New Rank at 4,000 Points

by **betiko** on Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:41 pm

Seriously gaby, last era I remember that had a couple of stable field marshals was when blitz/mc05/glg were conquerors. That s like 2 years ago.
Right now Ollie is artificially conqueror, once he finishes his losers it will be back to ff conqueror and no field marshals.
Ff s score >4500 with no temporary inflation is very rare these days.

by **Dukasaur** on Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:55 pm

betiko wrote:Seriously gaby, last era I remember that had a couple of stable field marshals was when blitz/mc05/glg were conquerors. That s like 2 years ago.
Right now Ollie is artificially conqueror, once he finishes his losers it will be back to ff conqueror and no field marshals.
Ff s score >4500 with no temporary inflation is very rare these days.

Yeah, it's rare right now. It's not rare over the historical course of the entire life of the website. There's no point making changes to meet a situation that might last three months or six. The site has turned around and is growing again, so presumably at some point will be back up to its 2010 membership. At that point, are you going to end up with 15 field marshals? Stop thinking that today is everything and look to the long term.

by **Gabriel13** on Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:03 am

betiko wrote:Seriously gaby, last era I remember that had a couple of stable field marshals was when blitz/mc05/glg were conquerors. That s like 2 years ago.
Right now Ollie is artificially conqueror, once he finishes his losers it will be back to ff conqueror and no field marshals.
Ff s score >4500 with no temporary inflation is very rare these days.

Glg was a little over a year ago. Mc05 was like 8 months ago..
Also, GO is not even close to conqueror anymore.. FF is.

by **universalchiro** on Thu Feb 20, 2014 2:12 am

universalchiro wrote:3,500 one star
3,750 two stars
4,000 three stars
4,250 four stars
4,500 Field Marshall

This will codify the 1,000 point gap from General to Field Marshall.

Solution: everyone wins. Purest keeps Field Marshall at 4,500, betiko gets clarity between one with 3,500 to 4,499 that currently have same rank.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, for I've been slow playing my losers for a month now and I'll be a cook by tomorrow. :shock:

by **Qwert** on Thu Feb 20, 2014 5:38 am

i sugested far before that we get more sets of ranks. Additionaly all people will have in settings to decide what ranks will want to have displayed.
1. Air
2.Navy
3.New Army
4.Present

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=47578

This will give more ranks

by **betiko** on Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:23 am

Qwert wrote:i sugested far before that we get more sets of ranks. Additionaly all people will have in settings to decide what ranks will want to have displayed.
1. Air
2.Navy
3.New Army
4.Present

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=47578

This will give more ranks

this looks pretty cool qwert, I like it.

Dukasaur wrote:
betiko wrote:Seriously gaby, last era I remember that had a couple of stable field marshals was when blitz/mc05/glg were conquerors. That s like 2 years ago.
Right now Ollie is artificially conqueror, once he finishes his losers it will be back to ff conqueror and no field marshals.
Ff s score >4500 with no temporary inflation is very rare these days.

Yeah, it's rare right now. It's not rare over the historical course of the entire life of the website. There's no point making changes to meet a situation that might last three months or six. The site has turned around and is growing again, so presumably at some point will be back up to its 2010 membership. At that point, are you going to end up with 15 field marshals? Stop thinking that today is everything and look to the long term.

I'm talking last 2 years rare duka. please be a dear and write in here any time you see 2 field marshals on the scoreboard that stay there for more than a couple of days and that are not on a ponzi. The fact of having more or less active players is absolutely not related to the amount of people with a +4500 score.

@gaby: mc05 was conqueror before and after glg, he was conqueror just after blitz and it lasted quite a while.

by **D4 Damager** on Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:45 am

I like the rank system as it is, but I can throw in another alternative that might stimulate discussion: why not have a fixed number or proportion of each rank? That is to say, at any one time there is:

(absolute number scheme) 1 conqueror, 3 field marshalls, 10 generals, etc..
(proportion scheme) 1 conqueror, top 0.025% are field marshalls, next 0.05% are generals, etc..

