However, what would you classify as the "good, but not outstanding in any sense of the word" ranking?
The "respectable but not fantastic" ranking?
Just wanna know what you lovely folks think
Moderator: Community Team
Same for me, and to think when i was first here i thought majors were unbeatable.danryan wrote:I'm never embarrassed to be at major, but I am a little shamed whenever I fall below it. I haven't had stripes in so long I've forgotten what that feels like.
TheSaxlad wrote:The Dice suck a lot of the time.
And if they dont suck then they blow.


i got down to whatever you call the rank with stripes for a while last month in the midst of a bunch of medal-hunting games... took me forever to get the hang of nuclear, lol...lord voldemort wrote:yep definately major....but like george said...there are definately times that capable players fall below that for whatever reasons. They know they can push up the board at anytime

Its not obvious to me that a Brigadier or a General are good players.It more obvious that they are boosters or snobs.lalaland wrote:Obviously, if you're a Brigadier or General or the like, then you're considered a fairly elite player, while cook/cadet is generally considered inferior.
However, what would you classify as the "good, but not outstanding in any sense of the word" ranking?
The "respectable but not fantastic" ranking?
Just wanna know what you lovely folks think

Robinette wrote:Depends on what metric you use...Kaskavel wrote:Seriously. Who is the female conqueror of CC?
The coolest is squishyg
A preimum player can simply start 50 Luxembourg/Doodle Earth Assassin Games to hunt for the Gold Assassin Medal, and they can do the same for the other game type medals.squishyg wrote:i was extremely proud once i became lieutenant. to me, that was proof that i knew how to play the game. maybe i'm odd, but i see medals as more indicative of a player's ability.
TheSaxlad wrote:The Dice suck a lot of the time.
And if they dont suck then they blow.
Well this is not entirely accurate. I play the same games/types of games as I have since I joined CC. I was on the verge of being a Brig until a miserable random streak slapped me down but I am quite confident I will have a bird playing the exact same public sequential no spoils games I have always played.Georgerx7di wrote: To get much higher than major you have to be selective with games.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".

Robinette wrote:Depends on what metric you use...Kaskavel wrote:Seriously. Who is the female conqueror of CC?
The coolest is squishyg
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.
jefjef wrote:Well this is not entirely accurate. I play the same games/types of games as I have since I joined CC. I was on the verge of being a Brig until a miserable random streak slapped me down but I am quite confident I will have a bird playing the exact same public sequential no spoils games I have always played.Georgerx7di wrote: To get much higher than major you have to be selective with games.
Now as far as what is a good rank. Most 1st sargents and higher you can/should expect game on! I know of many sarges that are very competent. Many players that are Capt/Lt/Sarge play a lot of low win % stuff just cuz they are having fun.
Of course there are high rankers that just couldn't maintain/achieve the rank with out some shady tactics or being map specific. Not much fun in that.

Agreed Bruce.Bruceswar wrote:jefjef wrote:Well this is not entirely accurate. I play the same games/types of games as I have since I joined CC. I was on the verge of being a Brig until a miserable random streak slapped me down but I am quite confident I will have a bird playing the exact same public sequential no spoils games I have always played.Georgerx7di wrote: To get much higher than major you have to be selective with games.
Now as far as what is a good rank. Most 1st sargents and higher you can/should expect game on! I know of many sarges that are very competent. Many players that are Capt/Lt/Sarge play a lot of low win % stuff just cuz they are having fun.
Of course there are high rankers that just couldn't maintain/achieve the rank with out some shady tactics or being map specific. Not much fun in that.
You are playing mainly team games... ofc you can make brig by playing public games. That is the counter to playing private games. Try playing people of your skill level and see how long your rank last. Majors, Colonels and brigs. Beating up on cooks makes you no better than the next person. On the other hand if you were playing std seq no spoils games and holding your rank in public games then that is something.
As to what ranks are good:
Sgt and under = total shit player
Sgt First class = OK player
Lt. and Capt = Decent
Major = Good
Colonel = Very good
Brig = Elite
General or Higher = Farmer or Super Elite


By this I would say Captain.However, what would you classify as the "good, but not outstanding in any sense of the word" ranking?