Rank below cook needed - Waiter - POLL !

Suggestions that have been archived.

Moderator: Community Team

Do we need a rank below the cook ?

Yes
66
69%
No
26
27%
Not sure
4
4%
 
Total votes: 96

User avatar
reggie_mac
Posts: 299
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:06 pm
Location: Queenstown, NZ
Contact:

Re: Rank below cook needed- Waiter

Post by reggie_mac »

Do it
Soviet Invaders: Space Invaders, it's not just a game
New Zealand Map - Foundry
"You can please all of the people some of the time, or some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time"
Jeff Hardy
Posts: 1338
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:22 am
Location: Matt Hardy's account, you can play against me there

Re: Rank below cook needed- Waiter

Post by Jeff Hardy »

yeah definitely ask lack
when i play cooks i always look if they are one of the cooks that are nearly cadet or the type that has less than 400 points
it even changes the way i play... and my respect for them
this might sound harsh but i respect players with less than 400 a lot less because i know they are there on purpose and that is stupid of them
pookey
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:13 am

Re: Rank below cook needed- Waiter

Post by pookey »

ManBungalow wrote:I think a Conscientious Objector rank (or Waiter ;) ) could be a great idea. If i lose to a cook with 700 odd points then I'm only going to lose 40/50 something maybe. If, however, I lose to a cook with say 10 points I will lose 100 points. Unless I check the profile of every cook I play, I won't know when to change my strategy accordingly.


Agreed i think it is a great idea. :)

The rank of Waiter (or whatever you want to call it) should be established at around the 500 point mark.
User avatar
GrimReaper.
Posts: 913
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: everywhere

Re: Rank below cook needed- Waiter

Post by GrimReaper. »

Timminz wrote:How about we call the new rank "Perma-banned"? Anyone below, say, 300 points can't play anymore. I doubt you'll find anyone below that, who hasn't been losing intentionally anyway.


i dropped from around 900 to 500 in a week because my uncle has lekumis and it was difficult for me to get on (still is)
Image
When the first Atom bomb test was complete a colleague of Oppenheimer said: "What an Awesome and Foul display of Power." a moment later he added, "Now we are all sons of bitches"
User avatar
KoE_Sirius
Posts: 1646
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Somerset

Re: Rank below cook needed- Waiter

Post by KoE_Sirius »

GrimReaper. wrote:
Timminz wrote:How about we call the new rank "Perma-banned"? Anyone below, say, 300 points can't play anymore. I doubt you'll find anyone below that, who hasn't been losing intentionally anyway.


i dropped from around 900 to 500 in a week because my uncle has lekumis and it was difficult for me to get on (still is)

Give your PW to a member of your clan and let them take your turns if you are away.
Highest Rank 4th.
FabledIntegral
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:04 pm
Location: Highest Rank: 7 Highest Score: 3810
Contact:

Re: Rank below cook needed- Waiter

Post by FabledIntegral »

I hardly notice a difference between a 1200 player and a 400 player. You guys kidding when you say you see a difference between someone with 750 points vs 400 points? Seriously?

The 400 pt cook could win a doodle assassin and easily be ranked around 800+ after that, no longer being a cook in the first place.
User avatar
GrimReaper.
Posts: 913
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: everywhere

Re: Rank below cook needed- Waiter

Post by GrimReaper. »

KoE_Sirius wrote:
GrimReaper. wrote:
Timminz wrote:How about we call the new rank "Perma-banned"? Anyone below, say, 300 points can't play anymore. I doubt you'll find anyone below that, who hasn't been losing intentionally anyway.


i dropped from around 900 to 500 in a week because my uncle has lekumis and it was difficult for me to get on (still is)

Give your PW to a member of your clan and let them take your turns if you are away.






it happened so sudden i couldnt get on time was really short still is...
Image
When the first Atom bomb test was complete a colleague of Oppenheimer said: "What an Awesome and Foul display of Power." a moment later he added, "Now we are all sons of bitches"
ManBungalow
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:02 am
Location: On a giant rock orbiting a star somewhere

Re: Rank below cook needed- Waiter

Post by ManBungalow »

