Too many junior officers??

[MrBenn]

Some time ago (a really long time ago), I put a lot of thought into possible new rank boundaries, names and possible icons etc... I'll have a dig around and see if I can find it...

edit: and here it is, all the way back from July 2008:

[niMic]

I'd hate to lose Brig, going back to Colonel, just to be bumped back to Major.

Unselfishly, though, it's probably not a bad idea.

[MrBenn]

When this was discussed 15 months ago, there was some mild concern about points inflation, and that the highest scores on the leaderboard would eclipse 6000 points. Since the adjustment to the freestyle double-turn rule, it looks like some of the very highest scores have begun to level off (the highest score right now is 5099).

The key things for me, would be the addition of ranks at the lower end of the scale (because all cooks are not all equal), and more steps along the way to help people aim for realistic goals.

When I have some spare time (haha), I might revisit the proposal above and tweak it a bit...

[Mr Changsha]

When this was discussed 15 months ago, there was some mild concern about points inflation, and that the highest scores on the leaderboard would eclipse 6000 points. Since the adjustment to the freestyle double-turn rule, it looks like some of the very highest scores have begun to level off (the highest score right now is 5099).

The key things for me, would be the addition of ranks at the lower end of the scale (because all cooks are not all equal), and more steps along the way to help people aim for realistic goals.

When I have some spare time (haha), I might revisit the proposal above and tweak it a bit...

I was thinking of your proposal when I made the thread...

We are in agreement on the top end, however, I felt at the time (and still feel) that you added too many ranks at the lower end. Also, I want to push more players into the ranks (Cfc and below).

Interestingly the poll is looking like an exact split between members who think I'm right on that point and those who think I'm completely, entirely wrong!

[mibi]

Some time ago (a really long time ago), I put a lot of thought into possible new rank boundaries, names and possible icons etc... I'll have a dig around and see if I can find it...

edit: and here it is, all the way back from July 2008:

hey that's pretty cool.

[slowreactor]

Beautiful MrBenn. This shouldn't take too long to implement, if we can get enough popular support for it.

[notyou2]

I think it should be based on percentages of the total number of active players in ratio to actual military numbers, so they points to achieve any particular rank would actually float. I think in reality it would move very little unless there was a sudden influx of new members.

For example, say sergeants made up about 5% of the army based upon 20,000 troops in the army. Therefore, at any given time the percentage of players that are sergeants would be 5% if there were approximately 20,000 active players.

This may be unworkable due to coding issues.

I think a system like this would be a truer representation of the actual military ranking system.

I am in agreement to add more ranks, such as sergeant major, and perhaps warrant officer and master warrant officer.

[Georgerx7di]

Some time ago (a really long time ago), I put a lot of thought into possible new rank boundaries, names and possible icons etc... I'll have a dig around and see if I can find it...

edit: and here it is, all the way back from July 2008:

Err, excuse me mrBenn, but ensign is an officer. Should be ranked just above chief warrant officer. Also I don't think "lance sergeant" or "corporal first class" exist in any military that I know of. Perhaps take them out, and then above fill in the appropriate ranks around sergeant major. I don't know E 7 through E 9 for US army well, I thought they were something like master sergeant, senior master sergeant and chief master sergeant. Somebody can google it and double check me.

[HapSmo19]

@ Conscientious Objector

[Commander62890]

I like MrBenn's ranks below 850; the cook class definitely needs to get broken up...
Additionally, I say we increase the number of privates; maybe like 850 to 1200...
And decrease the number of officers, however you want to do that.

Also, add: 2500 = special forces sniper
That would be awesome! I would never try for 3000 ever again.

[MrBenn]

I was thinking of your proposal when I made the thread...

We are in agreement on the top end, however, I felt at the time (and still feel) that you added too many ranks at the lower end. Also, I want to push more players into the ranks (Cfc and below).

Interestingly the poll is looking like an exact split between members who think I'm right on that point and those who think I'm completely, entirely wrong!

Funnily enough, I found the original pieces of paper which I sketched out some of these plans.. I'm actually in agreement that some of the score boundaries I proposed were too close - although some of the impetus behind the similar stepped ranks (ie several types of sergeant) was to indicate that they're all at a similar level (ie Sergeant), but that as a player at that level, there's still a set of realistic goals to go for (ie Staff Sgt, SFC, Sgt Major).

As I said before, there;s still room for improvement, but it was something I put a lot of effort into a while ago - and is still a way off from being a perfect solution.

Err, excuse me mrBenn, but ensign is an officer. Should be ranked just above chief warrant officer. Also I don't think "lance sergeant" or "corporal first class" exist in any military that I know of.

