Conquer Club

from what I can gather, it seems as though many think rankings are sort of meaningless, but for those that don't...

how do you break the ranks down? Which ranks are average, good, which ones are great and which ones are excellent?

I don't really know what's considered "good" or "great"

Generally,

Average = Sergeants
Good = lieutenants + captains
Really good = mid 2000s
Great = 3000+

But you've got to be mindful that a lot of these supposedly really good players are only there because they stick to one game type that can easily be used to get up the scoreboard (ie. public triples).

It's a hard one to call

I think that most who think rank is "meaningless" are those who can't manage to maintain, or least hover around 2000. I think I pretty much agree with Robin J's opinion here.

I see plenty claim that their inability to get above 1500 is because of the style of games they play. I call bullocks. If you're good, you should be able to be around 2000 even if you're not careful about the games you join. I get schooled often enough to realize that I'm not elite but don't have much trouble keeping at 2000 despite the fact that I play most of the maps, large or small games, all card formats and games with players ranking from cpts and above to anything goes.

Pretty much the only thing I don't play is freestyle but am hardly alone in avoiding that sort of game.

I do, however think it's a bit cheesy for players to pick a very, very specific game format that they've completely figured out and just own all comers. I suppose I don't get the fun in that from either side.

I dont consider rank to be a measure of Ability.SOme specialize in certain fields and gain high ranks ,but suck at different settings and some are Multis.

Rank is an indication of ability which can, in some circumstances, be misleading.

If you think it's easy to stay at Captain or higher you are mistaking.

over 3,000

KoE_Sirius wrote:I dont consider rank to be a measure of Ability.SOme specialize in certain fields and gain high ranks ,but suck at different settings and some are Multis.

I think you're throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is well documented that some on page one are there in large part because they only play a certain style of game that they've taken more time than anyone else to specialize in (I find it funny when they advertise their prowess at this very highly specific set of formats) or even worse, that they cheat.

However, this doesn't mean the entire system is bad. Rather that it is not above human flaws.

Ultimately, I would like to think that most people here are here to engage in spirited games and enjoy testing themselves on different maps, against different numbers of people, alone and on teams and with different card rules. Thus, I would imagine that a number of those on page one are simply there because they're better at thinking about the game than most.

You know, here's something that might work. As it stands, there are two color codes for one's rank (gold and silver). What if there was a 3rd? That is, half pink/half either gold or silver (for wimp) if you play more than a certain percentage of your games on one map or format. You would not be required to play every map or format but at least maintain some ratio of singles/team, cards/no cards, fog/no fog, and not have more than 1/3 of your games on a single map. Something like that. I don't know, fog, freestyle, and assassin are a bit out there, so perhaps the required ratio could either be very low if at all (at least for freestyle or assassin).

GabonX wrote:Rank is an indication of ability which can, in some circumstances, be misleading.

I agree with this and have encountered many players of all ranks that are very competitive
and make for tough opponents in every game played.

KoE_Sirius wrote:I dont consider rank to be a measure of Ability.SOme specialize in certain fields and gain high ranks ,but suck at different settings and some are Multis.

some cases this is true. there are high ranks that excel at all game settings. Comic Boy and Blitz are very good at any option that is set up just to name a few.

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:over 3,000

Well JR, you've set about every record imaginable so I am sure you would consider yourself good, however, you have been under 3000 a number of times also. With this said, does reaching 3000 or maintaining 3000 make you a better player? There are players who have reached 3000 due to a BR and now are under. Reaching a certain score means nothing to me, maintaining it however does. Would you agree?

well generally 2500 plus
though rank and score isnt a completely accurate measure
ive played against majors who are terrible
as well as cadets that are awesome vut yer

codeblue1018 wrote:

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:over 3,000

Well JR, you've set about every record imaginable so I am sure you would consider yourself good, however, you have been under 3000 a number of times also. With this said, does reaching 3000 or maintaining 3000 make you a better player? There are players who have reached 3000 due to a BR and now are under. Reaching a certain score means nothing to me, maintaining it however does. Would you agree?

its easy to maintain as well. just dont play low ranks. if you play players only over 3,000, you only lose 15 points or so per game. since most players at this level only play each other, their wins and losses against each other wash out. the only example against this is SkyT. he plays only low ranks in triples but has access to all 3 accounts. than when he losses a game, he sets up 1 vs 1's against each account to get the points back. thats how he maintains it.

Cook-bad
Cadet-bad
Private-pretty bad
Corporal-Average
Sergeant-Average
Lieutenant-Above average
Captain-Good
Major-Great
Colonel-Excellent
Brigadier- One of the best
General- Do not play against, you will lose

OVER 9,000!!!!!

Good: Page 1
Bad: Last page
Decent: 4000+ +JR


Rank has very little to do with it. I just got a message the other day from someone saying they were surprised at this guys lack of skill at a team game even while having a great score.

detlef wrote:I think that most who think rank is "meaningless" are those who can't manage to maintain, or least hover around 2000. I think I pretty much agree with Robin J's opinion here.

I think rank is useless, and I held my score at 2350 for almost a month a while back.

Playing only AoR Magic Terminator games. Just to see how high I could pull my score.
Got it up to 2415 as a max, but as soon as I started playing other game types, my score fell about 800 points to where it is now.

