Moderator: Community Team
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.
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.
Glg was a little over a year ago. Mc05 was like 8 months ago..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.
Solution: everyone wins. Purest keeps Field Marshall at 4,500, betiko gets clarity between one with 3,500 to 4,499 that currently have same rank.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.
this looks pretty cool qwert, I like it.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
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... =4&t=47578
This will give more ranks
I'm talking last 2 years rare duka. please be a dear and write in here any time you see 2 field marshals on the scoreboard that stay there for more than a couple of days and that are not on a ponzi. The fact of having more or less active players is absolutely not related to the amount of people with a +4500 score.Dukasaur wrote: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.
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.
I've seen field marshals on the scoreboard in the past year since I've been back on CC.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.
That is an interesting possibility.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.
You ve seen, but they are shooting stars. You won t see someone with a field marshal rank for a month anymore, nore 3 at the same time.Shannon Apple wrote:I've seen field marshals on the scoreboard in the past year since I've been back on CC.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.
Bringing the requirement down would just open up a demand for a new higher rank later on.
I don t think so. The rank gives you an idea of how many points you will win/lose vs a given opponent. This system only gives you an idea of someone s position on the scoreboard and gives you no indication of the point difference you have with him.Dukasaur wrote:That is an interesting possibility.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 a hell of a question mate. no one can answer this. Also "consistently" is subjective.Metsfanmax wrote:How many people have historically been able to consistently stay above 4500 on CC?
Ahunda is one, but he may be holding the Field Marshall medal by being inactive.Metsfanmax wrote:How many people have historically been able to consistently stay above 4500 on CC?
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.betiko wrote:That is a hell of a question mate. no one can answer this. Also "consistently" is subjective.Metsfanmax wrote:How many people have historically been able to consistently stay above 4500 on CC?
I don't care who theoretically could do it, I asked who has done it: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..
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.How many people have historically been able to consistently stay above 4500 on CC?
This means who HAS done it for you?Metsfanmax wrote: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.betiko wrote:That is a hell of a question mate. no one can answer this. Also "consistently" is subjective.Metsfanmax wrote:How many people have historically been able to consistently stay above 4500 on CC?
Well it's practically impossible to do such a thing without data to query. The best I can think of is the list (one of the many) that blitz used to maintain:Metsfanmax wrote:I don't care who theoretically could do it, I asked who has done it: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..
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.How many people have historically been able to consistently stay above 4500 on CC?
It should be obvious that no one needs to be concerned about hypothetical people who can do this, but for various reasons have decided not to. Any decision on this rank should be based on who is actually achieving this rank.betiko wrote:This means who HAS done it for you?Metsfanmax wrote: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.betiko wrote:That is a hell of a question mate. no one can answer this. Also "consistently" is subjective.Metsfanmax wrote:How many people have historically been able to consistently stay above 4500 on CC?
I don't care if people come back after a hiatus and suddenly have the Field Marshal rank.Also do you get my point about active and inactive players?
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.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 not going to waste a lot of time on this, but here's a quick walk through waybackmachine's snapshots of the CC scoreboard.Metsfanmax wrote: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.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.
Ahunda, Josko, FFMetsfanmax wrote: I don't care who theoretically could do it, I asked who has done it:
If the correlation doesn't exist, it doesn't change the basic argument for whether or not we should have the rank.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.
This is the main argument of some people here. We would need to have more active players in order to have more +4500 according to duka.Metsfanmax wrote:If the correlation doesn't exist, it doesn't change the basic argument for whether or not we should have the rank.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.
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.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.
to be a stable 4500+ player, you avoid playing speeders by all means. those players will probably only play brigs and above; and I've already proved that that population has increased dramatically over time.Metsfanmax wrote: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.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.
