New matrix for ranks online?

[Steelrain60]

Perhaps I'm mistaken that we were never given a say in this decision; it's just I don't ever recall being asked. Did I miss something?

I would very much like to see more comments about this from the active rank and file of the CS ladder. I don't know if others feel as strongly about this as I do, but I'd like to see what others think.

[Steel God]

[Huib Versloot]

I think it's a fair system compared with the other ladders in which I participate, athough the sudden degration came as a rude surprise :smg:

Maybe the bonus point system can be altered somewhat to encourage people, making it really worth the effort, also pointwise, to do something extra for the club.

Speaking for myself: Most of my time I spend on CS is not reflected in the number of games played for the ladder, hence I don't think my ranks are really representative of the energy invested. Not that it's a big issue for me, but now that it's brought up... ;)

[Steel God]

Huib makes a very good point, that while we are a gaming community, there are ways to contribute above and beyond simply reporting games. Scenario design work, writing articles, supporting Tourneys, all of these actions go towards enriching the community, and that is the primary reason we have always awarded bonus points for such actions. The existing bonus system awarded points on a smaller scale than our new ladder system warrants, and in fact, Ed brought this point up when the work on the redesign was being done. We all agreed that a revamp of the bonuses would also be necessary, but that since it was hard enough to tackle the ranks and ladders concurrently we'd do the bonus points as a separate fix at a later date. As completely as possible it would be retroactive of course just like the ladder scores.

So Huib, yes we agree and we already have it on our list of things to do. Thanks for the input.

Paul

[Steelrain60]

[Herr Straße Laufer]

***"I want to make clear that I don't play for rank or points or anything other than entertainment value, and this won't stop me from playing. But this really is a s****y decision."***

To quote Lincoln; "You can please some of the people some of the time. But, you can't please all the people all of the time."

Had the July Newletter come out in July, you would have seen the rationale behind all that was done. In fact you probably would have seen quite a bit more of the "innards" than you expected.
But, weather played foul on those of us in the Northeast and it was decided to scrap July and go with a bi-monthly Newsletter.

Short of posting threads on each ladder or sending you a personal e-mail what exactly did you want us to do to inform you?

I copied your above quote because I was stunned that a person who does not care about rank or points has posted more in the last twelve hours than I think you have in the last month.
All complaints about ranks?
And, your rank specifically?

Believe me, I'm not trying to pound on you. In fact I would like to hear the thoughts of all the CS Ladder members.
I worked hard on the Tables of Ranks and the new Ladder Scoring Points tables to make things fair across all ladders.
I dropped two ladder positions and rank, so you can see that nothing was done in my personal interest? And, I care about Rank/Ladder position/Score!

In personal e-mails I've heard from many that they were 'surprised', but none were 'shocked'. And, that most thought the club was too top heavy and were pleasantly surprised at the change.
Considering that 2,000 points got you to Marshal, in the old system, when you earned ten to twenty points per game, this new system was built for the future.

I won't go into more detail. You can read about it in the upcoming Newsletter.

I am sorry that you find this distasteful.

[Von Earlmann]

Ed,
I am going to surprise you and say I think the new system is pretty good(remember us old folks don't like change and I tend to be disagreeable on a good day).I have always thot it too easy to advance to the top ranks.Yes, this will be difficult but as the saying goes "If it was easy anyone could do it"

But, don't go by me.....I really don't care much about points..except brownie points with Frau von Earlmann.........and they are real difficult to come by.....lol ..........actually......roflmao :-)

[Scraps]

The new table of ranks is good! I had no business being a General before - a Seargent is much more me. But seriously, a title is just a title...

The old system had the ladder top-heavy as someone mentioned - a real cluster-f.

If I recall correctly, this topic came up on the boards less than a year ago when the powers that be implemented the new size-modifier scoring system. When all of a sudden your games are worth 100 points instead of 40, it only makes sense to stretch out the ranks. When that happened, I went from Corporal to Colonel over night. If you look at it from a statistician's point of view, the ranks are skewed by the top 10+ ladder leaders. Compared to the top 10, the overall scores probably have a low mean and median, and I suspect that a frequency of all scores was also looked at when the new ranks were put into place. Club managment probably did not anticipate players with over 10,000 points when the original table was put into place.

So I say, good work with the new Table of Ranks!


Mike aka Scraps

[Mike Abberton]

For truth in advertising purposes, I'll preface my comments by saying that I was an assistant ladder custodian when this process started, and knew about the basics of the ladder/rank changes a while ago.

With that being said from what I recall, there has been at least one instance of asking for some general membership input (not in the details, but of the changes in concept at least), and it has not exactly been a super-secret endeavour, particularly in the last few weeks. This has been a topic of conversation on and off again on the CM ladder since the scoring changes for that ladder about a year ago.

I think Ed and the leadership did a great job balancing initial advancement (essentially the same as it was before), decent mid-level advancement (harder than before, but manageable) and difficult high-level advancement. Particularly with the generally higher level of reward on a per game basis, I think the changes will work very well.

Recently joined members will not see much impact, since the lowest ranks didn't change much and their advancement was probably impacted the least. Saying this will decrease new membership doesn't make much sense, since they will never have been exposed to the old rank system and won't have a basis of comparison.

As for the longer-term members, what is better achieving the highest ranks "early" (I realize that this is a completely relative term depending on your individual playing rate) and having no more potential for advancement? Or having ranks to shoot for a much longer time? I guess that is up to the individual. Some will like it and some will not. Taking a look at the various forums, it looks like it a basically a non-issue (there are little to no comments) or generally seen as a good thing. Most of the negative remarks seem to be here on the CS ladder.

Mike

[Yossarian]

I got busted in rank back in the 60's when I was in the Marine Corps....
so for me, it's no big deal. :whis:

And I was told at that time that you can't be considered as a real Marine until you have been busted at least once. I assume that this philosophy is probably practiced in other military services and armies also. Or maybe I'm wrong and it's just "old school" tradition. :soap:

The resposibility of being a General was starting to wear on me. And it's the lower ranks that really make the tactical decisions in battle, so the only gripe and question I have...will my pay be reduced too? :conf:

One last comment: It's the enlisted ranks and lower officer and field grade officers who always get the girls... :smoke:

Mike/Yossarian