What Rank Do You Consider To Be Elite?

[Timminz]

Voted Brig. I find a huge difference between "good" and "elite." Elite to me is more premier quality. Colonel players are definitely above average, but I run into significantly more Colonels than other Brigs. I hardly notice a different between that of a Brig/General/Field Marshall. There are many Colonels that are very good as well, but that 3k mark is what separates it for me.

Were you the first Brigadier to go on a doodle assassin binge?

[MajorRT]

Why couldn't we vote for cooks and chefs? Women LOVE a man who can cook....

[Jamie]

2000 pts or higher is elite, as that will put you in the 90th percentile on this site. If you are better than 90% of the people, you are elite.

[MeDeFe]

Rank (as in private, sergeant, major and so on) is useless for determining how elite a player is, because it does not tell you how many people are better or worse than the player, but don't despair the scoreboard can nevertheless help you. I'd say that anyone in the top 1% can safely be considered an elite player. As of now that would be the 240 highest ranked (as in #1, #2, #3 and so on) players.

top 10% qualifies as "really good", but not "elite"

[lord voldemort]

agreed rank wont tell the elite..it will have some degree..like people like blitz who maintains a 3500 + score while playing lots of games i consider elite...anyone who isnt afraid to risk there score and still climb i consider elite..

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

this is the elite scores of all time. most of the players at the top of this list have been over 3,000 points for a long time. I use 3,000 points as the barrier to make this list. 2,000-2,500 points is way to easy to hit. to hit 3,000 and maintain it is very difficult to do.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=17506

[daydream]

i voted colonel, simply because thats the lowest rank i have not yet achieved... and i do know i am a decent player.

[jiminski]

Elite have to the be the absolute top echelon; so I think to be really considered thus you should be a general with todays point reservoir!
i mean crikey, Brigadiers are 2 a penny nowadays! (down to 40 on the board!)

[BENJIKAT IS DEAD]

Elite have to the be the absolute top echelon; so I think to be really considered thus you should be a general with todays point reservoir!
i mean crikey, Brigadiers are 2 a penny nowadays! (down to 40 on the board!)

actually I agree with you - I often suck, and make tons of mistakes, so wouldn't consider myself elite (just high-ranking)

[jiminski]

Elite have to the be the absolute top echelon; so I think to be really considered thus you should be a general with todays point reservoir!
i mean crikey, Brigadiers are 2 a penny nowadays! (down to 40 on the board!)

actually I agree with you - I often suck, and make tons of mistakes, so wouldn't consider myself elite (just high-ranking)

and you are a lousy lover!

[BENJIKAT IS DEAD]

and you are a lousy lover!

how on earth would you know that

[Timminz]

2000 pts or higher is elite, as that will put you in the 90th percentile on this site. If you are better than 90% of the people, you are elite.

actually, anyone over about 1600 is in the top 10%, 2000 points is the top 3%.

[Pedronicus]

Brigadier is my vote. the highest I ever attained was 2976 points in Dec 2007 (if I had made 3000 points back then - I would of been a general)

But it's all relative to the type of games you play. In 2007 there were no 2 player games, and I achieved 2976 points through playing mainly 6 player singles games with a mix of 6 player doubles and triples to keep the point loses of the 6 player singles games balanced.

It was hard work and I eventually gave up trying to get that damn star my my name.
I know that the points pot has increased since those days, but I still can't make 3000 points (but then again I always play sequential so everyone has a fair shot at the win, not someone who has clickable maps and an unfair advantage)

[Fruitcake]

and you are a lousy lover!

how on earth would you know that

Your 'lover' told him.

[wacicha]

I agree that I play only escalating and newer players do not understand some of the finer points------ But I do take the newer and cooks and teach them what I know. But Most players in my games do know how to play they are ranked right around me. And they do kick my butt...

[Jamie]

Rank (as in private, sergeant, major and so on) is useless for determining how elite a player is, because it does not tell you how many people are better or worse than the player, but don't despair the scoreboard can nevertheless help you. I'd say that anyone in the top 1% can safely be considered an elite player. As of now that would be the 240 highest ranked (as in #1, #2, #3 and so on) players.

top 10% qualifies as "really good", but not "elite"

So pretty much everyone on page one is elite, and anybody not on page one of the scoreboard is not. I can agree with that. Guess I'm elite than. Was #146 last time I checked

[Bruceswar]

Rank (as in private, sergeant, major and so on) is useless for determining how elite a player is, because it does not tell you how many people are better or worse than the player, but don't despair the scoreboard can nevertheless help you. I'd say that anyone in the top 1% can safely be considered an elite player. As of now that would be the 240 highest ranked (as in #1, #2, #3 and so on) players.

top 10% qualifies as "really good", but not "elite"

So pretty much everyone on page one is elite, and anybody not on page one of the scoreboard is not. I can agree with that. Guess I'm elite than. Was #146 last time I checked

Is Klobber on page 1? Enough said.

[hulmey]

Rank (as in private, sergeant, major and so on) is useless for determining how elite a player is, because it does not tell you how many people are better or worse than the player, but don't despair the scoreboard can nevertheless help you. I'd say that anyone in the top 1% can safely be considered an elite player. As of now that would be the 240 highest ranked (as in #1, #2, #3 and so on) players.

top 10% qualifies as "really good", but not "elite"

So pretty much everyone on page one is elite, and anybody not on page one of the scoreboard is not. I can agree with that. Guess I'm elite than. Was #146 last time I checked

Is Klobber on page 1? Enough said.

