rank of cook

[Godsav1]

It's that being a cook in a battle most likely means you will be shot dead.

[jesusfreak16]

To be honest, I went from New Recruit to Private, so I haven't had that experience.

[a.sub]

To be honest, I went from New Recruit to Private, so I haven't had that experience.

that means you went down in points
at the rate you are going you will be a cook in no time

[neanderpaul14]

To be honest, we need lower than Cook, lol.

What like chambermaid or something?

How about chamberpot?

[a.sub]

To be honest, we need lower than Cook, lol.

What like chambermaid or something?

How about chamberpot?

how about traitor?

[EagleofGreenErth]

One has to try hard to get to cook... my 1000+ point dump only got me to lieut!

Incorrect...one only has to play a very large number of multiple-player games on a very large number (read "all") of maps. Keep that up for long and it's bound to happen.

Not really.... unless the player is horrid he is bound to win 1 in 8.... and that would keep him a decent rank.

[EagleofGreenErth]

And has anyone ever seen Deep Blue Sea? Doesn't really relate in terms of war and such.... but if you watch that movie you'll agree that cooks aren't 100% pathetic.

[ronsizzle]

cant we have tags that go along with our rating

i.e.

4.4 prick
5.0 gentleman
3.7 snake

shit like this?

[EagleofGreenErth]

cant we have tags that go along with our rating

i.e.

4.4 prick
5.0 gentleman
3.7 snake

shit like this?

What does that have to do with this topic???

[Godsav1]

cant we have tags that go along with our rating

i.e.

4.4 prick
5.0 gentleman
3.7 snake

shit like this?

What does that have to do with this topic???

I think he is showing rankings of players that are pretty bad but their rating is good.

[MrBenn]

A while back there was a suggestion to revamp the rank bandings: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=47578&start=135#p1618241

Suggestions for lower ranks could include:

Conscientious Objector
Scout
Volunteer
Apprentice
Cadet
Ensign

[Godsav1]

Scout might be a good idea. At least it's someone that does something for an army.

[Thezzaruz]

Scout might be a good idea. At least it's someone that does something for an army.

And you think that the army doesn't eat???


scout just as cook is a job not a rank.

[Godsav1]

Scout might be a good idea. At least it's someone that does something for an army.

And you think that the army doesn't eat???


scout just as cook is a job not a rank.

Yeah well a scout is actually out in the fight although he may not fight. The cook doesn't really get anywhere near the fights.

[GENERAL STONEHAM]

Scout might be a good idea. At least it's someone that does something for an army.

And you think that the army doesn't eat???


scout just as cook is a job not a rank.

Yeah well a scout is actually out in the fight although he may not fight. The cook doesn't really get anywhere near the fights.

Ok boys, I got a solution! How about we call the lowest rank, "Godsav1"

Kinda rings a bell doesn't it?

[GENERAL STONEHAM]

A while back there was a suggestion to revamp the rank bandings: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=47578&start=135#p1618241

Suggestions for lower ranks could include:

Conscientious Objector
Scout
Volunteer
Apprentice
Cadet
Ensign

Conscientious Objector would be a great name.

[Thezzaruz]

Yeah well a scout is actually out in the fight although he may not fight. The cook doesn't really get anywhere near the fights.

Still not a rank. And the "anywhere near the fights" depends on what military force you mean, for some it's not true.

Seaman, airman or private is the lowest rank, they screwed up.

Ok boys, I got a solution! How about we call the lowest rank, "Godsav1"

Fine by me...

[Godsav1]

Scout might be a good idea. At least it's someone that does something for an army.

And you think that the army doesn't eat???


scout just as cook is a job not a rank.

Yeah well a scout is actually out in the fight although he may not fight. The cook doesn't really get anywhere near the fights.

Ok boys, I got a solution! How about we call the lowest rank, "Godsav1"

Kinda rings a bell doesn't it?

I'm not the lowest rank.

[GENERAL STONEHAM]

...not yet, but hey it would be a tribute to you at least

[Godsav1]

...not yet, but hey it would be a tribute to you at least

No my score is 884, and I win 33% of the time. I'm not bad.

[GENERAL STONEHAM]

...not yet, but hey it would be a tribute to you at least

No my score is 884, and I win 33% of the time. I'm not bad.

Yes, you do have a 33% winning percentage, but you play lots of two player games.

Now, if you played a lot of 8 player games with a 33% win advantage, you'd be a General by now.

[Godsav1]

...not yet, but hey it would be a tribute to you at least

No my score is 884, and I win 33% of the time. I'm not bad.

Yes, you do have a 33% winning percentage, but you play lots of two player games.

Now, if you played a lot of 8 player games with a 33% win advantage, you'd be a General by now.

Yeah well I just like to play 1 on 1. I am in a few bigger games now though.

[LB Ninja]

casey riabach off of under siege 2 is a cook and hes a badass motherfucker

[Godsav1]

I just won 146 points in an Assassin game and now am a Private 1st class so maybe you guys want to take back what you said.

[EdwinG]

One has to try hard to get to cook... my 1000+ point dump only got me to lieut!

Incorrect...one only has to play a very large number of multiple-player games on a very large number (read "all") of maps. Keep that up for long and it's bound to happen.

I play nothing but multi-player games and I've played on nearly every map. I've also never been below 1000.