Remove/Lower Token Requirement Ranks

i like the rules as they are right now , dont change anything :D just think : what if all of us are Generals ? Maybe when we get Generals RANK we will stop playing . AHhh if you play only and only for fun then you dont need to care about your RANK . so leave rules as they are right now .

From what I can tell most people at least want a modification of the tokens required. What is the aim of the token requirement? How long *should* it take in your opinion to get the next rank?

I'm just terrible, doesn't make a difference if you make the cost go down.

I'm getting the feeling that this discussion has slumbered. Lucide said that it only is a real problem when people can't get two ranks in a row because of the token requirement: [img]http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/4328/dominatingx.jpg[/img] Now, I have been like this for a while now. Getting 2500 more tokens, which is the equivalent of over 100 games, sounds excessive to me. The rank system really should be a fun way to keep people playing on this site. I, an others, can tell you it's not fun to hit a brick wall, not to mention a double concrete wall. The system as it is now, is flawed. What to do about it? I am for a complete removal of the token requirement, but I know not all of you are. So I was looking for a compromise. I analyzed the current requirement a bit and it occurred to me that the total amount of games required to be able to purchase rank X increases exponentially. For example: you need to have played *only* 130 games to get the 7th rank (assuming you have the skill points), while to get the last rank one needs to have played a whopping 2400 games. A quick look at the members list learns me that no one is even close to that many games. Even people who have already been here for year(s?) didn't even hit the 1k mark. That begs me to ask the question: Are the requirements even realistic? Can you really require some one to have at least played here for, let's say, 5-6 years before he can even purchase the upper rank? Isn't the huge, and in my opinion sufficient, skill point requirement enough? Cause that really is the key part of the story: There already IS a requirement to get rank X, namely skill points that already FORCES you (as it should) to have played a minimum amount of games to have gathered them. Tokens really should be for maps and game modes only, cause I for one aint buying all the recent (and cool) maps anymore because it only prevents me from being able to buy my next rank... Styloke

maybe 4mygod should increase amount ranks,now we have twenty-one ranks. he can increase to 30 or 40 ranks then he decrease price of each rank. how about is this opinion?

I agree with Styloke.

A rank is just a target the bigger the rank, the bigger your bullseyes on your backs are. You will see. I also think that it cost so many tokens for a couple of different reasons. The first being that hopefully people will tell their friends about the site to get the referral tokens, incentive. The second being that when you finally do earn that rank, you know and others know that you earned it, if it was easy we wouldn't appreciate our ranks or another persons ranks, and then we would all be generals. But this is coming from a guy that has come to not want a rank at all. Besides in my book you are all Generals ;)

[quote=1771]A rank is just a target the bigger the rank, the bigger your bullseyes on your backs are. You will see. I also think that it cost so many tokens for a couple of different reasons. The first being that hopefully people will tell their friends about the site to get the referral tokens, incentive. The second being that when you finally do earn that rank, you know and others know that you earned it, if it was easy we wouldn't appreciate our ranks or another persons ranks, and then we would all be generals. But this is coming from a guy that has come to not want a rank at all. Besides in my book you are all Generals ;)[/quote] Even with referring, it's still a tough job to get the required tokens. I have brought some people to the site, some were more active than others, but it's not like I've not put any effort in it. Each friend is a max of 25 games less needed, but how many friends can you bring? 20, 60? Still needs to be realistic. I think it's safe to say right now that getting a rank already means something. Getting the required skill points is already difficult, and by no means easy. Prove of this is those people, like yourself, that have more than enough tokens to buy their next rank, but just don't have the required skill points. In that sense, skill points are - rightfully - the limiting factor. By lowering or removing the token requirement there won't be any generals coming out of nowhere. It won't change much at all in fact, but it will make two things happen: - Making the rank a good way to determine one's skill instead of time he spend on this particular site, as it should in my opinion. Allowing people to measure themselves with others on the site. - Allow the community to grow further: Whether you like it or not, people are going to get turned off by hitting that requirement wall. I can imagine it's harder for people to keep coming here with no personal goals besides playing X more games.

I really highly aGREE WITH sTYLOKE

Wow, sorry. my caps lock button went weired

I was going to go through and come up with a proposal of what the token requirements should be for each rank but I have to spend my free time on map stuff. Styloke, you seem to be the most passionate about this. You should do a proposal and post it here. Then I will put in my 2 cents and then we can point Teck here. He won't change it until the site is fully transferred to his server, but we can get working on this in the mean time. Try to make the proposal a balance between what it is now and what would be an easy amount of tokens to get--somewhere in the middle. It would be a compromise that should make everyone happier. And incorporate the ideas from this thread. I think I had said that it should never be more than 50 games to the next rank--so it definitely shouldn't go up exponentially. A compromise might be for the last few ranks to be 75 games away.

I agree with Vexer as far as the last couple ranks being harder to achieve. Also with the proposal he mentioned. Believe me I understand your point of view Styloke, you give us something good, lets see what everyone else says about your proposal and I will do my best to get it changed, if everyone agrees. You are right about the skill points being the determining factor and for that reason I believe it should be changed. But now what am I going to do with all my tokens? I guess Vexer is going to have to make more maps for me to purchase :)

By the way CONGRATS on new rank Vexer!!!!!!

Ok, I'll start working on something after my exam tomorrow :)

Before I get into a possible solution. Let's first take a short look at how the situation is now. [img]http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4745/currentgames.jpg[/img] As you can see, the required amount of games required clearly scales exponentially. The solution I bring to you: My idea was to directly link the required Tokens to the required skill points. Assuming a user, which still has capability to grow, gains an average of X skill points per game. The required amount of games for a rank are derived from the skill point difference with it's previous rank, divided by that factor X: Req_Games[n] = (Req_Skill[n]-Req_Skill[n-1])/X [i]with n representing the n-th rank[/i] The required amount of tokens is then the result multiplied by 20, because each game delivers 20 tokens. Req_Tokens[n] = Req_Games[n]*20 The idea behind this system is that people that are 'on track' so to speak do not get limited by the token requirement. People who are a bit slower, won't notice it at all. Those that are more skilled or maybe just got a bit lucky , will feel a slight setback. So by now I hope it starts making sense to change the amount of tokens required to the difference in required skill points. There is also a major advantage to this system, which can be easily seen from the next figure. [img]http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/8316/linearskillpoints.jpg[/img] The total required skill points clearly scales linearly. This means that with a system like described above in place, the required amount of games will also scale linearly! Now that's the general idea. The token requirements for the lower few ranks, should stay the same so that new people can get the hang of it and to also enable them to spend tokens on maps and such. The factor X, can be freely chosen. In the model I present to you, it was set on 7.5. This is the equivalent of a 46% win rate in 3p matches, assuming same skill point level. The resulting token requirement is this: [img]http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/1090/finalresulte.jpg[/img] Apart from the first few ranks, there's a nice and logical connection between both. And finally the total amount of games required: [img]http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/2150/resultinggames.jpg[/img] As expected, linearly :). Please feel free to comment :). Styloke