Why medals are far better than rank.
Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 5:30 pmMost of us know a player -- I'll call him "Wallop" -- who has an interesting way of, as he puts it, "upping his rank." He has gotten good at a very specific, seldom-used map. He creates FOW games on this map, with eight players. Usually, because this map is so unpopular among experienced players, the maps sink to the front page of Join A Game, where they are filled up with new recruits. Half of them deadbeat, and the other half are usually easy to mop up. So, bit by bit, Wallop rises in rank. Currently, he is a Colonel, but I don't doubt that his rank will continue to reach new heights.
I realize that what Wallop's doing isn't cheating.
However, what he is doing is showing the worthlessness of the point system. The fact is, that it is far easier to "up your rank" by gaming the system than by actually improving your skill. Wallop probably would be a corporal like me if he played a random selection of maps. But he knows that the real strategy of CC isn't to get good at the game--it's to get good at the system.
Of course, this only matters because for some strange reason, Wallop sees points as worth something in themselves. Others might feel a sense of pride reaching a rank, because it represents how much they have worked at improving their strategy. Wallop's rank, however, only shows how much time he has wasted in trying to earn meaningless points.
And points are essentially made meaningless because of people like him.
I loved the introduction of "medals" because it makes things like this less useful. It's hard to game the system to earn a wide variety of medals. In a suggestion thread that Wallop was posting in once, I made a comment on how despite his high rank, his lack of medals showed how little effort he put into that rank. He responded by telling me how worthless I was, because I had a low rank. Back then, I responded by saying that at least my rank is somewhat representative of my skill -- I suck at this game -- but now I realize I was wrong. I have no skill at this game, and usually make up what I'm doing as I go along. I haven't really earned this badge; it's mostly luck that gives me the rank of corporal. However, my complete lack of medals is very representative of my accomplishment. Only 44 games played in 4 months, and only 9 of them won. I'm getting closer to a Standard Accomplishment medal, just as I am also starting to develop a little rudimentary strategy.
Since then, Wallop has started to guarantee all the new recruits perfect ratings, even the deadbeats -- simultaneously criticizing the system, and earning himself 3 more medals. But 6 medals is the maximum he can ever hope to have without branching out. So his medals are truly representative of how good he is at this game.
Of course, I also know that he won't read this, because he has me on ignore. He puts most people on ignore.
I don't mean this post as a flame against Wallop... rather, I am using him as an example to show that score and rank are fundamentally flawed, but medals aren't nearly as much so. Look around at the number of medals people have. I think you'll find that the truly good players, the ones who could hold their own in a variety of situations, will have many medals, while the players who play to game the system or get good at a specific game (like doubles against a pickup team, or 1v1 on an obscure and complex map), will have far fewer.
I realize that what Wallop's doing isn't cheating.
However, what he is doing is showing the worthlessness of the point system. The fact is, that it is far easier to "up your rank" by gaming the system than by actually improving your skill. Wallop probably would be a corporal like me if he played a random selection of maps. But he knows that the real strategy of CC isn't to get good at the game--it's to get good at the system.
Of course, this only matters because for some strange reason, Wallop sees points as worth something in themselves. Others might feel a sense of pride reaching a rank, because it represents how much they have worked at improving their strategy. Wallop's rank, however, only shows how much time he has wasted in trying to earn meaningless points.
And points are essentially made meaningless because of people like him.
I loved the introduction of "medals" because it makes things like this less useful. It's hard to game the system to earn a wide variety of medals. In a suggestion thread that Wallop was posting in once, I made a comment on how despite his high rank, his lack of medals showed how little effort he put into that rank. He responded by telling me how worthless I was, because I had a low rank. Back then, I responded by saying that at least my rank is somewhat representative of my skill -- I suck at this game -- but now I realize I was wrong. I have no skill at this game, and usually make up what I'm doing as I go along. I haven't really earned this badge; it's mostly luck that gives me the rank of corporal. However, my complete lack of medals is very representative of my accomplishment. Only 44 games played in 4 months, and only 9 of them won. I'm getting closer to a Standard Accomplishment medal, just as I am also starting to develop a little rudimentary strategy.
Since then, Wallop has started to guarantee all the new recruits perfect ratings, even the deadbeats -- simultaneously criticizing the system, and earning himself 3 more medals. But 6 medals is the maximum he can ever hope to have without branching out. So his medals are truly representative of how good he is at this game.
Of course, I also know that he won't read this, because he has me on ignore. He puts most people on ignore.
I don't mean this post as a flame against Wallop... rather, I am using him as an example to show that score and rank are fundamentally flawed, but medals aren't nearly as much so. Look around at the number of medals people have. I think you'll find that the truly good players, the ones who could hold their own in a variety of situations, will have many medals, while the players who play to game the system or get good at a specific game (like doubles against a pickup team, or 1v1 on an obscure and complex map), will have far fewer.
he plays lots of freestyle 1v1 games vs noobs and he gets to almost 4000 points. (almost is important cause he was so frustratingly close) 
or second or third...he's way back on page 9 with a score of 1667. (yet his location still says: among the leets 
