Moderator: Community Team
Paddy The Cat wrote:i dont know the exact reason, but i have postulates
first off, I think that someone with under the minimum games might not yet be 'proven' of their rank.
ex. someone has score 1150, but only 6 games played. They'll still be a private 1st class, and i think they should be. They might have won just one game they got really lucky in, maybe against some decent rankers, and then lost the others to high rankers also, making them lose few points from their game. Therefore, I think someone with 1150 point but 40 games played would most likely be a better player, and the rank reflects that.
However, for the case of really high ranks, like yourself, it is clear that you aren't just lucky, and that youll probably still be right up that after another 100+ games. That being said, I do think experience should be a factor. Someone with only 125 games at 4000 points probably isnt as well versed as a person with 5000 games at 4000 points, and the one with more games is probably more skilled on more settings. The rank reflects that.
That being said, I dont think you should be sad, I love looking at the scoreboard and seeing the hat symbol up there with generals and brigs, or a captain symbol with the colonels, etc. And i love clicking on your name and seeing 3943 - Colonel. Very impressive
xiangwang wrote:Anyone know why there is a reason for minimal games to hit a certain ranking? What's the policy behind it? Seems a little discriminatory to freemiums since we are limited in our games. I really want that star
xiangwang wrote:Anyone know why there is a reason for minimal games to hit a certain ranking? What's the policy behind it? Seems a little discriminatory to freemiums since we are limited in our games. I really want that star
xiangwang wrote:Anyone know why there is a reason for minimal games to hit a certain ranking? What's the policy behind it? Seems a little discriminatory to freemiums since we are limited in our games. I really want that star
Funkyterrance wrote:Is this your first account? I'm just wondering because whenever I see lower ranked players with higher scores my mind always tends to get the impression that they "started over". Not sure if this is the case with you but just thought I would ask.
trevor33 wrote:I tend to think the same, reaching 4000 with just 100 games played is quite impressive given that they would have to deal with new maps, settings... everything basically. Getting that rank in such a short space need a disciplined plan.
Funkyterrance wrote:trevor33 wrote:I tend to think the same, reaching 4000 with just 100 games played is quite impressive given that they would have to deal with new maps, settings... everything basically. Getting that rank in such a short space need a disciplined plan.
Quite.
This is why I would appreciate an answer from the OP. I'm not saying it's impossible; of course it's possible. However, to use your word, it would require a staggering amount of discipline.
Funkyterrance wrote:xiangwang wrote:Anyone know why there is a reason for minimal games to hit a certain ranking? What's the policy behind it? Seems a little discriminatory to freemiums since we are limited in our games. I really want that star
Is this your first account? I'm just wondering because whenever I see lower ranked players with higher scores my mind always tends to get the impression that they "started over". Not sure if this is the case with you but just thought I would ask.
Dukasaur wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:trevor33 wrote:I tend to think the same, reaching 4000 with just 100 games played is quite impressive given that they would have to deal with new maps, settings... everything basically. Getting that rank in such a short space need a disciplined plan.
Quite.
This is why I would appreciate an answer from the OP. I'm not saying it's impossible; of course it's possible. However, to use your word, it would require a staggering amount of discipline.
I've noticed that freemiums who are good tend to rise to higher ranks than premiums of the same ability. The 4-game limit lets them stay focused and really consider their games. Most of us premiums tend to join more games than we should on days when we're not busy, and then when we do get busy we have to rush through our turns and do a crappy job. Even if this happens only once in a while, it can cost you several games at a time.
Funkyterrance wrote:Dukasaur wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:trevor33 wrote:I tend to think the same, reaching 4000 with just 100 games played is quite impressive given that they would have to deal with new maps, settings... everything basically. Getting that rank in such a short space need a disciplined plan.
Quite.
This is why I would appreciate an answer from the OP. I'm not saying it's impossible; of course it's possible. However, to use your word, it would require a staggering amount of discipline.
I've noticed that freemiums who are good tend to rise to higher ranks than premiums of the same ability. The 4-game limit lets them stay focused and really consider their games. Most of us premiums tend to join more games than we should on days when we're not busy, and then when we do get busy we have to rush through our turns and do a crappy job. Even if this happens only once in a while, it can cost you several games at a time.
This is a good point and since the OP answered my question I'm satisfied.
betiko wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:
This is a good point and since the OP answered my question I'm satisfied.
I'm not really sure his answer could've been I moved out and created a new account as I had a new ip adress, so I don't really understand why even ask those type of questions.
But yes, the lesser games the better you play them. And being freemium makes you avoid speed games. The biggest part of any brig+ ranked player is game selection and not entering any costy stupid games.
regarding the question, i think it's both reasons already stated. Have a certain experience before reaching a rank (I guess like in RL military) and make you want to buy premium.
Funkyterrance wrote:betiko wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:
This is a good point and since the OP answered my question I'm satisfied.
I'm not really sure his answer could've been I moved out and created a new account as I had a new ip adress, so I don't really understand why even ask those type of questions.
But yes, the lesser games the better you play them. And being freemium makes you avoid speed games. The biggest part of any brig+ ranked player is game selection and not entering any costy stupid games.
regarding the question, i think it's both reasons already stated. Have a certain experience before reaching a rank (I guess like in RL military) and make you want to buy premium.
Tbh, the reason I ask those sort of questions is there are three possible outcomes:
1. The player is legit and should have no problem explaining the reason.
2. The player is a cheat and will have to publicly lie about their actions to avoid shame.
3. The player is a cheat and admits it, resulting in the ban of a cheater.
It's win-win-win.
xiangwang wrote:Anyone know why there is a reason for minimal games to hit a certain ranking? What's the policy behind it? Seems a little discriminatory to freemiums since we are limited in our games. I really want that star
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users