NEW RANKS Sugestions. [Poll Added]

[Crazyirishman]

What's even happening in this thread? I'm confused. What's the purpose of having three different military paths, just for shits and gigs?

[Funkyterrance]

What's even happening in this thread? I'm confused. What's the purpose of having three different military paths, just for shits and gigs?

To make it more interesting/fun for new players.

[Agent 86]

What's even happening in this thread? I'm confused. What's the purpose of having three different military paths, just for shits and gigs?

To make it more interesting/fun for new players.

Not just for new players but for everyone, more ranks and a bonus for premium members a choice of different insignia's.

Just wish that every member could see this as a positive move

[koontz1973]

We all know that the air force is the strongest section of the military so do we get extra points for beating one of them? Navy being the weakest, we should get less.

Navy for freeium, army for premium and air force for long time members only.

[Qwert]

We all know that the air force is the strongest section of the military so do we get extra points for beating one of them? Navy being the weakest, we should get less.

Navy for freeium, army for premium and air force for long time members only.

interesting, its these mean that you are open for discussion maybe?

But i dont know how these could be even possibile to be implemented in these way.

Someone from Fremium could hold rank of Admiral of THe Fleet (highest rank) , and these not meant that he are weak player.
I think that in beginning every new player start with old rank system, and after 5 games, he get additional options open, of course
premium get possibility that change between 3 path(army-navy-air), and Fremium can only have one option to change path (navy).

To be clear :
Premium have 4 branch rank option[old-new air-army-navy]
Fremium have 2 branch rank option[old- and 1 new ]

[Baby-Bjorn]

Awesome Qwert!

I love the concept!

Thanks!

[stahrgazer]

I like the idea of paths that include the old path,
-with the other path options open to premium members, not fremiums
- a cook should be a cook regardless which path is chosen, and a cadet a cadet regardless which path is chosen (in other words, make the changes to the upper ranks, not the lowest ranks)

[Funkyterrance]

So now it appears that more people want the ranks changed than not, according to the poll.

[DoomYoshi]

The tides have certainly turned.

I am wondering if perhaps the best way to do this is to form a committee, and have the committee decide on the new rank system, working with developers.

Similar things have been done with other aesthetic elements of the site (A/B ranking for the homepage, the color committee that ruined reality by calling teal cyan).

For those who are complaining about my poll layout: it has revealed a lot more than a simple "yes/no" poll could ever reveal. We can see that most of the people who support change, support the 3-path, and that most who support 3-path don't care about the old path being available.

[Funkyterrance]

I don't mind the poll so long as people realize that the actual support of the new ranks is signified by the first 4 options combined.

One thing that I have been thinking about though is that the location of the ranks would probably have to change if this were enacted. Those shoulder flaps or whatever they are called just wouldn't look right in the old location. I'm thinking just to the right of the avatar might be a good spot?

[koontz1973]

interesting, its these mean that you are open for discussion maybe?

qwert, I have always been open to discussion, but as I have always said, I like them the way they are. I hate the poll you have. 4 ways to go for your idea, only one to say no. When you try to stack things in your favour, I cannot get behind it.

And still the no to change option is winning.

[ahunda]

Since I got a PM alerting me to this thread & poll, I´ll post my opinion:

I can think of a dozen other suggestions, that would seem more important to me than a new rank system. In the Submitted Suggestions forum we have several ideas, that at their time had 80+ % support in their respective polls (for example 2 player team games & increase number of players), and they have been waiting for implementation for years now.

To be honest: I don´t actually see a need for a new rank system. The old one works just fine, and I´d go with "If it ain´t broke, don´t fix it" on this one.

The one, that is discussed here in particular, looks totally confusing to me. Right now I look at players in my games tab & I know immediately, what´s what. The suggested new ranks are difficult to tell apart (for me), and dividing them into 3 different categories would be even more confusing. Maybe that´s just a matter of personal taste, but I prefer the old system for its simplicity. And graphics-wise too.

Vote cast for "No, the ranks are fine as they are". Sorry, qwert.

[Funkyterrance]

interesting, its these mean that you are open for discussion maybe?

qwert, I have always been open to discussion, but as I have always said, I like them the way they are. I hate the poll you have. 4 ways to go for your idea, only one to say no. When you try to stack things in your favour, I cannot get behind it.

And still the no to change option is winning.

Actually, the no change option is losing.
Also, qwert didn't create the poll, DoomYoshi did. Have you been paying attention?

[koontz1973]

interesting, its these mean that you are open for discussion maybe?

qwert, I have always been open to discussion, but as I have always said, I like them the way they are. I hate the poll you have. 4 ways to go for your idea, only one to say no. When you try to stack things in your favour, I cannot get behind it.

And still the no to change option is winning.

Actually, the no change option is losing.
Also, qwert didn't create the poll, DoomYoshi did. Have you been paying attention?

I have, but qwert could change the poll any time he wanted but chose not to.

fully agree 25%
disagree 44%
The rest is just wasted fluff and needs to be ignored.

[DoomYoshi]

Fully agree with what?

[Funkyterrance]

fully agree 25%
disagree 44%
The rest is just wasted fluff and needs to be ignored.

44% wanting the insignias to stay the same means 56% are in favor of a new ranking system.

