mandatory rank up?

The reason I don't rank up it's because I know myself pretty well and I know I might be acting like those players I talked about. If I rank up and imagine I have 3228 points I easily would be afraid of playing a live 4 players game with noobs because I would lose too many points and then my rank. I don't want that. Let's see I would be happy if it's just me who cannot see my rank and points and I am automatically rank up. That it's perfect for me.

Bluebird, I agree completely with raking players in the dominating 12 tournament by rank and not by points (in fact I suggested it earlier in this thread). It didn't much of a response though; I'd really like to hear what others think about this.

I have a better idea. The top 12 have to at least have an officer's rank (2nd lieutenant and above). That way it's less likely that we exclude someone who has enough points to be in the top 12 but not enough tokens for the highest rank they've earned.

[quote=lifeinpixels]In response to your first two points, maybe we should consider making the dominating 12 determined first by rank, then subdivided by points?[/quote] I have heard this somewhere before, I think it was in the D12 Tournament thread?? I agree, it should be about rank. Here are my reasons for forced rank throughout the competitive side of the site: If you are not playing for rank, i.e. status, what is the point in competing? [spoiler=explanation 1]Surely the whole purpose of competition is to try and win and if you are only playing to win one small victory in 1 game, where is the motivation to continue doing the same thing day after day? If you have a competitive nature (the reason for joining a skill site) you would want to continue the competition and learn and grow as you go.[/spoiler] If you just like to play a game, as a by-product, while you chat etc, the pending Play for Fun option will allow this. [spoiler=explanation 2]Playing for fun should be the place where no points are awarded or lost and no rank is gained, hence playing for fun.[/spoiler] If you are in competition with other players, there should be a visible status that is open and honest. [spoiler=explanation 3]All competitors should be shown as their correct rank position, known as their seed in sports[/spoiler] Rank attack is mostly due to a mismatch of playing levels. [spoiler=explanation 4]Minimum point games may look like they are to form elitist groups, but they are merely a means of keeping your opponents at a level similar to yours so as not to have a mismatch and therefore a high risk of unnecessary attacks causing a lot of wasted time invested in setting the game up, waiting for opponents & playing many turns before watching a game get ruined. There are reasons new players with sense don't want to be in games with officers, they really don't stand much chance of gaining wins, points, rank or skill level and those that choose to do so, tend to get very frustrated at this and will just attack someone, after all they stand to lose little from it as they have no RANK to lose. You will find that a few of the players who "don't do rank" also tend to have the same attitude, "I will do what I want, I have no rank to lose". Being non seeded, they will not even understand the damage they do to you, your standings, your points & your hard earned rank. These players will also be the biggest objectors to forced rank... because they will no longer be invited to any games with the guys they've known for years. How many players do we all know that have been here for eons and still don't have enough points to join a 1400 minimum points game?[/spoiler] Because there was a lot to explain I put all explanations in optional boxes.

There is also the element of a sense of achievement that is being undermined by the rank-dodgers. If you are a relatively new player and you manage to beat a couple of top players it would be nice if that player could be aware of the fact that he or she managed to do this. This would also be helpful for them to know what it takes to beat a top player and learn what works and does not work against seasoned veterans but then they would have to know they are playing against a seasoned veteran. But most of the time if they beat a few rank-dodgers they won't be aware of this. It really comes down to a simple choice: do you want a ranking and/or points system or not? If you do (for whatever reason) than you need to make it automatic. Why do you have an automatic points system? Why not introduce a points-dodgers system? If so many of these rank-dodgers claim they don't care about points and rank why have a points system at all? If they truly believe it should be about individual games then why not make so that every player wins or loses the same amount of points every game (the only reason for having a points system is so that the more points you have, the more you lose is you lose to a player with less points). But they don't care about points so why should you win or lose less or more points according to how many or few you have? There is no consistency in the current system, it completely misses the purpose of a ranking system. Because it does not rank players, it's arbitrary and diffuse.

[quote=vexer wrote: Posted: Today, 3:21 AM | Post #33 I have a better idea. The top 12 have to at least have an officer's rank (2nd lieutenant and above). That way it's less likely that we exclude someone who has enough points to be in the top 12 but not enough tokens for the highest rank they've earned ]vexer wrote: [/quote] i am not ok with this as i had enough points but hadnt played enough games to purchase a rank over warrant officer when i won my D12 game the current system for the d12 game is more accurate at truely picking the top 12 players if you have played 2000 games and your a crappy player, you will probably have a higher rank than a great player that has played less than 100 the pending Play for Fun option sounds good as the seasoned players will avoid playing noobs as too many pts are lost playin them

Ok, then how about you have to at least have the rank of sergeant?

