Quotas For Each Ranks *Rejected*

[Banana Stomper]

Will we ever have a general? Yes, probably. But at some point, how many generals will we have? Will we eventually have a whole lot of generals, making the position really nothing special? I think it may be a fun idea to instead of do the ranking based on the number of games played and the number of points recieved as the sole determinant, do something along these lines. Have only a specific number of generals, colonels, majors, and captains. This way, you are not competeing against the other players just in the games, but also in the rankings. It will make the ranks more than just a symbol next to your name. You will have beaten someone out to obtain the rank. If there is only one general, 10 colonels, 50 majors, and 100 captains, 300 leiutenents, it could create a new depth to conquer club.

[Hoff]

I think ranks are fine the way they are now.

[niMic]

Banana Stomper, you're trying to turn the rank system into the honor-system used by WoW?

[kingwaffles]

I'm with Hoff, they work pretty well like they are. I can definetly see how it would work and it would be prety cool i just think it's fine like it is. And to piggyback on niMic, the honor system in WoW sucked... just like the rest of the game.

[Banana Stomper]

I'm not really familiar with WoW or the honor system. But regardless, yes the ranking system now is fine, but wouldn't this add a little something to the game?

[kingwaffles]

I think it could, but given the current number of players(over 2,000) I feel that limiting rank to only a quarter of that might be a little unfair... I think the current ranks help to give people a general idea of how a person is ranked without having to look at the scoreboard. I think your system might be nice to have in addition to but not instead of.

[UTGreen]

Well Banana Stomper, I'm in favor of your proposal (and also know nothing about WoW). Why not have rankings done by percentage of active users? Like 5 Generals, 2% Colonels (right now 40), next 3% Major... etc. And just make the game cut off for every rank something like 15 to 30 games. Why should you have to finish 100 games if you've finished enough to get your score in the top tier?

Also there was discussion about more subdivisions of ranks. Like having 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 star generals and something like that (not to be American centric, but it's the system I know: http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/ins ... icers.html)

Anyway, I'm just proud to finally be in a Lieutenant as of today (May 11th). Woo-hoo.

[PaperPlunger]

WoW RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

anyway, maybe we can have TWO scoreboards, I don't really care, but just si everyone would be satisfied, we could have one like the honor system, and one as it is. I don't really care, the only thing tyhat made me post was the fact that world of warcraft was mentioned... sad, yes, but once you play you'll see for yourself!

[kingwaffles]

I think percentages would be a better idea than just a simple flat rate, they could make it better but I still stand by the fact that it's nice to have ranks that tie nto points to have a qucik reference point for how good people are.

And Paper WoW sucks.... I played from day one, trust me.

[PaperPlunger]

well, i own it, and i used to play, until it broke my video card, atm, I am saving for a new pc just to play WoW. BURNING CRUSADE'S COMING OUT WOOOO!

I'm building one, it's gonnna be soooooo rad.

[Banana Stomper]

Well, a system that had ranks that depended on your score relative to everyone else doesn't sacrifice the indication of one's rank. The scores will still be there and everything, but the only difference will be that the general will not be someone with blank score, but will be the best player on conquer club.

[Blitzkreig]

I agree with banana, eventually there will be too many of the top ranks and someone who is a high rank may just be a player who has sat through enough games.

oh and by the way


WOW SUCKS GET A LIFE

[PaperPlunger]

WOW SUCKS GET A LIFE

it's all in the wayyou look at it, I for one HAVE a life, but yet I remain playing WoW, you can do it if you can balance your time. I don't sit in front of my computer for 3 days in a row playing, I just play a little bit at a time.

[UTGreen]

Yeah, this game needs at least 1 General, and certainly need no more than 15. This flat rate score goals of 200 games and 4000 points seems a little arbitrary when no one is within 1500 of the target in points and fairly few have battled through 200 games.

[thegrimsleeper]

You know, three months ago there was some doubt as to whether or not even Colonel status was attainable... And now we have two.

[qeee1]

... and more at a stage. I like the ranks the way they are. If people are generals now, it just doesn't seem as difficult to attain. People who were at the top of the scoreboard at the beginning of conquerclub, never even made major, or captain sometimes. Yet by the proposed ranking system they'd by generals at that time. This way general seems more... worthwhile. Only extremely good players will ever reach general... perhaps none of the top few now will even make it.

[Banana Stomper]

But what happens when you reach it and get say, 5000 points?

where does the game go? With a ranking system that rewards on your abilities and success relatvie to the other competitors keeps the competion going forever, no matter how good anyone gets, you can't stop, or you will be overtaken. you must continue to get better and better. The general will be the best in the game, not some far off goal.

[kingwaffles]

I still feel bot systems have their merits and I think it would be best if we could somehow incorporate both into the system...

[Jota]

Y'know, with that typo there, my first thought while reading this was along the lines of "Risk-playing bots? But wouldn't starting a CC bot break the no-multis rule?"

[dan_the_man]

i think that is a super idea it would make people play for there positions and it would give the game a whole differnet experiance

[Pedronicus]

I'm not over impressed with the scoring method. I often look down the leaderboard and think that the better players are the ones at the top of the leaderboard who have played the lesser amount of games.

Then you check out their games and discover they have been in loads of doubles games with the same person (me included)

I think there should be some sort of formula that takes into consideration the following points:

who you beat (and how good or bad they are)
how many players you played against per game
how many games played

I'm sure one of you out there will be able to work out the correct formula.

[Banana Stomper]

Well, a method that might suffice in taking all of those factors into account may be very easy.

If the ranking system were somehow determined by taking the total score divided by the number of games played or some variation of that, then all would be taken into account. We already look at the rank of your opponent. You score less for team games. So you will come out with a lower score by playing doubles games than single games...

[Marvaddin]

Only to say, I disagree from Pedro this time... More games is very different from great score... in the bottom of the scoreboard there are several players with more games than me... Only because wacicha is in the first page?

[.SCuD.]

I think there is a problem with the ranks, in a few months when a lot of the top players have played a huge number of games, anyone new to CC will find it almost impossible to get anywhere near the top (even if they were the best risk player in the world!)

I think that what we need to do about it is start taking less games in to account. Say take a players last 50 games in to account and discount all others.


This is similar to what they do in the rest of the world of sports... they take the last year in to account, but as every player plays the same tournaments it is pretty much the same as my suggestion.


Add to this... all games over 6 months old are discounted. This way people won't get a good ranking and then sit atop the leaderboard with no way of losing points. To be top you will also have to be active!

[Pedronicus]

I didn't make it clear above.

So you will come out with a lower score by playing doubles games than single games

if you play a 1 person v 2 others its harder than 6 people playing 3 teams of doubles, as by now, all decent players have found their doubles partner and will not be caught out by teaming up with a deadbeat / newbie who attacks their team mate before realising they're in a team.

Does that make sense?