Rank below cook needed - Waiter - POLL !

[daydream]

This has been suggested before... http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=47578&p=1449421#p1449421

the lower ranks are much too close together on that...

[MrBenn]

the lower ranks are much too close together on that...

But look at the % of players at those scores... why do people focus on points/scores, when the whole premise of this proposal was based on the volume of players??

[FabledIntegral]

the lower ranks are much too close together on that...

But look at the % of players at those scores... why do people focus on points/scores, when the whole premise of this proposal was based on the volume of players??

It doesn't matter when a single win on an 8 player map could send them 3 ranks ahead. The volume could be infinite - yet it's such a small difference that even slight fluctuations would mean a person's long term rank would never be constant.

[daydream]

the lower ranks are much too close together on that...

But look at the % of players at those scores... why do people focus on points/scores, when the whole premise of this proposal was based on the volume of players??

It doesn't matter when a single win on an 8 player map could send them 3 ranks ahead. The volume could be infinite - yet it's such a small difference that even slight fluctuations would mean a person's long term rank would never be constant.

my point exactly. i think the percentage of players is of no relevance to the rank at all... look at it in the military, which this is obviously taken from: are the percentages evenly distributed there? no, of course not. theres a large percentage at the lower ranks, and going up in rank it strongly decreases. (strongly being the big word here)

and what fabled said is exactly what i was thinking of: say, for example, Woodruff wins [game]2996606[/game] (it's a link). at my time of posting he has 889 points, so in both ranking systems he is a cadet. if he won that game he would win significantly more than 200 points, which would catapult him over 1100 points up to the rank of corporal in again both scoring systems. that would mean a quintouple promotion in the suggested system, as opposed to a tripple promotion in the one we have now, which in my opinion is bad enough. i think having a minimum of 100 points between ranks is essential and important.

i do however like the looks and names of the suggested ranks, and think the addition of Scout is very good, because i find cook is a bit harsh on our bad players... putting it to say 500 and below would be better, and adding scout as a rank that sounds a lot more like military than cook just sounds better for them, and will possibly keep them playing longer.

[theanubis]

if anything, the new lowest rank should be porter, or janitor.

[Jeff Hardy]

how about 'Homeguard'

British Homeguard

I suppose some may know it as the National Guard.

i used to watch dad's army on bbc

that one where they capture the germans is a classic

[Mr Changsha]

As we all seem to agree that -400 points would in general suggest deliberate point dropping, how about having a rank of Deserter? I like the Scout rank as well, but scouts are usually pretty decent soldiers (sometime even elite soldiers) and would probably fit better higher up the ranks.

So...

0-400 Deserter
400-700 Cook
700-900 Cadet

I also agree about the fact of the vast majority of soldiers being in the ranks, but who has ever heard of an army with 25% serving as cooks?

[max is gr8]

As we all seem to agree that -400 points would in general suggest deliberate point dropping, how about having a rank of Deserter?

I don't believe we did agree that 400- = On Purpose, I was there for a long time, doesn't mean I was doing it on purpose. 100 and less probably does equal on purpose.

If we do add ranks at the bottom there is going to be even more discrimination Instead I propose the rank Anti-Conqueror, The person at the bottom gets the rank

[FabledIntegral]

As we all seem to agree that -400 points would in general suggest deliberate point dropping, how about having a rank of Deserter?

I don't believe we did agree that 400- = On Purpose, I was there for a long time, doesn't mean I was doing it on purpose. 100 and less probably does equal on purpose.

If we do add ranks at the bottom there is going to be even more discrimination Instead I propose the rank Anti-Conqueror, The person at the bottom gets the rank

Care to enlighten me on what exactly your mindset was in games? Because to get to a score of 400 - you'd literally have to suicide at the beginning of everygame. At a point loss of literally around 5-6 to players that are mere sergeants, you'd have to blow through a loss streak of over 80 I'm guessing from 1000 to even get there without a single win. I don't mean to be insulting - you've shown that you've obviously revamped your strategy due to your score now even more than 4x what it was. I simply don't understand the mindset of some players - do they ignore all other strategy on the board? Do they merely not care about the games they are in? Or do they deadbeat them all..? I [honestly] didn't realize that a single player at rank 400 or below got there unintentionally (and if it was unintentionally it would be because they would rather play in 150+ games and not look at the map, so still not caring about the games).

[max is gr8]

As we all seem to agree that -400 points would in general suggest deliberate point dropping, how about having a rank of Deserter?

I don't believe we did agree that 400- = On Purpose, I was there for a long time, doesn't mean I was doing it on purpose. 100 and less probably does equal on purpose.

If we do add ranks at the bottom there is going to be even more discrimination Instead I propose the rank Anti-Conqueror, The person at the bottom gets the rank

Care to enlighten me on what exactly your mindset was in games? Because to get to a score of 400 - you'd literally have to suicide at the beginning of everygame. At a point loss of literally around 5-6 to players that are mere sergeants, you'd have to blow through a loss streak of over 80 I'm guessing from 1000 to even get there without a single win. I don't mean to be insulting - you've shown that you've obviously revamped your strategy due to your score now even more than 4x what it was. I simply don't understand the mindset of some players - do they ignore all other strategy on the board? Do they merely not care about the games they are in? Or do they deadbeat them all..? I [honestly] didn't realize that a single player at rank 400 or below got there unintentionally (and if it was unintentionally it would be because they would rather play in 150+ games and not look at the map, so still not caring about the games).