You have to bear in mind that I did all this research 15 months ago. From the reading I did, I got the impression that an Ensign was the lowest ranked officer, and the person who carried the flag (hence the name). I guess I could be mistaken, or the the title means different things for different national armies?? Although I do think it hasn't been in general use for some time??
Lance Sergeant is equivalent to Corporal 1st Class. I think that Lance Sgt is an outdated rank from the British Army - and we already have a CC rank of Corporal 1st Class. These names were added in to help give some additional 'steps' that I mentioned above.

Like I said earlier, there's still plenty of room for discussion

[HayesA]

FYI, just for the sake of wonderment. Wiki's opinion on lance Sergeant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance-Sergeant

[MeDeFe]

@ Conscientious Objector

I love that suggestion.

[elfish_lad]

Alright. Maybe the thoughts of Mr. C. and Mr. B. have some merit at certain levels. (Although, coming as I do from the Civilization Revolution and Halo worlds I still assert that "rank" is an extremely arbitrary and misleading item in game play... and greatly subject to abuse and general "elitism"... okay, end speech.)

However, there is one icon I will support being added:



The deadbeat. General, Lance-Corporal-Shed-cleaner, it should appear next to their rank regardless. That way I can choose when to waste my time.

E.

[jleonnn]

Actually I quite like MrBenn's proposal. I think there are too few ranks and the 500 pts gaps between colonels, majors, brigaiders and generals are too much. We should add a few ranks to fill in those HUGE gaps...

[alex951]

Actually I quite like MrBenn's proposal. I think there are too few ranks and the 500 pts gaps between colonels, majors, brigaiders and generals are too much. We should add a few ranks to fill in those HUGE gaps...

co-sign,

i think its time for a change!!

[Snorri1234]

You have to bear in mind that I did all this research 15 months ago. From the reading I did, I got the impression that an Ensign was the lowest ranked officer, and the person who carried the flag (hence the name). I guess I could be mistaken, or the the title means different things for different national armies?? Although I do think it hasn't been in general use for some time??

It is the lowest ranked officer, but it's still an officer so therefore ranks above Sergeants, Corporals and Warrant Officer (who isn't actually an officer).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensign_(rank)

Lance Sergeant is equivalent to Corporal 1st Class. I think that Lance Sgt is an outdated rank from the British Army - and we already have a CC rank of Corporal 1st Class. These names were added in to help give some additional 'steps' that I mentioned above.

I like it. We do need more junior ranks (new people probably like it better when their rank changes faster in the beginning) and while these ranks might not technically exist anymore they look good.

I can understand the objection that there will be a lot of low ranks, but I don't see a problem with it. It gives people something to see as a measure of their increasing skill. It's just something fun to look at and there are large enough gaps in the top-.end

[Fruitcake]

As of today, 17% of CC's finest are ranked at officer or above and a whopping 11% of players are either lieutenants or captains.

Senior officers (colonel and above) make up 1.6% of the rankings while the brigadiers and up make up .5%.

7% of current players are cooks..too many cooks and not enough soliders it seems to me!

Fact is, we have too many officers.

How about we make 2,000 points the cut off for lieutenant? This would give us a 5% officer base..which seems a bit more reasonable to me.

CC could add in levels of NCO's to cover 1,600 to 2,000 and I would like to see something like...

800 = Cadet
900 = Private
1100 = Private 1st Class
1300 = Corporal
1400 = Corporal 1st Class
1600 = Sergeant
1800 = Sergeant 1st Class
1900 = Sergeant Major
2000 = Lieutenant
2300 = Captain
2500 = Major
3000 = Colonel
3500 = Brigadier
4000 = General
4500 = Field Marshall

I also adjusted the lower end, as it is equally ridiculous to have, for example, more sergeants than privates. The 100 point spread of sergeant majors would reflect their rarity in the army..I think it would be quite a nice niche rank to have. Colonel would become a real challenge to aim for, while we could count our true elite (Generals) on two hands.

What say you?

Your ranks do not bear close scrutiny as you have missed out the hidden ranks they represent.

I have placed those details below.

