we are limited in our games. I really want that star

it doesn't discriminate at all, the exact same number of games are needed by Feemiums as Premiums

[Funkyterrance]

Anyone know why there is a reason for minimal games to hit a certain ranking? What's the policy behind it? Seems a little discriminatory to freemiums since we are limited in our games. I really want that star

Is this your first account? I'm just wondering because whenever I see lower ranked players with higher scores my mind always tends to get the impression that they "started over". Not sure if this is the case with you but just thought I would ask.

[Trevor33]

Is this your first account? I'm just wondering because whenever I see lower ranked players with higher scores my mind always tends to get the impression that they "started over". Not sure if this is the case with you but just thought I would ask.

I tend to think the same, reaching 4000 with just 100 games played is quite impressive given that they would have to deal with new maps, settings... everything basically. Getting that rank in such a short space need a disciplined plan.

[Funkyterrance]

I tend to think the same, reaching 4000 with just 100 games played is quite impressive given that they would have to deal with new maps, settings... everything basically. Getting that rank in such a short space need a disciplined plan.

Quite.
This is why I would appreciate an answer from the OP. I'm not saying it's impossible; of course it's possible. However, to use your word, it would require a staggering amount of discipline.

[Dukasaur]

I tend to think the same, reaching 4000 with just 100 games played is quite impressive given that they would have to deal with new maps, settings... everything basically. Getting that rank in such a short space need a disciplined plan.

Quite.
This is why I would appreciate an answer from the OP. I'm not saying it's impossible; of course it's possible. However, to use your word, it would require a staggering amount of discipline.

I've noticed that freemiums who are good tend to rise to higher ranks than premiums of the same ability. The 4-game limit lets them stay focused and really consider their games. Most of us premiums tend to join more games than we should on days when we're not busy, and then when we do get busy we have to rush through our turns and do a crappy job. Even if this happens only once in a while, it can cost you several games at a time.

[xiangwang]

Anyone know why there is a reason for minimal games to hit a certain ranking? What's the policy behind it? Seems a little discriminatory to freemiums since we are limited in our games. I really want that star

Is this your first account? I'm just wondering because whenever I see lower ranked players with higher scores my mind always tends to get the impression that they "started over". Not sure if this is the case with you but just thought I would ask.

Yes this is my first account. As you can tell from my early games, I didn't have much interest and missed a lot of turns and lost many games.

[KoE_Sirius]

You could always pay a subscription and then you'd be able to join lots more third cruisade and waterloo games.
Maybe you could even go for a cross map medal if you really want to experience cc at its best and break the monotony.
I think the Hat is the best looking icon.The ones that follow are mostly boring yellow.

[Funkyterrance]

I tend to think the same, reaching 4000 with just 100 games played is quite impressive given that they would have to deal with new maps, settings... everything basically. Getting that rank in such a short space need a disciplined plan.

Quite.
This is why I would appreciate an answer from the OP. I'm not saying it's impossible; of course it's possible. However, to use your word, it would require a staggering amount of discipline.

I've noticed that freemiums who are good tend to rise to higher ranks than premiums of the same ability. The 4-game limit lets them stay focused and really consider their games. Most of us premiums tend to join more games than we should on days when we're not busy, and then when we do get busy we have to rush through our turns and do a crappy job. Even if this happens only once in a while, it can cost you several games at a time.

This is a good point and since the OP answered my question I'm satisfied.

[betiko]

I tend to think the same, reaching 4000 with just 100 games played is quite impressive given that they would have to deal with new maps, settings... everything basically. Getting that rank in such a short space need a disciplined plan.

Quite.
This is why I would appreciate an answer from the OP. I'm not saying it's impossible; of course it's possible. However, to use your word, it would require a staggering amount of discipline.

I've noticed that freemiums who are good tend to rise to higher ranks than premiums of the same ability. The 4-game limit lets them stay focused and really consider their games. Most of us premiums tend to join more games than we should on days when we're not busy, and then when we do get busy we have to rush through our turns and do a crappy job. Even if this happens only once in a while, it can cost you several games at a time.

This is a good point and since the OP answered my question I'm satisfied.

I'm not really sure his answer could've been I moved out and created a new account as I had a new ip adress, so I don't really understand why even ask those type of questions.
But yes, the lesser games the better you play them. And being freemium makes you avoid speed games. The biggest part of any brig+ ranked player is game selection and not entering any costy stupid games.
regarding the question, i think it's both reasons already stated. Have a certain experience before reaching a rank (I guess like in RL military) and make you want to buy premium.

[Funkyterrance]

This is a good point and since the OP answered my question I'm satisfied.

I'm not really sure his answer could've been I moved out and created a new account as I had a new ip adress, so I don't really understand why even ask those type of questions.
But yes, the lesser games the better you play them. And being freemium makes you avoid speed games. The biggest part of any brig+ ranked player is game selection and not entering any costy stupid games.
regarding the question, i think it's both reasons already stated. Have a certain experience before reaching a rank (I guess like in RL military) and make you want to buy premium.

Tbh, the reason I ask those sort of questions is there are three possible outcomes:

1. The player is legit and should have no problem explaining the reason.
2. The player is a cheat and will have to publicly lie about their actions to avoid shame.
3. The player is a cheat and admits it, resulting in the ban of a cheater.

It's win-win-win.

[betiko]

This is a good point and since the OP answered my question I'm satisfied.

I'm not really sure his answer could've been I moved out and created a new account as I had a new ip adress, so I don't really understand why even ask those type of questions.
But yes, the lesser games the better you play them. And being freemium makes you avoid speed games. The biggest part of any brig+ ranked player is game selection and not entering any costy stupid games.
regarding the question, i think it's both reasons already stated. Have a certain experience before reaching a rank (I guess like in RL military) and make you want to buy premium.

Tbh, the reason I ask those sort of questions is there are three possible outcomes:

1. The player is legit and should have no problem explaining the reason.
2. The player is a cheat and will have to publicly lie about their actions to avoid shame.
3. The player is a cheat and admits it, resulting in the ban of a cheater.

It's win-win-win.

with those kind of points he would've never answerd number 3 because he obviously put some effort to obtain his score and he would like to be a general, but how could you make the difference between 1&2? You could only obtain this answer, therefore it's just a matter of beliefs. I do think he's legit, just that I don't see the point of asking someone if he is or not cause there is just 1 answer..

[Gillipig]

Anyone know why there is a reason for minimal games to hit a certain ranking? What's the policy behind it? Seems a little discriminatory to freemiums since we are limited in our games. I really want that star

Experience! Hard to be a general if you haven't been in many battles .