[Shannon Apple]

Should have been a simple yes or no answer.
I'd disagree with you funkyterrance, regardless of whether I like this or not. Actually I couldn't care less either way. The 3 path thing seems a wee bit confusing though. How would it be determined how many points are lost across the board?

Yes, I want new ranks, but not the 3-Path System = 8%
44% fully disagree.

People not in favour of this particular system then = 52%

[chapcrap]

I changed my vote, because I won't be lumped with people wanting those graphics. I really think what we have now, is much better graphically. So, I voted for no. I'm ok with a couple of more ranks, but not a whole overhaul and certainly not 3 or 4 divisions of ranks.

To be honest: I don´t actually see a need for a new rank system. The old one works just fine, and I´d go with "If it ain´t broke, don´t fix it" on this one.

Exactly.

[Qwert]

Should have been a simple yes or no answer.
I'd disagree with you funkyterrance, regardless of whether I like this or not. Actually I couldn't care less either way. The 3 path thing seems a wee bit confusing though. How would it be determined how many points are lost across the board?

Yes, I want new ranks, but not the 3-Path System = 8%
44% fully disagree.

People not in favour of this particular system then = 52%

Its not confusing at all- its in same rank value =General equal Admiral equal Air Chief Marshal
Army Sergeant equal Petty Officer equal Air Sergeant.

You only decide what military brach you want to have, very simple, not comlicated.
Also we Reduce Cooks , and give hem much more low ranks, so that people dont lost interest to play, because they get new posibility to try to go up, instead to become cook when they drop belove 800 points. With new 4 low ranks, only player who have below 100 points will become cooks.

[rdsrds2120]

Concerning the rank system, graphically, we'll be staying the same unless something wild happens. As for new ranks, maybe, but I feel that this is mostly preference, and that most people don't mine either way in the grand scheme of all things Conquer Club.

BMO

[Conchobar]

Yes qwert yes! Commodore Conchobar just sounds better than Brigadier Conchobar.
(As soon as I get back over 3000 that is)

[Vartiovuori]

I could sorta agree that new ranks might be nice. However, I don't agree with the current suggestion, and I'm definitely against multiple tracks, especially if they're a premium-only feature.

Just for fun, what I would suggest for ranks:
1 cook
500 recruit
700 cadet
900 private
1000 private first class
1200 corporal
1300 lance corporal
1400 sergeant
1500 sergeant first class
1600 sergeant major
1900 ensign/second lieutenant
2100 lieutenant
2200 captain
2600 major
2900 lieutenant colonel
3200 colonel
3600 brigadier
3900 major general
4200 lieutenant general
4500 general
5000 field marshal

Note that the bigger jumps are between non-coms, company officers, field officers and general officers, which I think is appropriate

[Funkyterrance]

Should have been a simple yes or no answer.
I'd disagree with you funkyterrance, regardless of whether I like this or not. Actually I couldn't care less either way. The 3 path thing seems a wee bit confusing though. How would it be determined how many points are lost across the board?

Yes, I want new ranks, but not the 3-Path System = 8%
44% fully disagree.

People not in favour of this particular system then = 52%

Not sure how you can disagree with me since what I wrote is pretty much indisputable:

"Yes, although I think the old path should still be an option (4-Path)"(First Option)= Wants new rank system

"Yes, I agree fully with qwert's proposed 3-Path System"(Second Option)= Wants new rank system

"Yes, I want new ranks, but not the 3-Path System"(Third Option)= Wants new rank system

"Yes, I like the new ranks but not the graphics"= Wants new rank system

Therefore anyone who chose any of these first three options can be lumped in the group that supports a new rank system and incidentally is in the majority.

I suppose qwert could further break up the topic but it seems clear that most who participated want a change.

[koontz1973]

fully agree 25%
disagree 44%
The rest is just wasted fluff and needs to be ignored.

44% wanting the insignias to stay the same means 56% are in favor of a new ranking system.

No, the other options have nothing to do with the suggestion. So 31% are confused by the question.

disagree 44%
confused 31%
fully agree 25%

First one wants a four path system.
Third one wants new ranks but not the 3 path system.
Forth one wants new ranks but not the graphics.
None of the above options gives anything to either side. qwert needs to remake this poll properly.

So agree with this is third in a 3 way race.

[Vartiovuori]

Should have been a simple yes or no answer.
I'd disagree with you funkyterrance, regardless of whether I like this or not. Actually I couldn't care less either way. The 3 path thing seems a wee bit confusing though. How would it be determined how many points are lost across the board?

Yes, I want new ranks, but not the 3-Path System = 8%
44% fully disagree.

People not in favour of this particular system then = 52%

Not sure how you can disagree with me since what I wrote is pretty much indisputable:

"Yes, although I think the old path should still be an option (4-Path)"(First Option)= Wants new rank system

"Yes, I agree fully with qwert's proposed 3-Path System"(Second Option)= Wants new rank system

"Yes, I want new ranks, but not the 3-Path System"(Third Option)= Wants new rank system

"Yes, I like the new ranks but not the graphics"= Wants new rank system

Therefore anyone who chose any of these first three options can be lumped in the group that supports a new rank system and incidentally is in the majority.

I suppose qwert could further break up the topic but it seems clear that most who participated want a change.

The third option supports changing the current system, but it does NOT support the current suggestion in any way. That would put the support for the current suggestion firmly under 50%.