Remove/Lower Token Requirement Ranks

 Skill points doesn't change your rank, the battle points change your rank.

I see you work hard on this , but why dont you play live games to earn enought tokens . gl Styloke . Nothing against you .

 I like when we have to play many games to have higher rank. If we dont need tokens to buy rank i will be Captain and i know Vexer have enough battle points for next rank.
 
 Go east go west distributor is the best
 
 Go west go east distributor is the beats

 now 1771 will copy my motto or slogans :p  i better hide he's coming

The thing is that I do play live games, more than the average user likely.
But tbh, this is not just about me but about the system in general.

With 'skill points' I mean 'battle points' or whatever you like to call them. (They are just referred to as 'points' in the shop window).

Styloke's graphs really brought home the point that tokens should not be increasing exponentially.

I used his formula to calculate out how many tokens it would be for each rank. The problem I saw afterwards is that a completely linear scale doesn't work well for these reasons:
1. it should be easier to get the first few ranks to get people hooked on getting ranks. But then later it should be slightly harder to get ranks to encourage people to invite their friends in order to get more tokens.
2. you have to play more games to rank up the higher up you get because when you lose games, you lose more and more points per game the higher you go up in rank. so to keep the incentive of inviting friends for tokens, the token requirements have to go up more.

So what I did was take the numbers styloke's formula gave and modified them to address my concerns and require playing about 850 games to become a general.

Here's a graph of the comparison:



Please let me know what you would change, if anything and why.

This proposal is coming from a person who has always needed more tokens to get the next rank. It would be nice to hear from someone who has always had plenty of extra tokens how they think the token requirements should be so that we can preserve the incentive to invite friends to get tokens, while not making it too hard to get the rank you deserve.

I like that very much, will tokens be given back that people had spent??

I mean, say you spent 1250 on a rank, but the modified amount is 1000. Will 250 tokens be given back to that user?

I am sure that if Teck decides to change the token requirements he won't want to spend all his time calculating who needs tokens back and how many. He has more important things to do with his time like fixing bugs and adding features.
They will either have a no reimbursement policy or it will be up to each player to figure out how many tokens they need back and then message 1771 asking him for the tokens back.

Personally I think that no one should get tokens back. You made your decisions about how many games to play and whether or not to buy a rank based on the old system. Those decisions should stand.

Now, for example if we decide to make the Saturn map free for everyone and you just recently purchased it, then I think you should get your tokens back, but I am not in favor of getting tokens back for ranks you purchased months ago.

This is just my opinion, it will be completely up to Teck and 1771.

Tbh, token reimbursement shouldn't be that difficult as the amount of tokens you need to get back solely depends on your current rank. Probably solvable with one DB query or a small script .

so styloke, you didn't say anything about the token requirements I suggested. are they too high, too low or just right?

I was waiting for some responses of others actually.

Personally I think they are a tad too high. But as a compromise I think it's about right to make every one happy (or happier :p ).

On an additional note: I did really like the idea of connecting the token requirement to the skill points requirement. If the higher ranks require more tokens, maybe they should also require more skill points.
Fits more in the ideology that skill points should be the limiting factor and tokens more of a way to prevent cheating, slow down luckers etc .

The reason why higher ranks require more tokens is that you have to play more games in order to rank up. Even if you continue to win 40% of your games you will lose more points for your losses the higher you go up in points. it will take playing many more games to get to the next rank because you lose more and more points when you lose. So unless the token requirements also goes up you will have plenty of left over tokens. 
This is undesirable because then there is less incentive to invite friends in order to get bonus tokens.  There is also less incentive to play 2-3 player live games to get quick tokens. We want players to want to play 2-3 player live games because it helps bring in new players if they can get live games going easier.

The purpose of this post is actually to address what Styloke just said about connecting the token requirement to the skill point requirement. He said that if the higher ranks require more tokens than they should also require more skill points. I don't think this is the case because it actually does get harder and harder to get the next rank even though it is only 300 skill points away because when you lose, you lose more points the higher your point amount is. Even though the higher ranks are all only 300 points away, they are increasingly difficult to obtain and it requires playing a lot more games.