So, if your score can get high playing one game type, but it drops like crazy when you go back to playing everything, this system doesn't mean anything to me. A top player could easily lose to a cook. It all depends on what game type is played.

TheBro wrote:Good: Page 1
Bad: Last page
Decent: 4000+ +JR


Rank has very little to do with it. I just got a message the other day from someone saying they were surprised at this guys lack of skill at a team game even while having a great score.

4,000 is coming up very soon

i mean, i'd consider myself a good player....

flame on

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:

TheBro wrote:Good: Page 1
Bad: Last page
Decent: 4000+ +JR


Rank has very little to do with it. I just got a message the other day from someone saying they were surprised at this guys lack of skill at a team game even while having a great score.

4,000 is coming up very soon

JR, you would have to play trips games on 2.1 with partners who's accounts you can access. Who does that anyways?

I play the player, and i know. Sometimes a really good player just has bad luck... and ends up being a cook -.-

rank does not equal ability. in other words a low ranker may be better than a high ranker.
i've been under 2000 points just for ~2hours in the past 7-8 months. does that make me a good player?? heck no. i've been beaten in a big style by privates but also i have seen childish mistakes from people over 2500.

the only thing that matters is respect. if you're a good player people will know it and appreciate it regardless of your rank. for example wacicha is a great player and yet he's been a colonel and a sergeant in a period of just 1 month. does that mean he somehow became crappy? surely not. because the next month he was back up there.

DiM wrote:rank does not equal ability. in other words a low ranker may be better than a high ranker.
i've been under 2000 points just for ~2hours in the past 7-8 months. does that make me a good player?? heck no. i've been beaten in a big style by privates but also i have seen childish mistakes from people over 2500.

the only thing that matters is respect. if you're a good player people will know it and appreciate it regardless of your rank. for example wacicha is a great player and yet he's been a colonel and a sergeant in a period of just 1 month. does that mean he somehow became crappy? surely not. because the next month he was back up there.

totally disagree-- rank is a direct reflection of ability. There's a small percentage of players that are certainly ranked lower than their ability but not many.

who said anything about a player being ranked at 2000 is someone that is good ? Average in ability at best.... I have no idea how that rank has become the water mark for 'good' players.

back to topic: i think if you maintain 3300+ish you're an excellent player...

Scott-Land wrote:

DiM wrote:rank does not equal ability. in other words a low ranker may be better than a high ranker.
i've been under 2000 points just for ~2hours in the past 7-8 months. does that make me a good player?? heck no. i've been beaten in a big style by privates but also i have seen childish mistakes from people over 2500.

the only thing that matters is respect. if you're a good player people will know it and appreciate it regardless of your rank. for example wacicha is a great player and yet he's been a colonel and a sergeant in a period of just 1 month. does that mean he somehow became crappy? surely not. because the next month he was back up there.

totally disagree-- rank is a direct reflection of ability. There's a small percentage of players that are certainly ranked lower than their ability but not many.

who said anything about a player being ranked at 2000 is someone that is good ? Average in ability at best.... I have no idea how that rank has become the water mark for 'good' players.

actually it's pretty simple if you know basic math.

generally if you are in the top 10% you are very good. and at this moment if you're captain you're in the top 2.7%
basic math, scott, basic math. if you graduate in the top 2.7% of your university will you say you're average at best? i highly doubt it, in fact i'm certain you'd feel damn proud about it.

PS: there are several ways to get big points by bending/abusing rules. if i do that and get to 4000 points will i be considered a great player? i doubt it.

PPS: if captain is average at best then it means over 97% of players on this site are bellow average?

DiM wrote:

Scott-Land wrote:

DiM wrote:rank does not equal ability. in other words a low ranker may be better than a high ranker.
i've been under 2000 points just for ~2hours in the past 7-8 months. does that make me a good player?? heck no. i've been beaten in a big style by privates but also i have seen childish mistakes from people over 2500.

the only thing that matters is respect. if you're a good player people will know it and appreciate it regardless of your rank. for example wacicha is a great player and yet he's been a colonel and a sergeant in a period of just 1 month. does that mean he somehow became crappy? surely not. because the next month he was back up there.

totally disagree-- rank is a direct reflection of ability. There's a small percentage of players that are certainly ranked lower than their ability but not many.

who said anything about a player being ranked at 2000 is someone that is good ? Average in ability at best.... I have no idea how that rank has become the water mark for 'good' players.

actually it's pretty simple if you know basic math.

generally if you are in the top 10% you are very good. and at this moment if you're captain you're in the top 2.7%
basic math, scott, basic math. if you graduate in the top 2.7% of your university will you say you're average at best? i highly doubt it, in fact i'm certain you'd feel damn proud about it.

PS: there are several ways to get big points by bending/abusing rules. if i do that and get to 4000 points will i be considered a great player? i doubt it.

PPS: if captain is average at best then it means over 97% of players on this site are bellow average?

yada yada-- that doesn't mean anything ! that just proves that a player is better.... doesn't mean that he's good. it means those players are worse ......

Points themselves just mean you have won a few games, there are many great players that aren't afraid to play new maps with strangers and try different settings.
I would much rather this site just keep track of the number of games a person has played along with his/her feedback. There would be much less whining and bitching if points weren't involved.
I have lost points in games when I knew damn well if I had been playing good players I wouldn't have been teamed or kamied, and I have won games where it was just pure luck of the dice or the cards.