ISN2 wrote:What that has been achieved in the very first posts ...Brigadier General - 3500 (A brigadier general has 1 star)
General - 4000 (A full general has 5 stars)
Field Marshal - 4500
The end?
Moderator: Community Team
ISN2 wrote:What that has been achieved in the very first posts ...Brigadier General - 3500 (A brigadier general has 1 star)
General - 4000 (A full general has 5 stars)
Field Marshal - 4500
The end?
chapcrap wrote:I have no issue with this.
The one thing I would say is that if bigWham is successful in achieving a higher CC population, there should be more higher ranked players as time goes on. So, the 4500 mark should be reached. But, that's definitely not set in stone and historically, I agree with the OP.
betiko wrote:chapcrap wrote:I have no issue with this.
The one thing I would say is that if bigWham is successful in achieving a higher CC population, there should be more higher ranked players as time goes on. So, the 4500 mark should be reached. But, that's definitely not set in stone and historically, I agree with the OP.
I remember 2 years ago or so when the population was much bigger there were 2 field marshals at most, and not all the time.
betiko wrote:You re still very far from it, a rank is not made for 1-2 people to have it when you re lucky and a short period of time, there is already the conqueror rank for that.
Aren t you more interested to run for conqueror rather than field marshal?
A rank title makes it more easy to identify the type of player you face. A 3500 general and a 4400 general are not the same thing at all. I don t know, if you think that 4500 field marshal makes sense, well then there should still be something at 4000 (5 star general, admiral or whatever).
It doesn t make any sense to have a rank such as general that covers such a large spectrum.
ISN2 wrote:betiko wrote:You re still very far from it, a rank is not made for 1-2 people to have it when you re lucky and a short period of time, there is already the conqueror rank for that.
Aren t you more interested to run for conqueror rather than field marshal?
A rank title makes it more easy to identify the type of player you face. A 3500 general and a 4400 general are not the same thing at all. I don t know, if you think that 4500 field marshal makes sense, well then there should still be something at 4000 (5 star general, admiral or whatever).
It doesn t make any sense to have a rank such as general that covers such a large spectrum.
Yeah maybe adding another rank in middle of these two can be the best, I believe that a special rank should be there that only a very few can get and you believe the 1000 points difference between 3500 and 4500 is much (which I agree), so a new rank in middle on 4000 can cover both your idea and mine ...
universalchiro wrote:3,500 one star
3,750 two stars
4,000 three stars
4,250 four stars
4,500 Field Marshall
This will codify the 1,000 point gap from General to Field Marshall.
universalchiro wrote:3,500 one star
3,750 two stars
4,000 three stars
4,250 four stars
4,500 Field Marshall
This will codify the 1,000 point gap from General to Field Marshall.
Dukasaur wrote:Let it remain where it is, for the reasons given above. The current circumstance with no Field Marshalls is temporary. There were more in the past and there will be more again in the future. Let it remain a difficult thing to accomplish.
spiesr wrote:In the past there were requests to add another rank at the top. Now, I think that may have been before the current ranks were implemented, but I think that if the ranks were changed such that there were a significant number of players in the top rank said requests would return.
betiko wrote:spiesr wrote:In the past there were requests to add another rank at the top. Now, I think that may have been before the current ranks were implemented, but I think that if the ranks were changed such that there were a significant number of players in the top rank said requests would return.
Sorry mate but I don t understand what you re saying in the bolded part.. What is a significant number in the top rank? Is <10 significant?
We would have 1 conqueror and 9 field marshals as per today, and that figure is pretty stable. Instead of 1 conqueror and... No field marshal!
This isn t really an achievement, it s a way to recognize where a player is standing for anyone playing them. A rank comes and goes.
Having a rank that is completely unused 95% of the year, while the General rank goes from 3500 to 4499 makes very little sense to me.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users