This would compensate for the fact that there are more points circulating when there are more active members on the site.

by **Shannon Apple** on Thu Feb 20, 2014 1:41 pm

betiko wrote:Seriously gaby, last era I remember that had a couple of stable field marshals was when blitz/mc05/glg were conquerors. That s like 2 years ago.

I've seen field marshals on the scoreboard in the past year since I've been back on CC.

Bringing the requirement down would just open up a demand for a new higher rank later on.

by **Dukasaur** on Thu Feb 20, 2014 2:54 pm

D4 Damager wrote:I like the rank system as it is, but I can throw in another alternative that might stimulate discussion: why not have a fixed number or proportion of each rank? That is to say, at any one time there is:

(absolute number scheme) 1 conqueror, 3 field marshalls, 10 generals, etc..
(proportion scheme) 1 conqueror, top 0.025% are field marshalls, next 0.05% are generals, etc..

This would compensate for the fact that there are more points circulating when there are more active members on the site.

That is an interesting possibility.

by **Metsfanmax** on Thu Feb 20, 2014 2:59 pm

How many people have historically been able to consistently stay above 4500 on CC?

by **betiko** on Thu Feb 20, 2014 3:14 pm

Shannon Apple wrote:
betiko wrote:Seriously gaby, last era I remember that had a couple of stable field marshals was when blitz/mc05/glg were conquerors. That s like 2 years ago.

I've seen field marshals on the scoreboard in the past year since I've been back on CC.

Bringing the requirement down would just open up a demand for a new higher rank later on.

You ve seen, but they are shooting stars. You won t see someone with a field marshal rank for a month anymore, nore 3 at the same time.

Dukasaur wrote:
D4 Damager wrote:I like the rank system as it is, but I can throw in another alternative that might stimulate discussion: why not have a fixed number or proportion of each rank? That is to say, at any one time there is:

(absolute number scheme) 1 conqueror, 3 field marshalls, 10 generals, etc..
(proportion scheme) 1 conqueror, top 0.025% are field marshalls, next 0.05% are generals, etc..

This would compensate for the fact that there are more points circulating when there are more active members on the site.

That is an interesting possibility.

I don t think so. The rank gives you an idea of how many points you will win/lose vs a given opponent. This system only gives you an idea of someone s position on the scoreboard and gives you no indication of the point difference you have with him.

Metsfanmax wrote:How many people have historically been able to consistently stay above 4500 on CC?

That is a hell of a question mate. no one can answer this. Also "consistently" is subjective.

by **universalchiro** on Thu Feb 20, 2014 4:25 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:How many people have historically been able to consistently stay above 4500 on CC?

Ahunda is one, but he may be holding the Field Marshall medal by being inactive.

by **Metsfanmax** on Thu Feb 20, 2014 8:18 pm

betiko wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:How many people have historically been able to consistently stay above 4500 on CC?

That is a hell of a question mate. no one can answer this. Also "consistently" is subjective.

Yes there's a bit of subjectivity, but I'm asking who can get that high without pulling TheCrown's move. If there's like 10 people, then that's a good argument for possibly lowering the rank.

by **betiko** on Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:32 pm

It s totally impossible to answer such question mets. Who are we to tell that player x or y will never have the skill to reach that level? To know that x or y player will retire soon, or come back to cc after a long break..
The only thing we can do is acknowledge that most of the time no one on the site has that rank. Also, if you are that high you most likely don t aim to become field marshal, but conqueror, as it s probably very close.
There is never going to be 20 stable people with 4000+ at a time... That rank would be very rare, but at least existent!

by **Metsfanmax** on Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:39 pm

betiko wrote:It s totally impossible to answer such question mets. Who are we to tell that player x or y will never have the skill to reach that level? To know that x or y player will retire soon, or come back to cc after a long break..

I don't care who theoretically could do it, I asked who has done it:

How many people have historically been able to consistently stay above 4500 on CC?

If no one can actually answer that question then none of you are being useful. Or at least answer an easier question, like how many people have ever hit 4500. Give me some data to work with here.

by **betiko** on Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:17 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
betiko wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:How many people have historically been able to consistently stay above 4500 on CC?