So Styloke says that he really likes the idea of connecting the token requirement to the skill points requirement. The best way to do this is match how many games you have to play to get enough tokens with how many games you have to play to get enough skill points. and then bump up the token requirements a little to give incentive to play more games.
Styloke's formula does not match how many games you have to play to get enough tokens with how many games you have to play to get enough points even if you change the value for X, because it takes more and more games to get an additional 300 points the higher you go in rank. To match this, the token requirements actually should have a slow exponential growth. (the current requirements have a very fast exponential growth.)
So I think that my suggestions actually do what Styloke wants when you use total games required as the connection between the requirement amounts.

It may seem like no one has been talking about this because there haven't been any posts in this thread for awhile but there has been much discussion in live games. There are more players who would like the token requirements to stay the same than we previously knew about. I have also been thinking that the token requirements in my first proposal are too low. We will soon be having tournaments which will have large token prizes and if Teck goes along with it, the token costs for maps and game types will go down. I also had the thought that having to play more games to get better rank will encourage more players to get premium so that they can get enough tokens faster.

My new proposal is a better comprise between the players who want low token requirements and those who want the high, original requirements. the new proposal requires a total of about 1500 games played to get to general. The requirements do go up exponentially, but not as fast as before. Like I said, I do now think they should go up exponentially because it gets exponentially harder to get enough points for the next rank. you'll notice that it would be slightly easier with these new numbers to get the sergeant ranks. I think this is where styloke got slowed down by the token requirements.

Private 100
Private First Class 200
Lance Corporal 350
Corporal 500
Corporal First Class 650
Sergeant 800
Sergeant Major 950
Command Sergeant 1100
Warrant Officer 1250
Chief Warrant Officer 1400
2nd Lieutenant 1550
1st Lieutenant 1700
Captain 1850
Major 2000
Lieutenant Colonel 2150
Colonel 2300
Brigadier General 2450
Major General 2600
Lieutenant General 2800
General 3000

In all fairness, the requirements you just proposed are still high. Why bother with a skill point system if you are *still* going to let the token requirement be the limiting factor? Makes no sense at all.

You argue that token requirement encourages people to get premium. Yet, you are forgetting that it already takes time and thus games played to gain skill points. Getting premium is still advantageous with only the skill point requirement in place.

The system I proposed was already a large compromise, and even with a little higher requirement, like Vexers version, at the top ranks would be bearable. It had a nice and *logic* connection between both requirements. But a full exponential system, does not solve the problem at hand as I argued in previous posts, it makes the skill requirement useless.

The tournaments are a good idea, yet there are no details whatsoever yet. For example:
- How many tokens do they hand out?
- Is it only the winner who gets tokens?
- How many games do you need to win?
- ...

Besides, unless you are going to organize these tournaments daily, the token flux will still be small and limited to few people. No way that can fix a broken system.

I don't know who is in favor of the current system. But I suspect it are people who either:
- Have been on this site for ages/have played so many games already that they have an abundance of tokens.
- Are new and were able to get the first few ranks easily because of the low requirement and have not *yet* hit a wall.

Players that are talented and have been successful in a short amount of time (or games) are left out. And the question is, do you want to scare those away?

And I'm not talking about myself, there are many talented players out there. I'm just being vocal about this concrete wall. I know users that can easily compete with all the top players and have high skill points, yet can not progress.

Progress, that's the key word. It keeps users happy, keeps them coming to this site instead of others. Shouldn't that be goal? Making the community grow?

PS: I did not post earlier because Vexers last post had constant 3rd person references to me, which is quite awkward..

@ styloke, i wrote the post as if I was writing it to Teck because I have pointed him to this thread to read it. that is why i referred to you in the 3 person.

Hello all.

I am proud to announce that the amount of tokens required for a new rank have now been changed.

Here is the new list:

Private 100
Private First Class 200
Lance Corporal 350
Corporal 500
Corporal First Class 650
Sergeant 800
Sergeant Major 950
Command Sergeant 1100
Warrant Officer 1250
Chief Warrant Officer 1400
2nd Lieutenant 1550
1st Lieutenant 1700
Captain 1850
Major 2000
Lieutenant Colonel 2150
Colonel 2300
Brigadier General 2450
Major General 2600
Lieutenant General 2800
General 3000



If You are having any issues with your ranking, please do not hesitate to contact the site admins.

Take care.

we'll try these new requirements out, but remember they were a compromise and may still not be correct. they are pretty easy to change it turns out so if this doesn't work out, then we can lower them again. we'll give it a few months to gather feedback.