When I was a cook, I was stuck there for ages. Always between 700-800 points. Then I got the idea, and went straight up to Sergeant 1st Class (where I am now, when not a Lieutenant). I maybe we should take out the Private 1st Class rank or something? I still think, though, that a REALLY low score (eg 400 or less) should be distinquished. This is the type of player that enters a game and auto-attacks straight away.
Image
FabledIntegral
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:04 pm
Location: Highest Rank: 7 Highest Score: 3810
Contact:

Re: Rank below cook needed- Waiter

Post by FabledIntegral »

ManBungalow wrote:When I was a cook, I was stuck there for ages. Always between 700-800 points. Then I got the idea, and went straight up to Sergeant 1st Class (where I am now, when not a Lieutenant). I maybe we should take out the Private 1st Class rank or something? I still think, though, that a REALLY low score (eg 400 or less) should be distinquished. This is the type of player that enters a game and auto-attacks straight away.


Is that not what a 700 pt cook does?
ManBungalow
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:02 am
Location: On a giant rock orbiting a star somewhere

Re: Rank below cook needed- Waiter

Post by ManBungalow »

FabledIntegral wrote:
ManBungalow wrote:When I was a cook, I was stuck there for ages. Always between 700-800 points. Then I got the idea, and went straight up to Sergeant 1st Class (where I am now, when not a Lieutenant). I maybe we should take out the Private 1st Class rank or something? I still think, though, that a REALLY low score (eg 400 or less) should be distinquished. This is the type of player that enters a game and auto-attacks straight away.


Is that not what a 700 pt cook does?

Jump up to Lieutenant you mean?
Image
ManBungalow
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:02 am
Location: On a giant rock orbiting a star somewhere

Re: Rank below cook needed- Waiter

Post by ManBungalow »

Maybe we should keep a count of who disagrees and who agrees with this suggestion...
Is there any way of making a poll in this thread now?
Image
Jeff Hardy
Posts: 1338
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:22 am
Location: Matt Hardy's account, you can play against me there

Re: Rank below cook needed- Waiter

Post by Jeff Hardy »

FabledIntegral wrote:I hardly notice a difference between a 1200 player and a 400 player. You guys kidding when you say you see a difference between someone with 750 points vs 400 points? Seriously?

The 400 pt cook could win a doodle assassin and easily be ranked around 800+ after that, no longer being a cook in the first place.

there is little difference in play but for some there is a lot of difference in the points they win/lose
User avatar
samuelc812
Posts: 2215
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:56 am
Gender: Male

Re: Rank below cook needed- Waiter

Post by samuelc812 »

I reckon replace the Cook Rank with "Medic" and push "Cook" back to 500 or so...
ManBungalow
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:02 am
Location: On a giant rock orbiting a star somewhere

Re: Rank below cook needed - Waiter - POLL !

Post by ManBungalow »

bump : please vote :D
Image
ManBungalow
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:02 am
Location: On a giant rock orbiting a star somewhere

Re: Rank below cook needed - Waiter - POLL !

Post by ManBungalow »

I'll be interested to see some more cooks post here as well.
8-)

Is there a "Cook clan" or something that I could message ??
Image
User avatar
theconquerer1995
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:12 pm
Location: Inside your mind

Re: Rank below cook needed- Waiter

Post by theconquerer1995 »

e_i_pi wrote:If we're going to have Waiter, can there be a rank below that called Dumb-Waiter? :P


:lol: :lol: :lol:

reggie_mac wrote:Brilliant idea, although waiter is probably not the right term, i'd like to see dish-pis (pot scrubber, or some other kitchen name) but my personal favorite would be "Janitor" because it has more implications for how shite they are :)


actually, i like janitor too.
2008-11-26 12:51:53 - Moran555: i don't team up on people, i just attack whoever that will benefit me the most and yes that was red
User avatar
FarangDemon
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:36 am
Contact:

Re: Rank below cook needed - Waiter - POLL !

Post by FarangDemon »

Suggestion: 700 is a better cutoff than 600

Look at scoreboard.

1905/19749 players are cooks. That is 9.6% of all players.

Only 358/19749 players are below 600. Do we need a special rank for this bottom 1.8%?
To split cooks in half, the lowest rank would cutoff at 711 points.

