i feel like the rankings are unfair. it shouldnt matter how many games you play it should only matter by the points you recieve. I see Segeants with under 1050 points. You can get more than that by winning 1 game. Here is how the point system should work.
New Recruit
Private- At least 5 games any # of points
Sergeant- Any games, 1100 points
Lieutenant- Any games, 1300 points
Captain- Any Games, 1500 points
Major- any games, 1700 points
Colonel- any games, 1900 points
General- any games, 2000+ points.
I believe this is better because no matter what it will still take alot of games to get to 2000 points. on your point sytem it says general is a minimum of 4000 points, that will take an extremly long time to get to. I see people who have played 30 games and havent even got to 2000 yet. Or if you want the upper class to be really special and you really want a min # of games the ranking can be like this: start from bottem.
General of the Army [special]- any # of games, 5000+ points
General, 40 games, 2000 points
Lieutenant General- 40 games, 1950 points
Colonel 35 games, 1900 points
Lt. Colonel- 35 games, 1800 points
Major- 30 games, 1700
Captain- 25 games, 1500
First Lieutenant- 20 games, 1400
Lieutenant- 20 games, 1300
Sergeant Major- 15 games, 1250 points
Master Sergeant- 15 games, 1200 points
Sergeant First Class- 15 games, 1150 points
Sergeant- 15 games, 1100 points
Corporal- 10 games, 1050 points
Private First Class- 5 games, 1000 points
Private- 5 games, any points
i like the ranking system above the best, more ranks and more oppertunities, i feel like some one who had played 15 games with a 1300 ranking should have a higher class, or be acknowladged more than someone who ahs played 15 games and has a 947 rating.
...i like this idea of the top ranking player having a custom icon or insignia, exclusively his/her own........might i be the 1st to suggest a cap with a feather in it?........heh heh heh.......i bet i could find you 1 or make it mr. lack, if you so warranted it. 
YP
.....lmao
_________
