Page 3 of 15

Re: NEW RANKS-page 1

PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 6:04 pm
by InkL0sed
I think new ranks are the wrong way to go about this problem. Should we keep setting Field Marshall to some unattainable goal? I don't think so. I think the way things are right now is the ideal situation, as there are two field marshalls, two generals, and then the people with lower ranks starts to get larger and larger. Eventually, we will no longer be in an ideal situation (when there are too many field marshalls), which is why inflation itself needs to be combatted, but continuously setting the ranks higher is not the way to go.

Re: NEW RANKS-page 1

PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 6:12 pm
by Qwert
by InkL0sed on Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:04 am

I think new ranks are the wrong way to go about this problem. Should we keep setting Field Marshall to some unattainable goal? I don't think so. I think the way things are right now is the ideal situation, as there are two field marshalls, two generals, and then the people with lower ranks starts to get larger and larger. Eventually, we will no longer be in an ideal situation (when there are too many field marshalls), which is why inflation itself needs to be combatted, but continuously setting the ranks higher is not the way to go.

Then what you propose,to assasin all MArshal,and generals(like assasin in wolfs lair ;)

Re: NEW RANKS-page 1

PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 6:56 pm
by hahaha3hahaha
.s.

Re: NEW RANKS-page 1

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:38 pm
by MrBenn
InkL0sed wrote:I think new ranks are the wrong way to go about this problem. Should we keep setting Field Marshall to some unattainable goal? I don't think so. I think the way things are right now is the ideal situation, as there are two field marshalls, two generals, and then the people with lower ranks starts to get larger and larger. Eventually, we will no longer be in an ideal situation (when there are too many field marshalls), which is why inflation itself needs to be combatted, but continuously setting the ranks higher is not the way to go.

I agree that the goalposts shouldn't continually be moved to make the highest ranks unattainable.

While most people will be grateful for the recent increase in rank due to the restructure, I personally think that additional ranks could have been introduced to counter-balance the depreciation in value of ranks. As far as I can tell, CC would have liked to add some new ranks, but didn't have enough icons - which is the premise for this suggestion topic - and is why Qwert and I have both put some thoughts for new ranks on virtual paper.

The debate about where the score-line should be drawn for each rank has taken over this thread a little; but I think that additional/new ranks should be thought about and debated now, and I'm greatful to Qwert for starting this thread.

Re: NEW RANKS-page 1

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:17 pm
by Qwert
InkL0sed wrote:
I think new ranks are the wrong way to go about this problem. Should we keep setting Field Marshall to some unattainable goal? I don't think so. I think the way things are right now is the ideal situation, as there are two field marshalls, two generals, and then the people with lower ranks starts to get larger and larger. Eventually, we will no longer be in an ideal situation (when there are too many field marshalls), which is why inflation itself needs to be combatted, but continuously setting the ranks higher is not the way to go.

These is sugestion forum,right. Aim open these topic,because i thinking that situation with ranks ,can solve with adding new ranks and new scoring,and its normal that some people agree and some people not agree.

Re: NEW RANKS-page 1

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:25 pm
by InkL0sed
qwert wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:
I think new ranks are the wrong way to go about this problem. Should we keep setting Field Marshall to some unattainable goal? I don't think so. I think the way things are right now is the ideal situation, as there are two field marshalls, two generals, and then the people with lower ranks starts to get larger and larger. Eventually, we will no longer be in an ideal situation (when there are too many field marshalls), which is why inflation itself needs to be combatted, but continuously setting the ranks higher is not the way to go.

These is sugestion forum,right. Aim open these topic,because i thinking that situation with ranks ,can solve with adding new ranks and new scoring,and its normal that some people agree and some people not agree.


Of course it's normal. I happen to disagree with you, that's all.

All I'm saying is what we really need is a way to control points inflation. Additional ranks would only be a minor nuisance at worst -- and that only for a short while.

Re: NEW RANKS-page 1

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:05 am
by Shino Tenshi
MrBenn wrote:My 2 thoughts for possible rank scores are shown below:

Cook 1 1
Volunteer 600 600
Cadet 750 800
Private 900 1000
Private 1st Class 1000 1100
Lance Corporal 1100 1200
Corporal 1200 1300
Corporal 1st Class 1300 1400
Sergeant 1400 1500
Sergeant 1st Class 1500 1600
Sergeant Major 1600 1800
Warrant Officer 1800 2000
Lieutenant 2000 2200
Captain 2200 2400
Major 2400 2600
Lieutenant Colonel 2600 2800
Colonel 2800 3000
Brigadier 3000 3500
Major General 3500 4000
Lieutenant General 4000 4500
General 4500 5000
Field Marshal 5000 6000


I like both of these spreads of numbers. I like the officer rankings starting around 1800-2000, though preferably 2000, and the field marshal rank being at 5000 is nice, as it is at least obtainable, if hard to do so.