I totally understand the player who said that the info is nice to know in order to minimize point loss risk. Maybe a "progress bar" could be added below everyone's rank icon to indicate how close they are to achieving the next rank?
User avatar
FarangDemon
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:36 am
Contact:

Re: Rank below cook needed- Waiter

Post by FarangDemon »

max is gr8 wrote: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)


Lets cut the sympathy right here.

=D>

I don't think cooks have it rough.

Cooks have plenty of opportunities to play high ranked people. Many high ranked people love playing cooks - that's how they get a lot of their points.

:roll:

So you don't need to play higher ranked people to move up in rank. In fact, when I began I was afraid of the higher ranks so I stayed away from them. I gained in rank very quickly just playing people my own rank. Then I realized that the CC gods were not immortal... and now, as a demon, :twisted:, I have become one of the immortals myself.

A 750 that beats a 1200 wins 32 points.
At 2813, I'd need to beat someone with 4500.8 points in order to get 32 points.

I would have to slay a field marshal. All a cook has to do is beat a middle ranked player. And that's a high cook (or master chef :lol:).
ManBungalow
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:02 am
Location: On a giant rock orbiting a star somewhere

Re: Rank below cook needed - Waiter - POLL !

Post by ManBungalow »

I wonder if the lowest rank (let's say Waiter) could be prevented from playing with Field Marshalls or above...

This would cut back on farming, encourage Waiters to get promoted and make the ranks more interesting :)

Any thoughts ?
Image
User avatar
Artimis
Posts: 810
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:09 am
Gender: Male
Location: Right behind ya!!! >:D

Re: Rank below cook needed- Waiter

Post by Artimis »

Timminz wrote:Make it 100 points then. I believe strongly that no one can maintain a rank that low, naturally.


I beg to differ, I was well on my way to less than 500 when I was trying out some wacky tactics back along. :D
==================================================
This post was sponsored by Far-Q Industries.

Far-Q Industries: Telling you where to go since 2008.
User avatar
Timminz
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:05 pm
Gender: Male
Location: At the store

Re: Rank below cook needed- Waiter

Post by Timminz »

Artimis wrote:
Timminz wrote:Make it 100 points then. I believe strongly that no one can maintain a rank that low, naturally.


I beg to differ, I was well on my way to less than 500 when I was trying out some wacky tactics back along. :D

There is a HUGE difference between 500 and 100.
User avatar
a.sub
Posts: 1834
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:07 am
Gender: Male

Re: Rank below cook needed - Waiter - POLL !

Post by a.sub »

can we call them "cargo" or something like that?
User avatar
obliterationX
Posts: 953
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:52 pm
Gender: Female
Location: Yeah

Re: Rank below cook needed - Waiter - POLL !

Post by obliterationX »

ManBungalow wrote:I wonder if the lowest rank (let's say Waiter) could be prevented from playing with Field Marshalls or above...

This would cut back on farming, encourage Waiters to get promoted and make the ranks more interesting :)

Any thoughts ?

Nobody farms chefs do they? So how would that help at all.. ?
User avatar
Joodoo
Posts: 1639
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:19 am
Gender: Male
Location: Greater Toronto, Canada

Re: Rank below cook needed- Waiter

Post by Joodoo »

Scott-Land wrote:
Jeff Hardy wrote:i agree with both suggestions
i think a new rank for players with less than 500
and a ban for players who get less than 300



Everyone says that the current ranking system doesn't properly gauge a player's ability. I say dump the old military ones and use a more realistic system- that way you know exactly what kind of player you're up against.

Forest Gump- Conqueror
Genius
Smartass
Noob
Idiot
Dipshit
Dumbass
Retarded


It'll be hilarious if everyone accepts this system :lol:
User avatar
a.sub
Posts: 1834
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:07 am
Gender: Male

Re: Rank below cook needed- Waiter

Post by a.sub »

Scott-Land wrote:Everyone says that the current ranking system doesn't properly gauge a player's ability. I say dump the old military ones and use a more realistic system- that way you know exactly what kind of player you're up against.

Forest Gump- Conqueror
Genius
Smartass
Noob
Idiot
Dipshit
Dumbass
Retarded
Fuck-tarded
Politician


i edited it to make it a bit more versatile and accurate
Post Reply

Return to “Archived Suggestions”