Rank Calculation

Our ranking system is quite complicated. As bad as the point system is on other websites to determine skill, I kinda feel it gives people that immediate satisfaction they want from winning games you know? They want to see each game bring them a little bit higher in the ranks. Whereas the system I have now doesn't quite do that.

You guys have any ranking system that you might think was better than our current one? Maybe something that gives people that immediate gratification. I remember playing with points and one of the things that kept me playing was because I kept watching my points get higher and higher, and that thrilled me.

Our ranking system doesn't give any gratification really. What are everyone's thoughts on this?

maybe every game you win you get half a skill point. i really want first class private i am one skill point away

Would it be possible to affiliate skill points with battle points?? I'll compare my thought to the token system, which is truly unique. For argument sake lets say you decide to leave the skill points in place as they are to determine rank and of coarse skill. What if you needed 'X' amount of battle points to purchase skill points?? The formula would need to be determined naturally. I'll throw out some imaginary numbers out for my example---I just joined, I am a basic---in the shop menu it tells me i need 50 battle points to purchase 1 skill point, and a total of 3 skill points to buy the next rank. 

As i said i was just using pretend numbers to display my thoughts, This would indeed create competition, and as we know a basic or any lower ranks that defeat higher ranks would be rewarded more battle points than a higher rank defeating a lower rank. I personally dont believe this method would prevent high ranks from playing low ranks because in the present calculations it has not affected that.

Over a little time there would be alot of equal or close to equal players battling it out for the battle points, point being is i think you would have more basics fighting there rank bracket and so on and so on. Currently if you are down by a 5 tally, winning 6 in a row kind of seems unrealistic to gain points. Therefore, why bother is what they might be thinking.

I would suggest keeping the standing page only as a reference tool. The coarse of battle points would indeed persuade players to fight within there rank bracket. Myself as an example would welcome playing much higher ranks but focus more within my bracket---bracket meaning a rank or 2 lower or higher, but not obliged too. So if i am in a power struggle with a few other Lance Corps. and i end up loseing more than i win the other L.C's should profit from that and as they advance in rank they would want to play Sargent's and such.  

If this idea is deemed crazy, i only trying to help. It sure sounds deadly in my head though because i know what i mean where others might not. 4mygod's biggest problem would be the conversion to accomadate the currant standings........   

i don't like it because there are not many higher ranks so you would have to fight lower ones to get that battle points. there are only like 3 of each of the higher ranks

Be a little open minded seph, what i am trying to convey is not what the members roster is at now, but what it will be at in the months to follow. Also keep in mind there would be no significant difference between a basic and a private or a Sarg. and a Sarg/major---as it stands now you would possibly have 165 members within your rank bracket try and fight you for points, as you elevate you will upgrade your rank, therefore increasing the pool you would want to play against. Consider my suggestion as a reversed pyramid system to beat others close to you, giving you an opportunity to play in advanced ranks. Also, no one is obliged to stay within there rank mates either. The bottom line being is if you go kick thaithai's butt, you would gain much more battle points than him if he had beat you. As i said this is hard to explain if your not familiar with the point system in general. It's also the rough draft version. At the end of the day you need X amount of battle points to acquire skill points. Your in the same boat at the moment seph because with so many players having winning streaks on you, you would need at least an average of 4 straight wins to earn any skill points from them and thats not counting who ever is conquering you. 

hmm. good point.

rubntug, I don't quite understand the idea. I'm gonna shoot back how I think I understand it and some questions.

Ok, so we would still have tokens? So you would need tokens skill points to purchase a rank, but now skill points are purchased with "battle points" or "experience points" or something? There is no other way to gain skill points except purchasing them with battle points?

These battle points are gained the same way regular points are given on cc for example? So when you win a game you take battle points from the losers and give it to the winner, depending on ranks like cc. What if the player spent all his battle points on skill points already?

I guess a new player would start with 0 battle points?

Some of CC's major problems because of ranks were that older players would play deadbeat new players to get free points, or, they wouldn't player any lower rank players at all because they didn't want to lose so many points. Cuz they might lose like 80 if they lose and only gain 10 if they win.

Perhaps though you are suggesting that no one ever loses battle points? Instead they are rewarded by the system. This I suppose might solve both problems. And we would base how many battle points a player receives based on the amount of skill points the user they win against has? Then new players would be pretty worthless to win against because they will have no skill points so would offer a very low amount of battle points.