I hear what killrick is saying and agree that this might have been the case way back when he won the dominator contest, however I don't believe anyone will be in the position of getting the points without the tokens in the current standings due to such high points at the top 12 and soooo many people to get past to get there, so I don't think it is necessary at all to have a minimum rank shown, it should be all or nothing (sorry Fendi if I offend), but those that aren't bothered about getting in the contest won't be bothered about showing rank. I also stick to my point of compulsory rank on the competitive side of the site only when the 'Play for fun' option arrives. Logically it clarifies what you are up against, especially if you're a new player. Please refer to Post #34 for better detail.

Personally I would be in favor of a rolling ranking system that only incorporates the points earned from the last 100 games you played. That way the ranking would better reflect who's the best "current" player. Allmost all sports-related ranking systems use this method. It probably would be a lot of work to program this.

That's an interesting idea bluebird. It would obviously have to work around the issue of points per game, but I can see it working well. I'm not a fan of tokens for buying ranks. Maybe there is a good reason I'm not aware of, but why should players be prevented from buying a rank not because of their skill but because of the number of games they've played? I think rank token prices should be cut so that the cost is just enough to prevent a few strings of lucky wins from letting a player jump a couple ranks. I agree with Tramadol's comments in regards to killrick's issue. Players in the top 12 today will not have a problem buying one rank. Another option as a small reward for having enough points to be in the top 12 is 1500 tokens to buy a rank and become eligible for the d12 game. This fixes both the problem of not enough tokens, and the problem of hiding true ranks.

i reapet i think is tricky if you have rank and don't upgrade him, becose newbie player think that they play with eaquly plaer but they play aginst capetan maybe,, i upgrade my rank and they always know that the play with general , and i didn't pick players i play with all....(problem is when the see higher rank they think if he kill me that they will winn, i have hard work to explane them :) )

Yes Spartakus, this is back to the mismatch of player abilities, one of the points for me supporting compulsory rank (Post #34 above). If / When all players show their true rank, whichever way it be decided, the Basic attacking the General with the thought of "if I kill him/her I win" will still only be eliminated by matching or increasing the criteria for an opponent player's abilities, skills or points required for the game by the players themselves with minimum points applied to the games. This will greatly reduce the amount of rank attacks. Unfortunately this is only available as an option to Premium players, so there lays another problem. I also like the rolling rank suggested by bluebird005vis, but this would surely be an amendment after compulsory rank first? This suggestion requires a player to play consistently at the same level or to improve, but I don't see it being any different to the current system because 100 games is much the same as an overall average. e.g. my average is pretty much win 1 from 3 and has been for many 100's of games, including all types (not Same Time). This win ratio would probably get me slowly to Colonel and no higher unless I play with people of similar ranks or improve the ratio to 1 in 2.

The main reason I'm in favor of a rolling ranking system is that it eliminates the possibility to remain high in the rankings by playing very little after you've gotten high in the rankings. It also makes it much harder to get and stay in the top by just playing 1 on 1 live games. There are quite a few top players who get to the top merely on the quantity of games they play ( the current nr1 player in terms of points is a decent example of this ). We all know the quality of play in the live games is nowhere near the quality in the long term games. By only counting the points of the last 100 games you played you eliminate the "quantity over quality" rankings and encourage a healthy mix of live games with a small number of players and more long term games or games with a lot of players ( because you potentially earn a lot more points when you win a game with a lot of players ). A 2nd benefit of the rolling ranking is not only does it more accurately reflect the current top players it also ads an element of pressure that is lacking now. In a rolling ranking you have points to "defend". If you had a winning streak a 100 games ago you have to at least match the points you won from those games or you start to drop very fast. The upside is that you can also climb very fast if you had a dry spell a 100 games ago. This makes for a much more dynamic ranking which makes it much more exiting and unpredictable who will qualify for the D12. This is how the rankings of tennis work, if you won a tournament last year you can only keep your ranking points from dropping by winning it again this year. This rolling ranking only works if you have a compulsory rank as well. There are very few benefits (other than players who use it to gain an edge) to the voluntary ranks we have now.

Just to complicate the equation even more you should have played/started games with at least 50 different players since the last list came out to encourage mixing with others on the site. Lets create a better, more inclusive community

[quote=bluebird005vis - May 9, 05:11 PM]The main reason I'm in favor of a rolling ranking system is that it eliminates the possibility to remain high in the rankings by playing very little after you've gotten high in the rankings.[/quote] Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but if I had a big winning streak in my last 100 games, wouldn't I be able to keep my high rank by not playing any more games?