Ranking system feedback

I think automatic also makes more sense, however, it's just too satisfying to click the "purchase rank" button whenever I rank up!

I think the combination of skill points and accumulation of tokens is OK. Skill points are a good measure of skill but it does take time to get enough tokens and I believe this takes into account experience. A few lucky games to get rank is one thing but in most aspects of the military, no matter your potential, experience does count towards promotion. Play a lot AND win games to be able to rank up. Skill points plus tokens is the way to go for ranking up in my opinion.

maybe there should be a switch to turn it on and off? btw pixels i completely agree with you. i get so excited when i have enough points to buy the next rank :D

the lack of tokens have stopped me from ranking up and i really like that shiney yellow star ime joining the occupy no tokens protest 2nd Lieutenant in under 130 games...anouther milestone for the ambisous new players to shoot for

This discussion about automatic ranks or having the token costs has been going on for a while. Personally, I agree with elysium. Tokens [i]and[/i] skill points mean you both need a fair amount of played games and win a bunch of them to get a rank and you won't get there with a few lucky wins in a row. The negative effect though is that people start skipping ranks or... they are actually seeing it as a vanity item. This is an important point about ranks which has to be looked at closely: ranks fulfill two purposes: 1. They are a vanity item; 2. They show how good a player is. However, they conflict with each other in a way. People only buy the ranks they like, but that means it doesn't show how well the player plays anymore, because the rank is not representative of the player's skill. When we would make the ranks automatic this problem will be solved, but ranks will not serve the direct purpose of being a vanity item that well anymore. I think a choice has to be made here: what will ranks [i]mainly[/i] be used for? Of course, ranks will keep fulfilling both purposes like now, but I think one of the two has to take priority over the other one and frankly I don't really care that much which one of the two, as long as there will be measures to fill up the gap left behind by reducing the effect of ranks in one of the two purposes. My suggestions for these cases are [b]In case of automatic ranks[/b] In case of automatic ranks, there should be another way of spending your tokens on vanity items. "Badges" would be a nice idea. For example a "troops killed" badge: you can get a bronze badge after 250 troops killed, silver after 600, gold after 1500 and for the platinum badge you need 4000 killed troops. In the meanwhile, the badges get more expensive regarding tokens and you can require a player to buy all previous tiers. Players can then select a badge to display in front of the name, right next to their ranks for example. This will go nicely together with the stats overview requested by some of the players. [b]In case of paid ranks[/b] In case ranks will remain as they are, the choice will have been made to make them vanity items. Even then the costs could be slightly reduced, but their main task will be to look cool. With this in mind, the ranking should no longer by sorted on rank but on skill points and there should be an additional way to see the strength of a player, for example by showing their skill points next to their name in the game too, as I don't want to check every player's profile to check how good they are: I want to be able to see the average skill of the players when just looking at the game interface immediately and as ranks will not suffice if they are considered "beautiful", the skill point total itself is probably the best alternative.

Bump, how are others on this?

I would indeed like to see some people responding to my post actually.

automatic

Im for paid ranks. 1. When I rank I usually have nearly 3K tokens. And after I purchase my rank I usually get all those tokens back by the time I have enough points for next rank (benefit of being premium). So I never worry about tokens cause I am in a lot of games that finish quickly. 2. I still believe when a player buys a rank he has earned it. I know you may have a few lucky games, but you also have a few if not more unlucky games. I think when a player buys the next rank he still shows he is as good (because he earned it) just as an automatic rank would take that player. And lastly if an automatic rank does take place, I foresee a lot of problems (1) a player may think he is wrongly ranked, more complaining (2) it seems when I beat noobs my skill increases, whereas when I beat good players, it takes me more than 2 games to increase my skill level. With this increase in skill level so would my rank. So im a Warrant Officer and all i did was beat noobs, people are going to think im a good player, right? Well based on automatic rankings yes. But in reality I just beat a bunch of newbies. And I personally like the Colonel and Lt. Colonel. They did the best they could with the eagle. Also the general rankings, I like them all.

Oh to be so good/lucky to have a high enough win% to not have enough tokens. If you're that good that your points/tokens ratio isn't fairly even then I suggest petitioning for an option to wager tokens on games..say max of 50 tokens on any one game and put your money, (tokens), where your dice are. Obviously this option would be for 24hr games only so people dont lose all their tokens in one bad or drunken session but imagine winning a 9player deathmatch on world expanded and getting a 400 token bonus for your efforts. As for auto or manual ranking up, I favour auto based on a points system much like now so you know what you're up against when starting a game....certain people I have noticed upon looking at the game log post match are sneaky with not ranking up when it shows winning/losing points for each player although I do note it for next time and do understand its another tactic to be employed

Well guys, the initial reasoning for paid ranks was also in part because a person could gain enough points to have General just by getting lucky in a few games. So it forced them to really play a lot of games before they could be a general. As well, it was an incentive to get people to play more games, with anyone they could, because they needed tokens. I think for the most part, it's good to have the incentive and I also thinks it's good to require people to play a lot of games to gain rank. I wouldn't do automatic, but perhaps lowering the cost of the ranks might be good.

Auto ranks please

very true, anyone who gets up even close to general sure deserves it. it takes a dedicated player and a good win-lose ratio. that is not an easy task. its different, but alot of the things on this site is. and i have grown to like them alot.

i think ranks should be automatic. Also i like the badge idea cireon!!

It's not unanimous but there's a lot for automatic and everyone against automatic seems to say a reduction in token cost. I personally don't dislike the token idea, just the quantity needed. At the moment the cost means to get the highest rank you need to play over 1000 games (if you rank 1 by 1) to get to those nice gold symbols its about 350 games. I personally think those figures can be halved and still be too many. If the argument is lucky players, I would say that it's a problem for a handful of games but the luck factor must be negated by 50, almost certainly 100 games. If the argument is to push players into playing more games and speed games then I think the site looses those players like me who prefer playing 5-10 games a week. Lets face it the beauty of games with 24hr turns is people can play in a few 10min slots during the day.