Elite hmmmmmmmm, its a tough one. So may different games and game types on CC nowadays that its impossible to be elite. Some are good at dubs, singles or escalating or conquest maps. Put a general on AoR and he wont have a clue!! I know im shit at AoR , so i dont play it!

[t-o-m]

i think that the elite people are the ones that can play and win and pwn everyone of all maps. but there are differing kinds of elite - e.g you could be elit at playing a certain map.

i think major is quite elite - but look at my location, im happy with what im on

[Fruitcake]

Rank (as in private, sergeant, major and so on) is useless for determining how elite a player is, because it does not tell you how many people are better or worse than the player, but don't despair the scoreboard can nevertheless help you. I'd say that anyone in the top 1% can safely be considered an elite player. As of now that would be the 240 highest ranked (as in #1, #2, #3 and so on) players.

top 10% qualifies as "really good", but not "elite"

So pretty much everyone on page one is elite, and anybody not on page one of the scoreboard is not. I can agree with that. Guess I'm elite than. Was #146 last time I checked

Is Klobber on page 1? Enough said.

Good point, well put.

[gdeangel]

It all depends on how many games you play (i.e., what your leverage is). If you are underlevaraged, getting to Major is pretty elite... assuming you can hold it. If you are leveraged, particularly if you are leveraged up in one type of game, it means very little. If I had the ability to start 100 AoR I or Feudal or Freestyle, getting to major would be much less difficult... and only after 2500 does the pay out of the"crap" games (i.e., <10 pt games) start to get canceled out by the "chance" games, which cost much more, and the rank plateaus.

But I still say if you play on a variety of maps and settings, and play against all ranks, then getting and holding 2500 is elite. If your at 2500 and you don't walk away from any challenge, then your elite. If you get over 3000, then you don't have to prove your eliteness, and so just play the other 3000+ players is enough.

There is a quality break at Ltnt/Captain level, also, as the not-too-serious/not-too-good players seems to rarely run in the 1300-1600 range, but I wouldn't call it elite, since there are so many of us.

[FabledIntegral]

People overrate the "fairness" of sequential. The drop matters more, as well as cards being much less skill (imo) and much more luck based.

[jiminski]

People overrate the "fairness" of sequential. The drop matters more, as well as cards being much less skill (imo) and much more luck based.

The reason it is perceived to be more fair is that, although deploy and of course dice do matter (as they still do in Freestyle) there are no ways to manipulate the system against the uninitiated; with clock run downs etc.
I do not play freestyle any longer becuase it always makes me feel dirty inside.

Freestyle is like steeling the change from a blind-beggars cup and then telling him to get a job after!

[gdeangel]

People overrate the "fairness" of sequential. The drop matters more, as well as cards being much less skill (imo) and much more luck based.

The reason it is perceived to be more fair is that, although deploy and of course dice do matter (as they still do in Freestyle) there are no ways to manipulate the system against the uninitiated; with clock run downs etc.
I do not play freestyle any longer becuase it always makes me feel dirty inside.

Freestyle is like steeling the change from a blind-beggars cup and then telling him to get a job after!

Play freestyle but on the tough maps. I don't play much freestyle, but when I do, the only people who show up in my games are 99% harcores... who play on the fast to blazing fast side of spectrum... I got to think that's cause I don't set up games that noobs generally like. Also, I got to think your talking about speed games, not freestyle, with the clock rundown stuff??

Drop and first draw are very tough to come back from in sequential. Sometimes it definitely is not even close to fair. That's why you have to think through your maps and settings carefully... and I can tell you for sure Classic doesn't cut the mustard! To update my prior criteria (and to get back on topic), I'd add that anyone who plays more than 50% of their games on classic, I would not consider that player to be elite for this site, regardless of score.

[Timminz]

People overrate the "fairness" of sequential. The drop matters more, as well as cards being much less skill (imo) and much more luck based.

The reason it is perceived to be more fair is that, although deploy and of course dice do matter (as they still do in Freestyle) there are no ways to manipulate the system against the uninitiated; with clock run downs etc.
I do not play freestyle any longer becuase it always makes me feel dirty inside.

Freestyle is like steeling the change from a blind-beggars cup and then telling him to get a job after!

Play freestyle but on the tough maps. I don't play much freestyle, but when I do, the only people who show up in my games are 99% harcores... who play on the fast to blazing fast side of spectrum... I got to think that's cause I don't set up games that noobs generally like. Also, I got to think your talking about speed games, not freestyle, with the clock rundown stuff??

Drop and first draw are very tough to come back from in sequential. Sometimes it definitely is not even close to fair. That's why you have to think through your maps and settings carefully... and I can tell you for sure Classic doesn't cut the mustard! To update my prior criteria (and to get back on topic), I'd add that anyone who plays more than 50% of their games on classic, I would not consider that player to be elite for this site, regardless of score.

If you're talking about 1v1, then yeah, classic sucks. Otherwise, it's a great map.