CC's Records of RANKS

by **dcc1220** on Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:28 am

I think it is interesting and I appreciate the time it takes to keep track. I don't post much on these record threads usually but I enjoy reading them.

by **Velvecarrots** on Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:01 am

No way to prove it now but I remember seeing 29 colonels a few days ago.

by **oggiss** on Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:08 am

Velvecarrots wrote:No way to prove it now but I remember seeing 29 colonels a few days ago.

That's 9 more than now :shock:

by **Blitzaholic** on Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:17 am

Velvecarrots wrote:No way to prove it now but I remember seeing 29 colonels a few days ago.

wow, ok what did i have 27? if you see any changes please post in here, ty

this is with generals, brigadiers, colonels, majors, captains and lieutants, thx

list on page 1

by **Blitzaholic** on Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:18 am

Blitzaholic wrote:remember the days when there was like only a handful above 2000 ?

maybe you dont

1065 Lieutenants-CC record

567 Captains-CC record

120 Majors-CC record

27 Colonels-CC record

7 Brigadiers-CC record

3 Generals-CC record

1 Conquerer

0 Field Marshall

updated

here it is, I have not checked, so sure this needs some work

by **yeti_c** on Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:40 am

I just made Skipper - so there's probably at least another 5 on the captains too!!

C.

by **Dekloren** on Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:40 pm

I just hit Captain!

by **Blitzaholic** on Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:46 am

dcc1220 wrote:I think it is interesting and I appreciate the time it takes to keep track. I don't post much on these record threads usually but I enjoy reading them.

ok, ty dcc1220

by **Blitzaholic** on Mon Mar 24, 2008 5:56 am

Blitzaholic wrote:remember the days when there was like only a handful above 2000 ?

maybe you dont

1075 Lieutenants-CC record

580 Captains-CC record

120 Majors-CC record

27 Colonels-CC record

7 Brigadiers-CC record

3 Generals-CC record

1 Conquerer

0 Field Marshall

updated

by **JOHNNYROCKET24** on Mon Mar 24, 2008 6:03 pm

Blitzaholic wrote:remember the days when there was like only a handful above 2000 ?

maybe you dont

1075 Lieutenants-CC record

580 Captains-CC record

120 Majors-CC record

27 Colonels-CC record

7 Brigadiers-CC record

3 Generals-CC record

1 Conquerer

0 Field Marshall

updated

currently 26

by **Velvecarrots** on Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:38 pm

currently 31 colonels. Incredible.

by **TheBro** on Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:48 pm

Uh, 25 colonels. Subtract the ranks higher than Colonel.

by **Wwoody123** on Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:23 pm

Sorry, lost another colonel ;D

by **TheBro** on Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:49 pm

Wwoody123 wrote:Sorry, lost another colonel ;D

Throw a game and get back down there!

by **UCAbears** on Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:29 pm

Are you counting the old rankings? If so I was a major once so I hope you counted me.

by **Velvecarrots** on Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:55 pm

This is new ranks only and the record number is not determined by how many people have reached colonel but by how many players have at least a certain point requirement or higher at an instant in time.

by **Ditocoaf** on Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:42 am

I have to laugh whenever I hear about "inflation" of points.

1) The reason why there's more people above 2000 points? There's more people playing. There's also a lot more people under 2000 points.

2) No matter what, there's never going to be more than 1000 points per player. If there's a whole ton of points going to the top, then there's a bunch of guys stuck at the bottom. For every Colonel, there's at least three cadets and cooks. (wait--never mind this line of reason. The "complete deadbeats" argument can take it apart. :oops:

)

but on to my favorite...
3) In a 15-rank system (not counting new recruits)... On the top end, we have a completely unused rank (Field Marshall). On the bottom end, we have roughly a quarter (again, ignoring new recruits) of the population in the bottom two ranks.

How can anyone argue that there need to be less points in the system? I could make a case that there are too few. In a perfect system, the most populous rank would be more towards the middle, not the very bottom.

by **Blitzaholic** on Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:01 am

UCAbears wrote:Are you counting the old rankings? If so I was a major once so I hope you counted me.

I am just counting what is currently on the scoreboard, if it passes any of the all time ranks, then I add it

by **firstholliday** on Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:56 am

some work for ya blitz.... :mrgreen:

by **Blitzaholic** on Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:33 pm

firstholliday wrote:some work for ya blitz....

yep, gotta change it all around now, sighs

by **Blitzaholic** on Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:19 pm

Blitzaholic wrote:remember the days when there was like only a handful above 2000 ?

maybe you dont

1082 Captains-CC record

592 Majors-CC record

121 Colonels-CC record

31 Brigadiers-CC record

4 Generals-CC record

2 Field Marshalls-CC record

1 Conquerer-CC record

updated

by **JOHNNYROCKET24** on Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:21 pm

Blitzaholic wrote:
Blitzaholic wrote:remember the days when there was like only a handful above 2000 ?

maybe you dont

1082 Captains-CC record

592 Majors-CC record

121 Colonels-CC record

31 Brigadiers-CC record

4 Generals-CC record

2 Field Marshalls-CC record

1 Conquerer-CC record

updated

hey ! you cant post just "updated" [-X

. I got warned for that........ :lol:

btw- we only have 1 Field Marshall

by **Wwoody123** on Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:02 pm

Yeah, and 5 generals...

by **Blitzaholic** on Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:07 pm

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:
Blitzaholic wrote:
Blitzaholic wrote:remember the days when there was like only a handful above 2000 ?

maybe you dont

1082 Captains-CC record

592 Majors-CC record

121 Colonels-CC record

31 Brigadiers-CC record

4 Generals-CC record

2 Field Marshalls-CC record

1 Conquerer-CC record

updated
hey ! you cant post just "updated" . I got warned for that........ btw- we only have 1 Field Marshall

but the record is 2, these are cc records, we had 2 players over 4500 once, sjnap and sky, is why it says 2

by **Blitzaholic** on Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:08 pm

Wwoody123 wrote:Yeah, and 5 generals...

ok, 5 generals breaks a record, I will add that soon

CC's Records of RANKS

Re: CC's Records of RANKS

Re: CC's Records of RANKS

Re: CC's Records of RANKS

Re: CC's Records of RANKS

Re: CC's Records of RANKS

Re: CC's Records of RANKS

Re: CC's Records of RANKS

Re: CC's Records of RANKS

Re: CC's Records of RANKS

Re: CC's Records of RANKS

Who is online