Conquer Club

It's been a while since the point boundaries for the ranks changed, and at the time I recall lack making a comment about not having enough icons to add in new ranks.

Qwert started a thread in the Suggs & Bugs board to discuss new ranks. The latest suggestion is attached here for discussion...


I wanted to open up some general discussion about the pros and cons of the current ranking system, and whether a change would be warranted?

I like your earlier one better where most of the ranks or symbols go up for every 200 points not 500


and I do like the more availability of ranks, nice additions

Thanks for making us aware of this, but where did Second Lieutenant and Lieutenant Colonel go? Apart from that this hardly changes anything to the first 2 pages of the rankings, but OK.

They look fantastic!

Blitzaholic wrote:I like your earlier one better where most of the ranks or symbols go up for every 200 points not 500

and I do like the more availability of ranks, nice additions

Thanks.

When I looked at the spread of points, and realised that only 40 people have more than 3000 pts, I didn't see much point having a plethora of ranks at the highest levels; hence the 500pt gaps.

The biggest thing for me, is that nearly 60% of people on the scoreborad are Private 1st Class or lower; 75% are below the level of Sgt; only about 12% make it to lieutenant or above...

I dislike having small gaps - some skill should be distinguishable from each other. For example there's usually a slight difference in skill between Captain/Major/Colonel. With this new system, with rankings right next to each other they'd be meaningless. A person with 2 ranks below another could actually be better but lost just a few games or something.

I like big point gaps - it gives you something to work towards, and often shows some skill gap.

Blitzaholic wrote:I like your earlier one better where most of the ranks or symbols go up for every 200 points not 500


and I do like the more availability of ranks, nice additions

I think 200 point difference would only be beneficial the higher one got- obviously more difficult for 3500 to reach 3700 as it would be for say 2000 to reach 2200.

Scott-Land wrote:

Blitzaholic wrote:I like your earlier one better where most of the ranks or symbols go up for every 200 points not 500


and I do like the more availability of ranks, nice additions

I think 200 point difference would only be beneficial the higher one got- obviously more difficult for 3500 to reach 3700 as it would be for say 2000 to reach 2200.

I happen to agree totally with this. Once you get above say 2600 or so moving up in rank is much harder. Maybe that is the way it should be but I think many of the better people get bored with not moving anywhere for along time. It is a semi backwards system right now if you think about it. The lower ranks generally do not mean much at all. 1 win in an 8 man game of any type can net a lower ranked player upwards of 200 points. They would have just jumped 3 ranks over 1 game. Somehow that does not so right. I understand that CC wants to keep newer peoples interest with more ranks for the lower classes. I guess they figure if you make it up to Captain or so you are addicted anyhow. LOL

I think it's a good idea. The creation of more rank options, particularly lower down the scale can only be encouraging, particularly to newer members of the site.

FabledIntegral wrote:I dislike having small gaps - some skill should be distinguishable from each other. For example there's usually a slight difference in skill between Captain/Major/Colonel. With this new system, with rankings right next to each other they'd be meaningless. A person with 2 ranks below another could actually be better but lost just a few games or something.

I like big point gaps - it gives you something to work towards, and often shows some skill gap.

thats very nicely put. Ranks would become meaningless if every time a person won or lost a game their rank would change. It's good having to work your way up to a rank over a period of time and not move ranks ever game or so

I like your new system, think it adds more instant gratification and diversity.
Though it'll be hard to 'hold' a rank.

pimphawks70 wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:I dislike having small gaps - some skill should be distinguishable from each other. For example there's usually a slight difference in skill between Captain/Major/Colonel. With this new system, with rankings right next to each other they'd be meaningless. A person with 2 ranks below another could actually be better but lost just a few games or something.

I like big point gaps - it gives you something to work towards, and often shows some skill gap.

thats very nicely put. Ranks would become meaningless if every time a person won or lost a game their rank would change. It's good having to work your way up to a rank over a period of time and not move ranks ever game or so

Sure- but 1 rank from 3500-4500..... don't you think that's a bit extreme? Same thing applies at 5K- it's quite unfair for Sj to be a Field Marshal when he's 5K+.

Scott-Land wrote:Sure- but 1 rank from 3500-4500..... don't you think that's a bit extreme? Same thing applies at 5K- it's quite unfair for Sj to be a Field Marshal when he's 5K+.

I happen to agree, but are you saying SJ is a rank above you.

Scott-Land wrote:

pimphawks70 wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:I dislike having small gaps - some skill should be distinguishable from each other. For example there's usually a slight difference in skill between Captain/Major/Colonel. With this new system, with rankings right next to each other they'd be meaningless. A person with 2 ranks below another could actually be better but lost just a few games or something.

I like big point gaps - it gives you something to work towards, and often shows some skill gap.

thats very nicely put. Ranks would become meaningless if every time a person won or lost a game their rank would change. It's good having to work your way up to a rank over a period of time and not move ranks ever game or so

Sure- but 1 rank from 3500-4500..... don't you think that's a bit extreme? Same thing applies at 5K- it's quite unfair for Sj to be a Field Marshal when he's 5K+.

I was referring more to the lower ranks in my posts - I think we could have ranks at 4k and 5k because of the extreme difficulty in gaining 500 points each time. Although I'm still gearing towards 3500.

my high score thread is going to become alot more work but I like the suggestion. this should probably be in the suggestion forum.

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:my high score thread is going to become alot more work but I like the suggestion. this should probably be in the suggestion forum.

yeah, it is living over there, they just brought it over here for a quick discussion to see how people felt about it... you can click the link in the OP to hit the real thread... kind of interesting.-0

The scout icon looks better than the icons for the next 13 lvls, in my opinion. Other than that I'd say it looks great. I'm in favor of new ranks as long as they don't change too frequently.