That is a hell of a question mate. no one can answer this. Also "consistently" is subjective.

Yes there's a bit of subjectivity, but I'm asking who can get that high without pulling TheCrown's move. If there's like 10 people, then that's a good argument for possibly lowering the rank.

This means who HAS done it for you?
Also do you get my point about active and inactive players?

And why are you asking me? I m telling you I can t answer this question without wild guessing. Apparently you can, because it s an easy question according to you.

by **Foxglove** on Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:17 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
betiko wrote:It s totally impossible to answer such question mets. Who are we to tell that player x or y will never have the skill to reach that level? To know that x or y player will retire soon, or come back to cc after a long break..

I don't care who theoretically could do it, I asked who has done it:

How many people have historically been able to consistently stay above 4500 on CC?

If no one can actually answer that question then none of you are being useful. Or at least answer an easier question, like how many people have ever hit 4500. Give me some data to work with here.

Well it's practically impossible to do such a thing without data to query. The best I can think of is the list (one of the many) that blitz used to maintain:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=129507&hilit=blitz+top+scores

It hasn't been updated for a few years, so there would be a handful more names on it. But it does show that as of a few years ago there were approximately 50 people to have ever reached a score over 4000 and approximately 21 above 4500. That number would be larger now, of course, but it also shows that there is a very small pool of people capable of getting a score of 4500, much less maintaining it. From memory (an unreliable thing, to be sure), I'd say that very few of those people could maintain those high scores.

My personal preference would be to add an additional rank at 4000.

by **Metsfanmax** on Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:21 pm

betiko wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
betiko wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:How many people have historically been able to consistently stay above 4500 on CC?

That is a hell of a question mate. no one can answer this. Also "consistently" is subjective.

Yes there's a bit of subjectivity, but I'm asking who can get that high without pulling TheCrown's move. If there's like 10 people, then that's a good argument for possibly lowering the rank.

This means who HAS done it for you?

It should be obvious that no one needs to be concerned about hypothetical people who can do this, but for various reasons have decided not to. Any decision on this rank should be based on who is actually achieving this rank.

Also do you get my point about active and inactive players?

I don't care if people come back after a hiatus and suddenly have the Field Marshal rank.

And why are you asking me? I m telling you I can t answer this question without wild guessing. Apparently you can, because it s an easy question according to you.

I'm asking everyone; if you don't have useful data to contribute, then there's no need to respond. Foxglove's contribution is the first one that's actually helpful in determining whether there's a need for a rank at 4000 (and whether there needs to be one at 4500). Even if all you have is anecdotal, it could be helpful. We may not be able to retrieve this data from the CC database because we historically did not record scores.

by **Dukasaur** on Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:22 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
And why are you asking me? I m telling you I can t answer this question without wild guessing. Apparently you can, because it s an easy question according to you.

I'm asking everyone; if you don't have useful data to contribute, then there's no need to respond. Foxglove's contribution is the first one that's actually helpful in determining whether there's a need for a rank at 4000 (and whether there needs to be one at 4500). Even if all you have is anecdotal, it could be helpful. We may not be able to retrieve this data from the CC database because we historically did not record scores.

by **Shannon Apple** on Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:50 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:I don't care who theoretically could do it, I asked who has done it:

Ahunda, Josko, FF

Josko was sitting with 5,400 as conquerer before he pulled any silly "personal high score" move. Okay, as conquerer, not field marshal, but still sitting there with those kinda points is possible if you don't get bored and do something crazy. :lol:

Ahunda is a field marshal, but now on a break from the site.

Sure, I've only seen 2-3 of them at the top of the scoreboard at the same time that were there for any period of time (in the past 14 months that I've been active). We're hoping that the site will pick up in activity, right? If it does, more people will be up there.

by **betiko** on Fri Feb 21, 2014 7:18 pm

duka, making average stats with this material makes no sense; sometimes you have 2 rankings in the same month, sometimes you have 6 month gap between two rankings, and the most updated you pulled out is a year old.
Also, you are counting the conqueror; so it's -1 field marshal each time.