800 (or less) = Proof that there is sometimes a case for eugenics (zeta grade)
900 = Requires constant Savlon attention for knuckles AKA cannon fodder (epsilon grade, requires soma fix daily)
1100 = Normally found at back of class with oddly sloping forehead but good cannon fodder all the same (epsilon grade, requires soma occasionally)
1300 = Also found at back of class reading book, but not realising it is upside down (epsilon grade, no soma)
1400 = Well, we all need good dishwashers (delta grade)
1600 = Struggles manfully to keep up with basic grade (delta+ grade)
1800 = Manages basic grade and looks down nose at 1600 and below (low end gamma grade)
1900 = Wishes they were a 2000 (high end gamma grade, wishes to be a beta)
2000 = Thanks the Lord daily they aren't one of those below (low end beta with delusional moments)
2300 = Knows they are better than those below so ignores the thanking the Lord (typical bourgeois beta)
2500 = Feels comfortable with beta existence.
3000 = Knows they are members of Aristos and normally driven to higher (Alpha grade...of course)
3500 = Has all the attitudes of Aristo and whipping the serfs (Alpha)
4000 = Pretty relaxed because has all the life advantages like skill, intelligence, breeding capabilities etc (Alpha+)
4500 = Sits at top of cc food chain, sometimes incorrectly but an Alpha++ all the same, if only due to cunning and wiliness.

[Georgerx7di]

I was thinking of your proposal when I made the thread...

We are in agreement on the top end, however, I felt at the time (and still feel) that you added too many ranks at the lower end. Also, I want to push more players into the ranks (Cfc and below).

Interestingly the poll is looking like an exact split between members who think I'm right on that point and those who think I'm completely, entirely wrong!

Funnily enough, I found the original pieces of paper which I sketched out some of these plans.. I'm actually in agreement that some of the score boundaries I proposed were too close - although some of the impetus behind the similar stepped ranks (ie several types of sergeant) was to indicate that they're all at a similar level (ie Sergeant), but that as a player at that level, there's still a set of realistic goals to go for (ie Staff Sgt, SFC, Sgt Major).

As I said before, there;s still room for improvement, but it was something I put a lot of effort into a while ago - and is still a way off from being a perfect solution.

Err, excuse me mrBenn, but ensign is an officer. Should be ranked just above chief warrant officer. Also I don't think "lance sergeant" or "corporal first class" exist in any military that I know of.

You have to bear in mind that I did all this research 15 months ago. From the reading I did, I got the impression that an Ensign was the lowest ranked officer, and the person who carried the flag (hence the name). I guess I could be mistaken, or the the title means different things for different national armies?? Although I do think it hasn't been in general use for some time??
Lance Sergeant is equivalent to Corporal 1st Class. I think that Lance Sgt is an outdated rank from the British Army - and we already have a CC rank of Corporal 1st Class. These names were added in to help give some additional 'steps' that I mentioned above.

Like I said earlier, there's still plenty of room for discussion

Yes, Ensign is the lowest rank officer. Sergeants and corporals are not officers, and there for are lower than ensign. Technically so is warrant officer, as these are usually old enlisted people who are turned into officers.

[Snorri1234]

As of today, 17% of CC's finest are ranked at officer or above and a whopping 11% of players are either lieutenants or captains.

Senior officers (colonel and above) make up 1.6% of the rankings while the brigadiers and up make up .5%.

7% of current players are cooks..too many cooks and not enough soliders it seems to me!

Fact is, we have too many officers.

How about we make 2,000 points the cut off for lieutenant? This would give us a 5% officer base..which seems a bit more reasonable to me.

CC could add in levels of NCO's to cover 1,600 to 2,000 and I would like to see something like...

800 = Cadet
900 = Private
1100 = Private 1st Class
1300 = Corporal
1400 = Corporal 1st Class
1600 = Sergeant
1800 = Sergeant 1st Class
1900 = Sergeant Major
2000 = Lieutenant
2300 = Captain
2500 = Major
3000 = Colonel
3500 = Brigadier
4000 = General
4500 = Field Marshall

I also adjusted the lower end, as it is equally ridiculous to have, for example, more sergeants than privates. The 100 point spread of sergeant majors would reflect their rarity in the army..I think it would be quite a nice niche rank to have. Colonel would become a real challenge to aim for, while we could count our true elite (Generals) on two hands.

What say you?

Your ranks do not bear close scrutiny as you have missed out the hidden ranks they represent.

I have placed those details below.

