New Rank at 4,000 Points

[Commander62890]

[Mod Edit: There are two proposals, the one originally posted (below) and then clarified by ISN2 that is also below, as well as one suggested by betiko. This thread has been merged in order to clearly see all arguments. Due to assumptions made in betiko's later posts, if submitted, it will be assumed that we are in agreement with ISN2's proposal unless stated otherwise. -JamesKer1]

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?

OP

When you hit 4,000 points, your rank should change.


I do not understand why there is a 1,000-point difference between General and Field Marshal, when Major>Colonel>Brig>General are all 500-point gaps.


I realize that this affects very few people, but the 1,000-point gap makes no sense, and that pisses me off to no end.

[Ace Rimmer]

To make it harder to get to Field Marshal? Lower on the scale it starts at a promotion every 100 points until LT, where it changes to every 200 until Major, then every 500 as you stated. It probably just follows along with the fact that you have to win more the further you go.

[Commander62890]

On the other hand, it is harder to gain points the higher you go, so why the big gap?


This doesn't really affect me, but I was just thinking that if I were a General with 3999 points, I'd sure love to have some sort of rank change at 4k.

[rdsrds2120]

This is a reasonable idea. Do you have any suggestions to what the new rank would be, though?

-rd

[Blitzaholic]

they could add Major General in somewhere if they choose to validate commander62890's suggestion.

there are others as well.

[MrBenn]

I'd still like to see an overhaul of the ranks. qwert started a topic that had a bit of momentum a couple of years back, but lack said to me at the time that score-boundaries and new ranks werenlt on his agenda back then. Maybe things are different now, who knows?

[Rodion]

Can you find that topic, Ben?

[betiko]

I know this has been discussed in the past, but I think it's a bit ridiculous to have a rank that is almost never represented. Most of the time, the points required to become field marshal aren't even fulfilled by the conqueror himself.

why don't we change from:

2000 major
2500 colonel
3000 brigadier
3500 general
4500 field marshal

to a more logical:

2000 major
2500 colonel
3000 brigadier
3500 general
4000 field marshal

Each new 500 points are each time harder to get, so asking 1000 extra points for a general to gain a rank might be too much, and this is proved by the scoreboard. How many have a score range on their profile that shows they reached field marshal requirements one day? That would make 10 field marshals on the entire site if we look at today's scoreboard with the new point requirement I suggest, I think it would remain something rare/hard enough. People are more interested in being conqueror than field marshal, and if you become filed marshal being conqueror you wouldn't even see the logo.

[chapcrap]

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]

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.

[chapcrap]

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.

Yeah, I'm talking about 25-30k active on the scoreboard. But, even then, it wouldn't be like 200 people over 4000 or anything, I'm pretty sure.

[betiko]

I seriously doubt it would be 20

[ISN2]

I believe the current 4500 is good. There are already many people over 4000 points and some of them are going up slowly, we have 1 conqueror rank for only 1 person and there should be a rank that is hard to get only for a few players. If no one can get it easily then it's not a big deal. I'm sure in next few weeks some people will start going over 4500 and that rank will be for them. Making new requirement for a beautiful rank that already more than 10 can get it with the new requirement doesn't seem good from my point of view ...

I prefer that beautiful rank remains special ...

[betiko]

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]

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 ...

[rhp 1]

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 ...

+1

[universalchiro]

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.

[Gabriel13]

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.

I definitely don't think there should be 3 extra ranks added between the two. Possibly one, but I don't believe that is necessary either.

[ISN2]

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.

BS!

[Koganosi]

How many of you guys exactly know that those ranks needed even more plays back in the days?

It was like 5k for field marshal!

Back on topic:

Dunno field marshal should be rare, it has proven before that getting there is possible and yes I have been around with 5+ field marshals at the same time and a conquerer, so jeah its doable. I wouldnt change it, if you lower that rank then what do you do with the next ranks, etc.

Urs

Koganosi

[Dukasaur]

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.

[betiko]

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.

i've barely seen a field marshal hold a week on that scoreboard in over a year, so it's not temporary. it's definitely something useless to have at this point.
And I think that a rank is made to know better the level of the player you are facing without having to go on his profile; 3500 and 4400 generals arejust two different things.
You've got a rank there that makes no sense as no one has it; it seems logical to readjust to the market.

[spiesr]

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]

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.

[Gabriel13]

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.

But the thing is, it's NOT unused 95% of the year.. Sure, nobody has been it for a month of two (FF is now actually)(Whoops, didn't know GO dropped down), but that doesn't mean 95% of the year.. This is actually the first time I've seen it be unused since I've joined.