If this is the case though, nobody could ever lose rank, therefor if everyone plays long enough they'd all be generals.

Sorry if I misunderstood something, I just woke up.

A little misunderstood--i'll clarify tomorrow--it's bed time in my part of the world

no ones interested in my idea?

I see what your saying 4mygod, i was a little unclear before--thinking what i want to say is different from getting it to fonts at times. I'll try and shorten it up, i will be using fictional numbers to provide my example. 1st--I would keep the tokens to continue to purchase maps,game setting and any other little features you come up with. The tokens would be rewarded for completed games as they are now but have nothing to do with purchasing skill points(you would still need tokens for rank upgrades). These battle points would have no relation to CC's way for all the reasons you mentioned. How the battle points would work could be something along the lines of this: Let's just pretend for a minute everybody in the site today was an equal rank--we all basic's---lets say a basic/new member starts off with 150 battle points right out the gate--a predetermined number of battle points are awarded for a win---so lets say there are 4 basic's playing a game, Basic player'X' wins the game and gains 3 battle points from each of the other 3 basics for a total of 9 battle points gained--his new total would be 159 and the 3 other basics would be 147. As i mentioned there would be a predetermined template of what can be gained/loss-(all games being equal regardless of rank)-so the next step for any player would be along this: Lets say 1 skill point cost 200 battle points, the rank of Private requires 3 skill points, meaning a total of 600 battle points are needed to buy all 3 skill points---the player buys the 3 skill points and now his battle points balance is zero--thats where the tokens come back in, once any player buys a rank and there battle points drop below 49 they can use tokens to reset there original 150 and start the process all over. I have used numbers that are pulled out of the air here. I wish i could explain it the way it is in my head, the site would provide instant gratification along the currant skill point system in place----incorporating both together could prove to be rewarding. There are certain things that need to be addressed but as i said, this is not a blue print yet, just a draft. When it comes to losing rank, perhaps losing a certain amount of games takes 1 skill point---lots of ways to think of this, if a player loses 7 of 10 games, a skill point should be taken away.

Ok I think I understand your idea a bit more. Remember, we don't need to fit anything into the current skill point system, I can change it easily into another system. We can figure out how to do that when we invent a new system.

If I understand your idea correctly, a player uses battle points to purchase skill points and can replenish the battle points back to 150 when they reach 0, using tokens. What happens if he has no tokens and no battle points? He can't play games without battle points, and he needs tokens to purchase them but he only gets tokens by inviting new members or playing games. So he'd really be out of luck.

You also said that the battle points received were equal regardless of rank. So let's say 3 is the example, no matter what rank you are you lose 3 points and the winner gains your 3. This is fair, but the point of ranks is to show your skill. Someone could easily play new players over and over and get 3 battle points, it's much better than playing a hard player you might lose to and still only getting 3. So the rank would be based on who played and won the most games against anyone, not who is actually the most skilled player.

If we did give more or less depending on rank, then it would be similar to cc's current system. If we take away a skill point for losing so many games what we are really taking away is 200 battle points that were used to buy it.

Sorry I'm not posting any suggestions of my own, I've been side-tracked with the game page organization.

Sorry Seph. With your idea it doesn't really show skill, it only shows who played and won a lot of games, but they could have played and won against really easy players...

1.Yes, all players would have to re-buy there battle points with tokens once they were needed, i was using 150 as an example, it could be anything you wanted. I cant see how any one would have zero battle points with zero tokens, the math is not there. If you gain 20 tokens a game win or lose, but at worst lose 3, 4, or 5 battle points--you would have to lose 20 straight games(if lost 5 battle points per game)but at the same time gain how many tokens?? 20x20=400. If a rebuy of 150 battle points was 75 tokens there would be lots to spare, not to mention it's the players point management that comes into play.

2.I understand what your saying about the CC point system--i was just trying to think of away to incorporate both. In my opinion only, i think all these dice strategy games over emphasize skill anyways. What i mean is more often than not, the dice play a huge factor in what happens, we all been the beneficiary of this as well fallen victim to it as well. If a new player is trying to get used to a game a lose 4 of 5 and realize they need to beat that certain player 5 times in a row, and chances are they(winner) have been practicing alot more than they, it would not be very appealing to 'hope' i can do it. I know what i'm trying to say about this battle point thing, it just seems i cant convey it----i humbly withdraw the idea 

I acutally like the term "battle points". That would be cool if we could use that name to replace something.

maybe instead of skill points battle points?