800 (or less) = Proof that there is sometimes a case for eugenics (zeta grade)
900 = Requires constant Savlon attention for knuckles AKA cannon fodder (epsilon grade, requires soma fix daily)
1100 = Normally found at back of class with oddly sloping forehead but good cannon fodder all the same (epsilon grade, requires soma occasionally)
1300 = Also found at back of class reading book, but not realising it is upside down (epsilon grade, no soma)
1400 = Well, we all need good dishwashers (delta grade)
1600 = Struggles manfully to keep up with basic grade (delta+ grade)
1800 = Manages basic grade and looks down nose at 1600 and below (low end gamma grade)
1900 = Wishes they were a 2000 (high end gamma grade, wishes to be a beta)
2000 = Thanks the Lord daily they aren't one of those below (low end beta with delusional moments)
2300 = Knows they are better than those below so ignores the thanking the Lord (typical bourgeois beta)
2500 = Feels comfortable with beta existence.
3000 = Knows they are members of Aristos and normally driven to higher (Alpha grade...of course)
3500 = Has all the attitudes of Aristo and whipping the serfs (Alpha)
4000 = Pretty relaxed because has all the life advantages like skill, intelligence, breeding capabilities etc (Alpha+)
4500 = Sits at top of cc food chain, sometimes incorrectly but an Alpha++ all the same, if only due to cunning and wiliness.

I think I can go further and tell what these ranks really, really mean:

800 (or less)= Sucks and/or doesn't give a f*ck about the game.
900= Quit because he was losing.
1100= To the person's suprise he won some games.
1300= Won even more games, convinced the dice are rigged and quits the game.
1400= Are all of the other players noobs or what?
1600= Oh I see, they're avoiding those who can play this game.
1800= I decided I like this game and love to play it some more.
1900= Gotta get my score up!
2000= I think I might be addicted to this game. I should probably stop.
2300= Addiction is for coke-heads! LONG LIVE THE INTERWEBS!
2500= I conveniently managed to get all my friend to sign up and then kill them for a couple of games. Way to add points!
3000= I wonder if JOHNNyROCKETS24 will let me into his group...
3500= f*ck that guy, I'm forming my own group. With blackjack and hookers....in fact, forget the group!
4000= hey guess what guys my wife is divorcing me, let's get some feudal war going on!
4500= POINTS FOR THE POINTSGOD! RANKS FOR THE RANKTHRONE!

[Mr Changsha]

As of today, 17% of CC's finest are ranked at officer or above and a whopping 11% of players are either lieutenants or captains.

Senior officers (colonel and above) make up 1.6% of the rankings while the brigadiers and up make up .5%.

7% of current players are cooks..too many cooks and not enough soliders it seems to me!

Fact is, we have too many officers.

How about we make 2,000 points the cut off for lieutenant? This would give us a 5% officer base..which seems a bit more reasonable to me.

CC could add in levels of NCO's to cover 1,600 to 2,000 and I would like to see something like...

800 = Cadet
900 = Private
1100 = Private 1st Class
1300 = Corporal
1400 = Corporal 1st Class
1600 = Sergeant
1800 = Sergeant 1st Class
1900 = Sergeant Major
2000 = Lieutenant
2300 = Captain
2500 = Major
3000 = Colonel
3500 = Brigadier
4000 = General
4500 = Field Marshall

I also adjusted the lower end, as it is equally ridiculous to have, for example, more sergeants than privates. The 100 point spread of sergeant majors would reflect their rarity in the army..I think it would be quite a nice niche rank to have. Colonel would become a real challenge to aim for, while we could count our true elite (Generals) on two hands.

What say you?

Your ranks do not bear close scrutiny as you have missed out the hidden ranks they represent.

I have placed those details below.

800 (or less) = Proof that there is sometimes a case for eugenics (zeta grade)
900 = Requires constant Savlon attention for knuckles AKA cannon fodder (epsilon grade, requires soma fix daily)
1100 = Normally found at back of class with oddly sloping forehead but good cannon fodder all the same (epsilon grade, requires soma occasionally)
1300 = Also found at back of class reading book, but not realising it is upside down (epsilon grade, no soma)
1400 = Well, we all need good dishwashers (delta grade)
1600 = Struggles manfully to keep up with basic grade (delta+ grade)
1800 = Manages basic grade and looks down nose at 1600 and below (low end gamma grade)
1900 = Wishes they were a 2000 (high end gamma grade, wishes to be a beta)
2000 = Thanks the Lord daily they aren't one of those below (low end beta with delusional moments)
2300 = Knows they are better than those below so ignores the thanking the Lord (typical bourgeois beta)
2500 = Feels comfortable with beta existence.
3000 = Knows they are members of Aristos and normally driven to higher (Alpha grade...of course)
3500 = Has all the attitudes of Aristo and whipping the serfs (Alpha)
4000 = Pretty relaxed because has all the life advantages like skill, intelligence, breeding capabilities etc (Alpha+)
4500 = Sits at top of cc food chain, sometimes incorrectly but an Alpha++ all the same, if only due to cunning and wiliness.

