ISN2 wrote: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?
this
Moderator: Community Team
ISN2 wrote: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?
Stephan Wayne wrote:Every day is Fool's Day on CC.
This makes sense.ISN2 wrote: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?

1. The administration have made many more pointless updates, so why wouldn't they be interested in doing this?JamesKer1 wrote:My 2 cents on this- I think there are many issues that need working on before totally revamping the scoring system, however much I like the ideas and concepts behind it. I believe there is a need for some modernizing of the ranks and their looks, but I'm not sure that is the main issue the administration is trying to focus on right now.
However, I am 100% on board with ISN's proposal, and I'm glad to see the OP thinks it is a good median as well. IMO, it's ok if there aren't any field marshalls. It's the top rank, it should be a huge deal if someone gets it, let alone keeps it. It's an impossible goal, but that's what makes it so special.

Let me clarify- I don't agree with totally revamping the system, as Benn and Qwert have put out there, only because it is going to take a ton of work. I agree that we need it, but there are other things that need a "Tune-Up" before we start worrying about that. I don't agree with changing any of the rank score requirements, as betiko suggested, as stated above. However, I do like ISN's proposal, because it's a quick fix (more so than a revamp), and one that doesn't detract from other achievements.iAmCaffeine wrote:1. The administration have made many more pointless updates, so why wouldn't they be interested in doing this?
2. Why is a cadet commenting on ranking suggestions?
Stephan Wayne wrote:Every day is Fool's Day on CC.
I'd hardly say this suggestion is moving. It's no further than it was two months ago. It will be moving once it's submitted.JamesKer1 wrote:Let me clarify- I don't agree with totally revamping the system, as Benn and Qwert have put out there, only because it is going to take a ton of work. I agree that we need it, but there are other things that need a "Tune-Up" before we start worrying about that. I don't agree with changing any of the rank score requirements, as betiko suggested, as stated above. However, I do like ISN's proposal, because it's a quick fix (more so than a revamp), and one that doesn't detract from other achievements.iAmCaffeine wrote:1. The administration have made many more pointless updates, so why wouldn't they be interested in doing this?
2. Why is a cadet commenting on ranking suggestions?
#2 is a good one. Sadly, I haven't had the time nor desire to get back into a hundred games like I used to maintain. But look who got this moving again after two weeks

Stephan Wayne wrote:Every day is Fool's Day on CC.
Stephan Wayne wrote:Every day is Fool's Day on CC.

Stephan Wayne wrote:Every day is Fool's Day on CC.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 0#p5349880
If you guys improve that new rank... I may stop playing doodass.JamesKer1 wrote:SUBMITTED.. It's been a long time coming!
It does.riskllama wrote:why doesn't team CC start using actual military symbols to denote rank?