Moderator: Community Team
firth4eva wrote:Don't have a rank for people with 1 point. That will make people want to get it.
ParadiceCity9 wrote:firth4eva wrote:Don't have a rank for people with 1 point. That will make people want to get it.
That should be at 400, maybe 500.
FabledIntegral wrote:ParadiceCity9 wrote:firth4eva wrote:Don't have a rank for people with 1 point. That will make people want to get it.
That should be at 400, maybe 500.
Why? What possible reason can you fathom to do it? Rank 600 cook vs rank 400 cook, I sincerely doubt one is ANY better than the other.
Night Strike wrote:I like all these new ranks, except for the really low ones. Having really low ranks could encourage intentional deadbeating and throwing of games to achieve the distinction as being the "Only Conscientious Objector".
scoott0 land
Not gonna say a word about your perversions H2.
Ohh btw- Qwert, if you're suggesting an overhaul why not get rid of the crown looking hat? Maybe have an actual Colonel insignia albeit you'd have to change the Brigadier one too.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
MrBenn wrote:lancehoch wrote:If the change is implemented, what are the completed game requirements for each rank? Like how now you need 100 games to be a colonel. Any comments?
I'm not too sure about the number of games for the highest ranks... the only person at the top of the scorebpoard who might be adversely affected would by Thai Robert, who is currently a freemium Brigadier with 159 completed games...
THE ARMY wrote:I don't like the idea of more ranks. It isn't very easy to get high ranks.See the reason you made this post was to make it more fun to reach the top of the scoreboard.
imcooler wrote:MrBenn wrote:lancehoch wrote:If the change is implemented, what are the completed game requirements for each rank? Like how now you need 100 games to be a colonel. Any comments?
I'm not too sure about the number of games for the highest ranks... the only person at the top of the scorebpoard who might be adversely affected would by Thai Robert, who is currently a freemium Brigadier with 159 completed games...
i like this one the best by far
milner94 wrote:Just a thought:
Why not simply, instead of starting on 1000, start on 0. You lose and win points in the same way as before. However, ranks are determined by percentages. The bottom 10% are Cooks, the next 5% are Privates, or whatever. This would COMPLETELY ELIMINATE inflation, although it does mean you have to carry on winning games to stay at the top.
lozzini wrote:milner94 wrote:Just a thought:
Why not simply, instead of starting on 1000, start on 0. You lose and win points in the same way as before. However, ranks are determined by percentages. The bottom 10% are Cooks, the next 5% are Privates, or whatever. This would COMPLETELY ELIMINATE inflation, although it does mean you have to carry on winning games to stay at the top.
yu could still do a % based scoring system, even if we dont start on 0
ManBungalow wrote:lozzini wrote:milner94 wrote:Just a thought:
Why not simply, instead of starting on 1000, start on 0. You lose and win points in the same way as before. However, ranks are determined by percentages. The bottom 10% are Cooks, the next 5% are Privates, or whatever. This would COMPLETELY ELIMINATE inflation, although it does mean you have to carry on winning games to stay at the top.
yu could still do a % based scoring system, even if we dont start on 0
A rank determined by % wouldn't work...
My win percentage is fairly high, only because I play a lot of 2 or 3 player games.
OliverFA wrote:ManBungalow wrote:lozzini wrote:milner94 wrote:Just a thought:
Why not simply, instead of starting on 1000, start on 0. You lose and win points in the same way as before. However, ranks are determined by percentages. The bottom 10% are Cooks, the next 5% are Privates, or whatever. This would COMPLETELY ELIMINATE inflation, although it does mean you have to carry on winning games to stay at the top.
yu could still do a % based scoring system, even if we dont start on 0
A rank determined by % wouldn't work...
My win percentage is fairly high, only because I play a lot of 2 or 3 player games.
It is not related to your winning percentage. What lozzini suggests is to give ranks based on percentage insteas of points. For example:
Top 1% players in the scoreboard are field marshall
Players between the 1% and 10% of the scoreboard are general
Players between 11% and 20% are coronel.
etc...
And I think it is a very good suggestion! This could be combined with MrBenn ranks. Just instead of base them in score threshold, base them in % of the scoreboard.
ManBungalow wrote:OliverFA wrote:ManBungalow wrote:lozzini wrote:milner94 wrote:Just a thought:
Why not simply, instead of starting on 1000, start on 0. You lose and win points in the same way as before. However, ranks are determined by percentages. The bottom 10% are Cooks, the next 5% are Privates, or whatever. This would COMPLETELY ELIMINATE inflation, although it does mean you have to carry on winning games to stay at the top.
yu could still do a % based scoring system, even if we dont start on 0
A rank determined by % wouldn't work...
My win percentage is fairly high, only because I play a lot of 2 or 3 player games.
It is not related to your winning percentage. What lozzini suggests is to give ranks based on percentage insteas of points. For example:
Top 1% players in the scoreboard are field marshall
Players between the 1% and 10% of the scoreboard are general
Players between 11% and 20% are coronel.
etc...
And I think it is a very good suggestion! This could be combined with MrBenn ranks. Just instead of base them in score threshold, base them in % of the scoreboard.
Ah, I see.
I didn't read it properly: but I'm so tired!!
This idea would work nicely...
I don't see anything wrong with it at least...
lozzini wrote:yes this is what i meant, and now i hav thought about it more i think this would be a great way to bring these new ranks in, and it would mean yu could actually see if yu are improving or not, or whether yu hav just gained some points with the inflation
Users browsing this forum: No registered users