Secondly; can you guys explain how you make a corelation between active players and amount of people with a 4500+ score? It's absolutely unrelated.
To give an example; I'm just taking the april 2008 ranking on the bottom of duka's stats.
21k users; and the last person on the first page of the ranking only has 2300 points (#250th)
today's leaderboard has only 12k users, and a person with 2300 points would not even be on page 2, but by the end of page 3 (689th)

the truth is that the scores are much tighter, there is a larger amount of players with a good experience over the years and there are less farmers. I don't believe this works in patterned cycles.

by **Metsfanmax** on Fri Feb 21, 2014 7:42 pm

betiko wrote:duka, making average stats with this material makes no sense; sometimes you have 2 rankings in the same month, sometimes you have 6 month gap between two rankings, and the most updated you pulled out is a year old.
Also, you are counting the conqueror; so it's -1 field marshal each time.

Secondly; can you guys explain how you make a corelation between active players and amount of people with a 4500+ score? It's absolutely unrelated.

If the correlation doesn't exist, it doesn't change the basic argument for whether or not we should have the rank.

by **betiko** on Fri Feb 21, 2014 7:56 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
betiko wrote:duka, making average stats with this material makes no sense; sometimes you have 2 rankings in the same month, sometimes you have 6 month gap between two rankings, and the most updated you pulled out is a year old.
Also, you are counting the conqueror; so it's -1 field marshal each time.

Secondly; can you guys explain how you make a corelation between active players and amount of people with a 4500+ score? It's absolutely unrelated.

If the correlation doesn't exist, it doesn't change the basic argument for whether or not we should have the rank.

This is the main argument of some people here. We would need to have more active players in order to have more +4500 according to duka.
Glad you agree with me on that point then.

people have a total freedom of who they face and when they face them.
In the CC system; the richer you get, the more unlikely you are to get even richer. The amount of "money" in circulation does not have a direct impact on the quantity of extremely wealthy people.

by **Metsfanmax** on Fri Feb 21, 2014 8:16 pm

betiko wrote:people have a total freedom of who they face and when they face them.
In the CC system; the richer you get, the more unlikely you are to get even richer. The amount of "money" in circulation does not have a direct impact on the quantity of extremely wealthy people.

The thing is, it obviously does have a direct impact on the quantity of extremely "wealthy" people. It's just not a linear correlation. And the reason is that your argument about how people have "total freedom of who they face" is not correct. The number of active players does have an effect on the actual games I play. For example, I don't play that much right now because when I go to Join a Speed Game, there basically aren't any ones there that are interesting to me. If there were twice as many active players, I'd be much more likely to play them regularly.

by **betiko** on Fri Feb 21, 2014 8:22 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
betiko wrote:people have a total freedom of who they face and when they face them.
In the CC system; the richer you get, the more unlikely you are to get even richer. The amount of "money" in circulation does not have a direct impact on the quantity of extremely wealthy people.

The thing is, it obviously does have a direct impact on the quantity of extremely "wealthy" people. It's just not a linear correlation. And the reason is that your argument about how people have "total freedom of who they face" is not correct. The number of active players does have an effect on the actual games I play. For example, I don't play that much right now because when I go to Join a Speed Game, there basically aren't any ones there that are interesting to me. If there were twice as many active players, I'd be much more likely to play them regularly.

to be a stable 4500+ player, you avoid playing speeders by all means. those players will probably only play brigs and above; and I've already proved that that population has increased dramatically over time.

New Rank at 4,000 Points

Re: field marshal requirements

Re: field marshal requirements

Re: field marshal requirements

Re: field marshal requirements

Re: field marshal requirements

Re: field marshal requirements

Re: field marshal requirements

Re: field marshal requirements

Re: field marshal requirements

Re: field marshal requirements

Re: field marshal requirements

Re: field marshal requirements

Re: field marshal requirements

Re: field marshal requirements

Re: field marshal requirements

Re: field marshal requirements

Re: field marshal requirements

Re: field marshal requirements

Re: field marshal requirements

Re: field marshal requirements

Re: field marshal requirements

Re: field marshal requirements

Re: field marshal requirements

Re: field marshal requirements

Re: field marshal requirements

Who is online