Ranking system feedback

Not sure I'm liking the ranking system at the moment. I have a good win rate over 50% in average 5 player games, don't do 1v1. My battle and skill points are going up but tokens holding me back. If I average 10 games a week it's 200 tokens its going to take me months to get promotions and years to get to the decent ranks with the shiny gold bits. I don't want to play speed games, I like playing turns during breaks in the day. I don't know people who would play so I can't bring players in. I'm looking for a site that ranks people up for winning not for spending hours on speed games totting up 100 games a week. Hate to be critical because there's loads I love about this site ;)

being nitpicky means you care for the site :)

I am nitpicky but i don't think this is a small point though, I play to gain ranks, I'm not the only competitive person here. I haven't proved myself against top players so I don't expect to walk in and be a general but I should be able to gain ranks for winning and not for spending months playing 100s games.

Well, if you are sure of yourself being a good player, than you can just not buy Sergeant and Corporal ranks, but stay at basic for like a month, and than jump at once to Warrant Offcier. You no longer need to buy all ranks before the one you want to have.

I am with lionheart. The tokens system slows good players to get a good rank. In my opinion the rank should be automatic and tokens usefull to purchase maps. But if the D12 idea is to use tokens to buy ranks... 1500 it's too big!

I don't mean to assume I'm a warrant officer or higher, but I want my position to be judged by my skill level and ability to win high percentages of games not because I've played 100s of games. I hate to compare with conquer club because its good that dominating 12 has its differences but in cc you can be over half way up the ranks with 50 games. My rank on cc is much higher on cc with less games played and with similar % wins.

Well, I do not know exactly why ranking up costs tokens, but I believe there was a good reason once. There is of course also the thing that ppl with more experience are usually better than ppl with some lucky games, but I agree that if you deserve warrant officer after 90 games (killrick anyone?) than you should get it, even if you wasted some points on corporal ranks.

I would rather my rank was decided on skill points than tokens even though mine was reset after playing 70 games, you only really get skill points by beating good players which takes away luck factor

Skill points have their own problem. One being that few ppl really know how they work. Another is that you can get lots and lots of skill points by just winning one lucky game with both Fendi and Vexer in them, and then never play them again...

I take your point but I don't mean for it to be based solely on skill points, just think the ranks are too reliant on tokens which are awarded for turning up and not necessarily having any talent. Of course ranking is a difficult area and not everyone will agree with me.

We can always change the token requirements. I actually just lowered some of them a bit a few days ago. I personally agree that ranks should be automatic. But I hate it when I gain a rank then lose it the next game just to regain it again and lose it again over and over. There should be an option in your profile where you can set it to only show the next rank after you are half way to the rank after that. The problem is that we have several long time members who are opposed to automatic (Matty for one) though I can't remember why. Making ranks automatic would also remove a small incentive to buy premium. As it is now you sometimes might have to choose between spending tokens on rank and spending tokens on playing games on premium maps. If you really want to rank up but also want to play on premium maps it might push you over edge into buying premium so that you don't have to waste tokens on maps. It's a small incentive so I think we can do without it but I just wanted everyone to know that removing tokens for ranks does have a cost. Other reasons for requiring tokens for ranks: Cheaters won't be able to rank up faster than normal even if they have enough points because they won't have enough tokens. This being said, we have ideas in the works that will make it harder for cheaters to cheat so this might become irrelevant. Incentivises players to play more games. [b]Disadvantages to ranks not being automatic:[/b] Players can hide their skill simply by not purchasing ranks. This gives them an advantage because no one expects them to be a threat. Skilled players from other sites aren't able to rank up as fast as they should. New players are confused as to why their rank never changes even though they are winning most of their games. They aren't aware that ranks are not automatic. I personally think that the disadvantages far outweigh any advantages and I vote to make ranks automatic. Sounds like lionheart, one of our oldest members, agrees as does the the_bishop. Who else agrees?

I disagree for two reasons on automatic ranking (this topic is about less tokens per rank (I agree with that, though I think we should not make ranks 'free', as in, 0 tokens). So here's my reasons: - One of the most important principles ever in risk, or strategy games in general, is to appear weak, but be strong. When I play supreme commander, my friend always calls himself GENERAL Peanot. I call myself private Matty, and for some reasons ppl spy him more than they spy me (ok, he also is a bit better, but not that much). By just saying that you are private, you already look alot less of a threath. The same applies for Risk. I like the sneakyness that you can get in some games (especially fog), but also in the 'world around the games', as this site is not so cool for its risk alone, but also for its community. I think when I started playing on d12 I very effectively made some ppl think I was quite a good player, getting seargeant after 150 games or so. In reality I already had enough to be warrant officer. Making Vexer for example know that I was a decently good player - so got invited into his games - but he (I think) didn't realise I was a very good player instead. That's why I kept saying that I so badly wanted that cool white officer star, while I already could get it. It just gives the game an extra dimension. And as I said, not ranking up at all also has disadvantages, as ppl might not invite you in their awesome-game-with-all-the-cool-players. - The second reason is just because I think the Colonel badges look ugly. Same for the command sgt / sgt major badges. Also major general looks better than all the other general badges, so I prefer not to sport Lieutenant General ever, and get right to general (assuming I ever get that good of course, which might as well not happen) (yes, general also looks worse than Lieutenant General, but it's just cool to have the highest rank, right?)

The problem is everybody's different so you will never make everyone happy. In my opinion the whole point of ranking is to show how good the players are, I am seriously competitive and will always try get as high up the table as I'm able which is the same for most people who play I imagine. The reason I come to risk sites are a love of strategy, competition and because it only takes a few minutes a few times a day in my breaks. My problem is when I look at this system I work out even if I was an awesome player that never looses it would still take months and months to advance. I would prefer automatic to current system but I would be just as happy if the token costs were a lot less. If I wanted a strategy competition that involves playing hours on speed games I would play the total war games because they are awesome.

Now that tokens are needed for certain maps and other things, I think ranks should be earned by points only. That way I'd actually feel comfortable spending my tokens instead of saving them all for ranks.

Automatic!