I played standard games which I never won.
And I played sequential games which I also never won
I have not changed play style one bit, just my play style is better suited to assassin and terminator games.

[Mr Changsha]

As we all seem to agree that -400 points would in general suggest deliberate point dropping, how about having a rank of Deserter?

I don't believe we did agree that 400- = On Purpose, I was there for a long time, doesn't mean I was doing it on purpose. 100 and less probably does equal on purpose.

If we do add ranks at the bottom there is going to be even more discrimination Instead I propose the rank Anti-Conqueror, The person at the bottom gets the rank

Care to enlighten me on what exactly your mindset was in games? Because to get to a score of 400 - you'd literally have to suicide at the beginning of everygame. At a point loss of literally around 5-6 to players that are mere sergeants, you'd have to blow through a loss streak of over 80 I'm guessing from 1000 to even get there without a single win. I don't mean to be insulting - you've shown that you've obviously revamped your strategy due to your score now even more than 4x what it was. I simply don't understand the mindset of some players - do they ignore all other strategy on the board? Do they merely not care about the games they are in? Or do they deadbeat them all..? I [honestly] didn't realize that a single player at rank 400 or below got there unintentionally (and if it was unintentionally it would be because they would rather play in 150+ games and not look at the map, so still not caring about the games).

I played standard games which I never won.
And I played sequential games which I also never won
I have not changed play style one bit, just my play style is better suited to assassin and terminator games.

Remember, I did say that 'in general' players under 400 points would probably be point dropping, or as fabledintegral is saying, simply not trying.

Nonetheless, I still think 1 rank for 800 points (at this level) is unacceptable.

[max is gr8]

Why, how many people do you see playing cooks as is? High ranks don't join in case they lose. Cooks are stuck playing people of a similar rank until they improve score (which is hard as they can't play higher ranks)

[FabledIntegral]

Why, how many people do you see playing cooks as is? High ranks don't join in case they lose. Cooks are stuck playing people of a similar rank until they improve score (which is hard as they can't play higher ranks)

I play with cooks almost every other game - not because I want to just because they end up joining the damn speed games which are hard to fill. And I'd say 90% of them don't give a shit. You try to give them advice and they say stupid dumb shit like "play your own game, I'll play mine" (as they suicide you) or "stop crying, we aren't teammates are we?? if you want a team game go join teams!"

I hate... loathe... cooks.

EDIT: With the exception of those who truly want to learn. I have sent massive PM's with strategy to merely those ask, as I am more than willing to be nice if one accepts fault OR just says "hey heads up I have no idea what I'm doing," or something of that nature. I've helped at least 2 cooks improve to Sergeant 1st class both... I'm not sure how they've been doing since then.

[ManBungalow]

So does anyone think we should have a Waiter then?

[FabledIntegral]

So does anyone think we should have a Waiter then?

Why would it be waiter? Cook has something to do with the military - they have them... they don't have waiters at all, it makes no sense to have one.

[reggie_mac]

Why would it be waiter? Cook has something to do with the military - they have them... they don't have waiters at all, it makes no sense to have one.

Ahh, yes they do. who do you think servers the officers int he officers mess? They are called a 'Mess Waiter'

[n8dog]

How about 'Civilian'? - If they are that crap, why let them be assigned a military rank?

[reggie_mac]

How about 'Civilian'? - If they are that crap, why let them be assigned a military rank?

now we are talking.

[ManBungalow]

How about 'Civilian'? - If they are that crap, why let them be assigned a military rank?

now we are talking.

Yeah

[KoE_Sirius]

The problem with making more ranks for the lower point levels is that it would actually increase intentional deadbeating and throwing games because some people would want the distinction of having the different/new rank.

Yeah I'd love to be a new rank

[ManBungalow]

The problem with making more ranks for the lower point levels is that it would actually increase intentional deadbeating and throwing games because some people would want the distinction of having the different/new rank.

Yeah I'd love to be a new rank

I still reckon that all of the cooks should be split...
When I was a cook I was always a high cook (now that's an oxymoron ), but was still ranked with those who had absoultely no idea what was going on. I remain convinced that I had some idea of what I was doing.

[reggie_mac]

if im joining a game with cook's i'll look and see how many points they have, if they are a high cook i'll play them, if they are a low cook i won't. So Civilian rank would be handy, cause i would know not to play them and it'd save me a couple of mouse clicks

[MrBenn]

Do we need a Head Chef?

[spiesr]

How about latrine duty?
The icon can be an outhouse or a mop...

[ManBungalow]

How about latrine duty?
The icon can be an outhouse or a mop...

Haha
This needs to be done
Should I PM LackAttack telling him to introduce this rank with the outhouse icon?