Thanks to everyone who is putting a lot of time and effort into putting this proposal together.

Re: NEW RANKS-page 1

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:08 am
by Shino Tenshi
MrBenn wrote:I've had a play around with Qwert's new icons, and come up with something a tiny bit different (* indicates new rank name):
Image


I like the idea of how these graphics progress. I am not sure how others would take to them, but they at least make progressive sense.

Re: NEW RANKS-page 1

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:26 am
by Qwert
Of course it's normal. I happen to disagree with you, that's all.

All I'm saying is what we really need is a way to control points inflation. Additional ranks would only be a minor nuisance at worst -- and that only for a short while.

I also belive that Lack predict future,and not instal imediatly ranks,who can add,like Warant Officer,Lieutenant Colonel,Staff Sergeant,Specialist,Officer Candidate,and many more ranks,who can implement in CC.

like both of these spreads of numbers. I like the officer rankings starting around 1800-2000, though preferably 2000, and the field marshal rank being at 5000 is nice, as it is at least obtainable, if hard to do so.

Now you have 3 player over 4500 points,and very close to 5000,and i think that soon he will pass 5000pt,so these is no hard,and that why i thinking that 6000pt is good for Marshal.

Re: NEW RANKS-page 1

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:43 pm
by Qwert
well aim experimen with new options.
Image

Re: NEW RANKS-page 1

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 3:14 am
by yeti_c
qwert wrote:well aim experimen with new options.
Image


I'd still say that this is too weighted towards the top end of the spectrum...

MrBenns were better as there were some closer ranks in the midfield.

C.

Re: NEW RANKS-page 1

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:26 am
by MrBenn
The difference being that my list had 23 ranks, Qwert's got 20 in his...

Re: NEW RANKS-page 1

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:37 am
by Kemmler
I like the new icons. he's spent some time on them, they should be used

Re: NEW RANKS-page 1

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:43 am
by yeti_c
I think mainly that it's the

6 100 point jumps (to Staff Sargeant)
2 200 point jumps (to Officer Candidate)
2 300 point jumps (to Lieutenant)
3 400 point jumps (to Lieutenant Colonel)
2 500 point jump (to Bridadier)
2 600 point jumps (to Field Marshall)

The inconsistency of the boundaries is weird...

It should flow something like 6 4 3 2 1

i.e.

1000 - 1600 (6 100 point jumps)
1600 - 2400 (4 200 point jumps)
2400 - 3300 (3 300 point jumps)
3300 - 4100 (2 400 point jumps)
4100 - 4600 (1 500 point jump)

As that works a lot better for the sort of distribution we want...

Although I agree that 4600 is too low... (and a weird number) so perhaps a tweak to something like...

1000 - 1600 (6 100 point jumps)
1600 - 2600 (5 200 point jumps)
2600 - 3800 (4 300 point jumps)
3800 - 5000 (3 400 point jumps)
5000 - 6000 (2 500 point jump)

And then leaving the option of adding another one in 2 years (or whatever) time...
6000 - 7000 (1 1000 point jump)

C.

Re: NEW RANKS-page 1

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:21 am
by MrBenn
Just been browsing and found this useful list of military ranks at http://homepages.shu.ac.uk/~acsdry/ranks.htm:
Click image to enlarge.
image


I also found a nice chart of different military rank symbols from different countries, which I will post as a link due to the large size of the image.http://www.morh.hr/osrh/data/comp/all_ranks.jpg
I thought it was interesting that most countries appear to use a logically progressive style of 'logo' as the ranks progress, except for the US, which doesn't appear to have a logical sequence at officer level...

Re: NEW RANKS-page 1

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:14 am
by Shino Tenshi
qwert wrote:well aim experimen with new options.
Image


I'm not sure that I like the higher ranked icons with the straight bars. They look too similar to the low-rank cadet/private icons.

As yeti_c mentioned, points wise, I think it's a little top heavy as well.

Re: NEW RANKS-page 1

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:46 am
by Qwert
by yeti_c on Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:43 am

I think mainly that it's the

6 100 point jumps (to Staff Sargeant)
2 200 point jumps (to Officer Candidate)
2 300 point jumps (to Lieutenant)
3 400 point jumps (to Lieutenant Colonel)
2 500 point jump (to Bridadier)
2 600 point jumps (to Field Marshall)

The inconsistency of the boundaries is weird...

It should flow something like 6 4 3 2 1

i.e.

1000 - 1600 (6 100 point jumps)
1600 - 2400 (4 200 point jumps)
2400 - 3300 (3 300 point jumps)
3300 - 4100 (2 400 point jumps)
4100 - 4600 (1 500 point jump)

As that works a lot better for the sort of distribution we want...

Although I agree that 4600 is too low... (and a weird number) so perhaps a tweak to something like...