The view from the top...am I the only one who has noticed that Fc can't go five posts without having to whip something?

I think I can go further and tell what these ranks really, really mean:

800 (or less)= Sucks and/or doesn't give a f*ck about the game.
900= Quit because he was losing.
1100= To the person's suprise he won some games.
1300= Won even more games, convinced the dice are rigged and quits the game.
1400= Are all of the other players noobs or what?
1600= Oh I see, they're avoiding those who can play this game.
1800= I decided I like this game and love to play it some more.
1900= Gotta get my score up!
2000= I think I might be addicted to this game. I should probably stop.
2300= Addiction is for coke-heads! LONG LIVE THE INTERWEBS!
2500= I conveniently managed to get all my friend to sign up and then kill them for a couple of games. Way to add points!
3000= I wonder if JOHNNyROCKETS24 will let me into his group...
3500= f*ck that guy, I'm forming my own group. With blackjack and hookers....in fact, forget the group!
4000= hey guess what guys my wife is divorcing me, let's get some feudal war going on!
4500= POINTS FOR THE POINTSGOD! RANKS FOR THE RANKTHRONE!

Written like true 'private' snorri. Figuratively speaking, Fc is currently warming up his flaying hand because, well, that's just what he enjoys doing of a Friday night. But the bloody impertinance, the mocking of your betters...here my friends we have CC's Lenin in genesis form. A vote for 'Red Snorri' = death camps for the officers, you mark my words.

Methinks that in snorri we have an aristo (or at least a bourgeois merchant with a 'social conscience') masquerading as a common serf for political gain.

His 'People's Analysis of Rank' is, effectively, a communist manifesto for a popular uprising.

Dangerous times...

[Crazyirishman]

Mr. C, your class is the only one that I am incapable of getting an Alpha or Beta. Your a tough teacher

[Fruitcake]

The view from the top...am I the only one who has noticed that Fc can't go five posts without having to whip something?

Wel, like Nelson, I am firmly of the belief that the lower orders should be flogged daily.

[khazalid]

slightly more on topic - the list you compiled is very close to what the old rankings were. the officer ranks specifically were all -1 from current (2500-2999 = major, for exmaple)

[laughingcavalier]

Hold it: I have changed my mind. Mr Changsha is no longer a genius.

I would like to see some revision to ranks, not dissimilar to Mr C's original suggestion. But I do have reservations.

What is the purpose of the CC rankings? To ape somebody's military? (Whose military anyway?) No, it exists purportedly to offer players a rough and ready guide to their opponents' strength. And more surely to offer us an opiate, a palliative, a reward for our long hours spent climbing the CC tree.

Where does your 5% figure come from Mr Changsha? It seems the US has followed morie enlightened regimes in cutting their officer/enlisted ratio in recent years, but this is driven by realpolitik: copying the flat structure prevalent in the corporate world; saving on the wage bill; replacing talented generalists with well-trained specialists ... In approximate figures, the US officer corps represented 10% of the military in WW2, 14% in 1989 and 16% in 1999: considerably above the 5% Mr C proposes for CC today.

The "5% may be officers" rule does not much help with understanding a player's skill, and probably militates against players' self-satisfaction. Raising the officer bar is probably a good idea. As more players achieve higher scores, better to give them a harder test and a greater sense of achievement in passing it. But the bar would be better set at, say "10% of players are officers", or "1800 for lieutenant". More likely to give greater joy to more people that way.

On Mr Benn's rankings: a fine idea attractively visualised, concisely expressed. But far too many ranks. It would be confusing for the humble player such as myself searching for opponents: how on earth would I remember the significance of so many symbols so similar in nature? And Mr Benn's system might actually serve to undermine ambition. Too many promotions to aim for, with too little distinction between them, and we might lose the joy currently experienced by so many players when they reach the magic number that bumps them up. Let's keep the ranks within the numbers I can count on my fingers and toes. And ditch all those gradations at the top of the tree. Those guys can go congratulate each other in one of blitz's threads, we really don't need to see it all spread out in technicolour across the scoreboard. I do however love the conchy rank. Genius.

Some greater gradation in the 1000-1600 range? Quite probably a good idea. Though for myself I don't really remember even really noticing rank until I got to somewhere round 1500.

A question: how are the proportions of players in different rankings changing over time? We have Mr Benn's breakdown of ranks from July '08. What does the same breakdown look like now? A higher percentage of players in the higher ranks? And how might it look in another 12 or 24 months?

Mr Changsha, thanks for the idea, though you are no longer a genius, I am glad somebody is working on it for you.