A different take on ranks

MonkeyRex · Post by **MonkeyRex** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:04 am

Hi!

I was thinking about ranks, and to me it would seem better to rank according to how high you rank compared to everyone else. I don't have all the ranks in my head, so lets say Rank1 is the lowest, then Rank2 etc.

For each Rank2 there is two Rank1, and for each Rank3 there is two Rank2 etc. And if Rank7 is the highest rank so far (this would depend on the number of players), there is only one Rank7. When the system fills up (1 R7, 2 R6, 4 R5, 8 R4, 16 R3, 32 R2 and 64 R1) and a new players joins, everyone is promoted.

If a R5 gets more points than the lowest R6, then they swap ranks.

As a programmer myself, I know this is a much more challenging rank-system to implement, but it would add quite a bit to the game. Any thoughts?

steve monkey · Post by **steve monkey** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:40 am

this hurts my head.

sully800 · Post by **sully800** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:07 pm

I've thought about something like that as well. The scoring system would be the same but he's saying the rank titles (general, colonel, etc) wouldn't depend on the points earned or games played.

Instead it would be something like

1st on the scoreboard is the General
2-20 are colonels
21-100 are majors
101-250 are captains
251-500 are lieutenants
501-1000 are sergeants
1001+ are privates.

I just made up those numbers quickly off the top of my head but its a similar system to what Monkey suggested just easier to explain.

steve monkey · Post by **steve monkey** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:05 am

now I understand.

tals · Post by **tals** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:34 am

Yep nice idea - although I think they need more ranks and the breakdown should be based on percentages from mid table down. eg 10% of player population are corporals - rather than a fixed number

Tals

mandalorian2298 · Post by **mandalorian2298** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:11 pm

That is what the ranking list is for

reverend_kyle · Post by **reverend_kyle** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 1:25 am

sully800 wrote:I've thought about something like that as well. The scoring system would be the same but he's saying the rank titles (general, colonel, etc) wouldn't depend on the points earned or games played.

Instead it would be something like

1st on the scoreboard is the General
2-20 are colonels
21-100 are majors
101-250 are captains
251-500 are lieutenants
501-1000 are sergeants
1001+ are privates.

I just made up those numbers quickly off the top of my head but its a similar system to what Monkey suggested just easier to explain.

awww man then i'd be lieutenant again.

cattrain · Post by **cattrain** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 1:28 am

ya... i love the idea...

lackattack · Post by **lackattack** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 9:28 am

Having a rank dependent on other players' scores would be very difficult to maintain.

Under the hood, I won't be able to simply store your rank on your record as I do currently because every time someone wins a game I'd then have to recalculate and update every single record. Score changes would occur faster than the re-shuffle and Conquer Club will be, as they say, "Eliminated".

Alternatively, I could derive the rank on the fly just before I print the icon. That would enatil hitting the database each time (bad!), unless I load a sorted copy of all the usernames into memory and do lookups from that...

Okay I guess it is possible, but a lot of work. I already have a shortage of programming time so let's forget this idea, ok?

tals · Post by **tals** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 1:17 pm

Definitely - current one works, just would like more ranks

A different take on ranks

Is this a better way of doing ranking?

A different take on ranks