-

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Hmm. I feel the rank doesn't really matter very much; I know some excellent players who aren't "ranked" that highly, and likewise I know some Rank 50+ players who max out their infantry while playing Japan and don't have a navy by Day 20, sooo.... I feel the ranking system could benefit from rework, but being a part time dev, I also know that it can be challenging to rework something like that, of course scaling with the complexity of the rating system. Maybe a K/D ratio calculator linked the stat board?

      ive had guys who were a new game play who were better then level 90 seargeant
      • hello

      The post was edited 1 time, last by ross222 ().

    • ross222 wrote:

      Hmm. I feel the rank doesn't really matter very much; I know some excellent players who aren't "ranked" that highly, and likewise I know some Rank 50+ players who max out their infantry while playing Japan and don't have a navy by Day 20, sooo.... I feel the ranking system could benefit from rework, but being a part time dev, I also know that it can be challenging to rework something like that, of course scaling with the complexity of the rating system. Maybe a K/D ratio calculator linked the stat board?

      ive had guys who were new game play better then level 90 seargeant
      Yep, it’s more a matter of experience to get high rank, but skill is different.
    • im approaching level 30 on 14th game for whats it worth and seems to take longer to get to ranks as you get up. But i only play 1 game at a time and have been playing like 1.5 yrs. i see players terrible stats but just get ranks on 500 games. thats why i made a suggestion to include other factors like ind/coal wins; VPs in ranks versus current. heck now someone could play 500 games just build stuff and get high ranking without ever really defeating anyone (extreme example). or another example since you get rank points for units defeating bad mgmt of spawning and defeating insurgents gets rank points.. i saw one guy kill and had like 20k troop casulties agaist insurgents. wasnt doing anything but those rank points count more than someone who took city; held it properly and moved on without creating and defeating insurgents over and over.

      The whole purpose of game is to get more VPs than other individual or coalition. shouldnt the main goal be the main contributing factor to ranks?
      "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "

      aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp
    • Buckeyechamp wrote:

      im approaching level 30 on 14th game for whats it worth and seems to take longer to get to ranks as you get up. But i only play 1 game at a time and have been playing like 1.5 yrs. i see players terrible stats but just get ranks on 500 games. thats why i made a suggestion to include other factors like ind/coal wins; VPs in ranks versus current. heck now someone could play 500 games just build stuff and get high ranking without ever really defeating anyone (extreme example). or another example since you get rank points for units defeating bad mgmt of spawning and defeating insurgents gets rank points.. i saw one guy kill and had like 20k troop casulties agaist insurgents. wasnt doing anything but those rank points count more than someone who took city; held it properly and moved on without creating and defeating insurgents over and over.

      The whole purpose of game is to get more VPs than other individual or coalition. shouldnt the main goal be the main contributing factor to ranks?
      Dont really think there's any point in all of that; ranking up is just a simple progression system for time spent playing no need to make that overly complex/deep
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • so reward quantity versus quality. do real ranks get promoted based on just yrs of service or merit? i could just join 50 games right now and build stuff and lose all games and probably get more rank points than winning a game....hmmmm. To each their own but this isnt sim city.

      Example 4th highest ranked player on game has 19 wins in 1223 games a 1.5 pct win ratio. at least top 3 are 5 - 10 pct. at my rate of 1 game a month will take 100 yrs to play 1220 games...lol. not judging just saying rankings dont reflect quality of players thats all. I see you have high win pct so not directed at you.
      "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "

      aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp

      The post was edited 1 time, last by The Pale Rider ().

    • Buckeyechamp wrote:

      so reward quantity versus quality. do real ranks get promoted based on just yrs of service or merit? i could just join 50 games right now and build stuff and lose all games and probably get more rank points than winning a game....hmmmm. To each their own but this isnt sim city
      probably not; most points you usually make tend to be lategame
      and being good makes your stats look nice :)
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • I'm Rank 59, so close to First Seargent with 47 games. So reaching Seargent (Rank 30) with 100 games sounds for me pretty slow.

      How fast you level depends completely on your performance, the longer the last, the more units you kill and the more buildings you build the more effective you level.

      Of course you can also do it like some of our Top 10 players, playing 10 maps at a time and hardly learn how the game really works. :D