1000 - 1600 (6 100 point jumps)
1600 - 2600 (5 200 point jumps)
2600 - 3800 (4 300 point jumps)
3800 - 5000 (3 400 point jumps)
5000 - 6000 (2 500 point jump)

And then leaving the option of adding another one in 2 years (or whatever) time...
6000 - 7000 (1 1000 point jump)

Well if you go 4600 point then these is same like now,but these second can be good.

Re: NEW RANKS-page 1

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:27 am
by Shino Tenshi
yeti_c wrote:I think mainly that it's the

6 100 point jumps (to Staff Sargeant)
2 200 point jumps (to Officer Candidate)
2 300 point jumps (to Lieutenant)
3 400 point jumps (to Lieutenant Colonel)
2 500 point jump (to Bridadier)
2 600 point jumps (to Field Marshall)

The inconsistency of the boundaries is weird...

It should flow something like 6 4 3 2 1

i.e.

1000 - 1600 (6 100 point jumps)
1600 - 2400 (4 200 point jumps)
2400 - 3300 (3 300 point jumps)
3300 - 4100 (2 400 point jumps)
4100 - 4600 (1 500 point jump)

As that works a lot better for the sort of distribution we want...

Although I agree that 4600 is too low... (and a weird number) so perhaps a tweak to something like...

1000 - 1600 (6 100 point jumps)
1600 - 2600 (5 200 point jumps)
2600 - 3800 (4 300 point jumps)
3800 - 5000 (3 400 point jumps)
5000 - 6000 (2 500 point jump)

And then leaving the option of adding another one in 2 years (or whatever) time...
6000 - 7000 (1 1000 point jump)

C.


I like the second set of scores that yeti_c has suggested here. It would provide a nice spread and also provide a number of newer ranks to be added.

Re: NEW RANKS-page 1

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:15 pm
by Qwert
i mean to say 3 set,because second set is same like now.

Re: NEW RANKS-page 1

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:54 pm
by Blitzaholic
My 2 thoughts for possible rank scores are shown below:

Cook 1 1
Volunteer 600 500
Cadet 750 750
Private 900 1000
Private 1st Class 1000 1200
Lance Corporal 1100 1400
Corporal 1200 1600
Corporal 1st Class 1300 1800
Sergeant 1400 2000
Sergeant 1st Class 1500 2200
Sergeant Major 1600 2400
Warrant Officer 1800 2600
Lieutenant 2000 2800
Captain 2200 3000
Major 2400 3200
Lieutenant Colonel 2600 3400
Colonel 2800 3600
Brigadier 3000 3800
Major General 3500 4000
Lieutenant General 4000 4500
General 4500 5000
Field Marshal 5000 6000


Updated in blue with revamped scores, how's that? all increase mostly by 200 points? except the very bottom and very top.

Also, the higher rank symbols need more weight or to be made bigger than the middle and smaller ones.



respects, blitz

Re: NEW RANKS-page 1

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:59 pm
by Blitzaholic
qwert wrote:well aim experimen with new options.
Image



this is a little better I think than your previous 2, now if you added volunteer and lance corporal then the gaps at the top may be a little closer together which would be more reasonable

Re: NEW RANKS-page 1

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 3:43 pm
by Qwert
this is a little better I think than your previous 2, now if you added volunteer and lance corporal then the gaps at the top may be a little closer together which would be more reasonable

Lance Corporal-these is same rank with Private first class.

Also, the higher rank symbols need more weight or to be made bigger than the middle and smaller ones.



respects, blitz

Can someon tell me wich size is aloved for Rank Icons?
Updated in blue with revamped scores, how's that? all increase mostly by 200 points? except the very bottom and very top.

Intersting scoring,but you have new rank Sergeant MAjor.

I have 5 new ranks
Mrbeen have 8 new ranks.
Do we putt all availabile ranks in scoring?

Re: NEW RANKS-page 1

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:04 pm
by Blitzaholic
qwert wrote:
this is a little better I think than your previous 2, now if you added volunteer and lance corporal then the gaps at the top may be a little closer together which would be more reasonable

Lance Corporal-these is same rank with Private first class.

Also, the higher rank symbols need more weight or to be made bigger than the middle and smaller ones.



respects, blitz

Can someon tell me wich size is aloved for Rank Icons?
Updated in blue with revamped scores, how's that? all increase mostly by 200 points? except the very bottom and very top.

Intersting scoring,but you have new rank Sergeant MAjor.


I have 5 new ranks
Mrbeen have 8 new ranks.
Do we putt all availabile ranks in scoring?



THATS UP TO YOU QWERT

Re: NEW RANKS-page 1

PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:58 pm
by Qwert
THATS UP TO YOU QWERT

Dimension of icon is not up to me ;)

Re: NEW RANKS-page 1

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:55 pm
by MrBenn
I think the current rank icons are all 18 x 18 pixels - there's not a lot of room to play with!