Moderator: Community Team
betiko wrote:Seriously gaby, last era I remember that had a couple of stable field marshals was when blitz/mc05/glg were conquerors. That s like 2 years ago.
Right now Ollie is artificially conqueror, once he finishes his losers it will be back to ff conqueror and no field marshals.
Ff s score >4500 with no temporary inflation is very rare these days.
betiko wrote:Seriously gaby, last era I remember that had a couple of stable field marshals was when blitz/mc05/glg were conquerors. That s like 2 years ago.
Right now Ollie is artificially conqueror, once he finishes his losers it will be back to ff conqueror and no field marshals.
Ff s score >4500 with no temporary inflation is very rare these days.
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.
Qwert wrote:i sugested far before that we get more sets of ranks. Additionaly all people will have in settings to decide what ranks will want to have displayed.
1. Air
2.Navy
3.New Army
4.Present
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=47578
This will give more ranks
Dukasaur wrote:betiko wrote:Seriously gaby, last era I remember that had a couple of stable field marshals was when blitz/mc05/glg were conquerors. That s like 2 years ago.
Right now Ollie is artificially conqueror, once he finishes his losers it will be back to ff conqueror and no field marshals.
Ff s score >4500 with no temporary inflation is very rare these days.
Yeah, it's rare right now. It's not rare over the historical course of the entire life of the website. There's no point making changes to meet a situation that might last three months or six. The site has turned around and is growing again, so presumably at some point will be back up to its 2010 membership. At that point, are you going to end up with 15 field marshals? Stop thinking that today is everything and look to the long term.
betiko wrote:Seriously gaby, last era I remember that had a couple of stable field marshals was when blitz/mc05/glg were conquerors. That s like 2 years ago.
D4 Damager wrote:I like the rank system as it is, but I can throw in another alternative that might stimulate discussion: why not have a fixed number or proportion of each rank? That is to say, at any one time there is:
(absolute number scheme) 1 conqueror, 3 field marshalls, 10 generals, etc..
(proportion scheme) 1 conqueror, top 0.025% are field marshalls, next 0.05% are generals, etc..
This would compensate for the fact that there are more points circulating when there are more active members on the site.
Shannon Apple wrote:betiko wrote:Seriously gaby, last era I remember that had a couple of stable field marshals was when blitz/mc05/glg were conquerors. That s like 2 years ago.
I've seen field marshals on the scoreboard in the past year since I've been back on CC.![]()
Bringing the requirement down would just open up a demand for a new higher rank later on.
Dukasaur wrote:D4 Damager wrote:I like the rank system as it is, but I can throw in another alternative that might stimulate discussion: why not have a fixed number or proportion of each rank? That is to say, at any one time there is:
(absolute number scheme) 1 conqueror, 3 field marshalls, 10 generals, etc..
(proportion scheme) 1 conqueror, top 0.025% are field marshalls, next 0.05% are generals, etc..
This would compensate for the fact that there are more points circulating when there are more active members on the site.
That is an interesting possibility.
Metsfanmax wrote:How many people have historically been able to consistently stay above 4500 on CC?
Metsfanmax wrote:How many people have historically been able to consistently stay above 4500 on CC?
betiko wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:How many people have historically been able to consistently stay above 4500 on CC?
That is a hell of a question mate. no one can answer this. Also "consistently" is subjective.
betiko wrote:It s totally impossible to answer such question mets. Who are we to tell that player x or y will never have the skill to reach that level? To know that x or y player will retire soon, or come back to cc after a long break..
How many people have historically been able to consistently stay above 4500 on CC?
Metsfanmax wrote:betiko wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:How many people have historically been able to consistently stay above 4500 on CC?
That is a hell of a question mate. no one can answer this. Also "consistently" is subjective.
Yes there's a bit of subjectivity, but I'm asking who can get that high without pulling TheCrown's move. If there's like 10 people, then that's a good argument for possibly lowering the rank.
Metsfanmax wrote:betiko wrote:It s totally impossible to answer such question mets. Who are we to tell that player x or y will never have the skill to reach that level? To know that x or y player will retire soon, or come back to cc after a long break..
I don't care who theoretically could do it, I asked who has done it:How many people have historically been able to consistently stay above 4500 on CC?
If no one can actually answer that question then none of you are being useful. Or at least answer an easier question, like how many people have ever hit 4500. Give me some data to work with here.
betiko wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:betiko wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:How many people have historically been able to consistently stay above 4500 on CC?
That is a hell of a question mate. no one can answer this. Also "consistently" is subjective.
Yes there's a bit of subjectivity, but I'm asking who can get that high without pulling TheCrown's move. If there's like 10 people, then that's a good argument for possibly lowering the rank.
This means who HAS done it for you?
Also do you get my point about active and inactive players?
And why are you asking me? I m telling you I can t answer this question without wild guessing. Apparently you can, because it s an easy question according to you.
Metsfanmax wrote:And why are you asking me? I m telling you I can t answer this question without wild guessing. Apparently you can, because it s an easy question according to you.
I'm asking everyone; if you don't have useful data to contribute, then there's no need to respond. Foxglove's contribution is the first one that's actually helpful in determining whether there's a need for a rank at 4000 (and whether there needs to be one at 4500). Even if all you have is anecdotal, it could be helpful. We may not be able to retrieve this data from the CC database because we historically did not record scores.
Metsfanmax wrote:I don't care who theoretically could do it, I asked who has done it:
betiko wrote:duka, making average stats with this material makes no sense; sometimes you have 2 rankings in the same month, sometimes you have 6 month gap between two rankings, and the most updated you pulled out is a year old.
Also, you are counting the conqueror; so it's -1 field marshal each time.
Secondly; can you guys explain how you make a corelation between active players and amount of people with a 4500+ score? It's absolutely unrelated.
Metsfanmax wrote:betiko wrote:duka, making average stats with this material makes no sense; sometimes you have 2 rankings in the same month, sometimes you have 6 month gap between two rankings, and the most updated you pulled out is a year old.
Also, you are counting the conqueror; so it's -1 field marshal each time.
Secondly; can you guys explain how you make a corelation between active players and amount of people with a 4500+ score? It's absolutely unrelated.
If the correlation doesn't exist, it doesn't change the basic argument for whether or not we should have the rank.
betiko wrote:people have a total freedom of who they face and when they face them.
In the CC system; the richer you get, the more unlikely you are to get even richer. The amount of "money" in circulation does not have a direct impact on the quantity of extremely wealthy people.
Metsfanmax wrote:betiko wrote:people have a total freedom of who they face and when they face them.
In the CC system; the richer you get, the more unlikely you are to get even richer. The amount of "money" in circulation does not have a direct impact on the quantity of extremely wealthy people.
The thing is, it obviously does have a direct impact on the quantity of extremely "wealthy" people. It's just not a linear correlation. And the reason is that your argument about how people have "total freedom of who they face" is not correct. The number of active players does have an effect on the actual games I play. For example, I don't play that much right now because when I go to Join a Speed Game, there basically aren't any ones there that are interesting to me. If there were twice as many active players, I'd be much more likely to play them regularly.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users