Conquer Club

Would you rather have a higher rating or rank? About 7% of all CC comrades are 5.0 ;and about 7% are Captains or higher. The highest ranking "5.0" is Seulessliathan at #10 (3944 ,General) then Kaze at #53...

MajorRT wrote:Would you rather have a higher rating or rank? About 7% of all CC comrades are 5.0 ;and about 7% are Captains or higher. The highest ranking "5.0" is Seulessliathan at #10 (3944 ,General) then Kaze at #53...

i should give seul all 1's just to mess that up for him

This is the highest lower than 4.0 rating I found.. by his feedback he sounds like an interesting fella.

http://www.conquerclub.com/player.php?m ... edIntegral

It simply means that Seul hasnt yet been unlucky enough to come across somebody who marks him down out of spite, only need one and its down to 4.9 for a while

MajorRT wrote:Would you rather have a higher rating or rank? About 7% of all CC comrades are 5.0 ;and about 7% are Captains or higher. The highest ranking "5.0" is Seulessliathan at #10 (3944 ,General) then Kaze at #53...

are you serious? is this a serious question? is this what keeps you awake at night? wow...

Subject: Forum Guidelines

The Big Book of CC Rules wrote:One: Is my post really necessary or is it just mental diarrhea?

enough said.-0

flame?

MajorRT wrote:flame?

quoting the rules is not a flame. this is just a pointless thread. rank, you earn. ratings are arbitrary and it takes one spiteful person to ruin someones rating. i guess since you have a 5.0, you are holding onto it with all your might. however, you have just put a huge target on yourself that someone will enjoy hitting. i bet you get a 1 rating to ruin your 5 before too long. and guess what, there is no way to challenge the rating!!! with rank, you can always improve, with ratings it is just arbitrary and means very little...-0

I'd settle for having fun.

Frop wrote:I'd settle for having fun.

best post in this thread.

I find ranks to be more important, ratings are sometimes false and irrational.

definitely rank

bit of a dumb question...

ranks for sure

definitely rank, because ratings are just an opinion

In a perfect world where people do not give 5 star ratings for nothing, and do not give 1 star ratings out of spite, I would say ratings are more important. But since we are never going to come within an imaginable distance to that... Rank is definitely more important.

P.S. Are you serious? I answered as you were, but really?

I have a 5.0 rating. Teehee!

daydream wrote:

Frop wrote:I'd settle for having fun.

best post in this thread.

That's crazy talk. People don't play for fun, they play for rank!

Seriously though.. People who foe because you're a lower rank and beat you should be castrated...

The immportant question is , if ratings are unimportant, as most of the responders think, and random, as some do, then why do we have them? I really would like the mods and even Lack himself to weigh in on this question....

MajorRT wrote:The immportant question is , if ratings are unimportant, as most of the responders think, and random, as some do, then why do we have them? I really would like the mods and even Lack himself to weigh in on this question....

We have them because it was an easy way for them to stop moderating the feedback system.
They will not take them away because too much time was spent on the system to just throw it out the window.

I know you said mods/Lack, but that is pretty much it. If they gave another reason I would be surprised. However, no doubt their responses will be worded in a lengthy way that adds in a lot of details etc.

I would rather have a high rank. You don't need good attitude to send millions of comrades into battle to die for their country!!!


Long live the mighty...the one...the only...THE ARMY

MajorRT wrote:The immportant question is , if ratings are unimportant, as most of the responders think, and random, as some do, then why do we have them? I really would like the mods and even Lack himself to weigh in on this question....

this sure was a long way around a simple question that you could have posed in suggs & bugs where the rest of the complaints about the rating system are... or you could have participated in the process when it was going on (is it still going on? i have no idea)...-0

its all about the attendance


people give crap ratings, rank is used by the aristocracy to keep the proletariat down.... they're giving us a false conscientiousness that makes us believe rank is important and that premium membership will allow us to ride the wave of unlimited games to the top of the scoreboard....

Owen, you've already had your opinion noted ; please don't troll/spam/pass judgement/repeat ; I'm waiting for a moderator's opinion , or a CC authority ; you are not one.

MajorRT wrote:Owen, you've already had your opinion noted ; please don't troll/spam/pass judgement/repeat ; I'm waiting for a moderator's opinion , or a CC authority ; you are not one.

you can't really discriminate him from posting in a public forum

true, but he goes on and on....and on , in almost every CC thread.....

well, to get back on topic...

i'd like to add an addendum to my previous post....

the reason i believe both of the two options being discussed are flawed is that they are easily manipulated by an abusive player