That or can people play me that know it wont crash or dyscy or anything please...

aGorm
Moderator: Moderators
I don't think so... The ranking is starting to become quite helpfull. When you see someone above rank 3 (the maximum we could set), you know for sure that that person knows how to play. Not that that person is very good. But if that is what you we're thinking that the rank represented, then it's your mistake because it represents experience and not quality.Warlord Zsinj wrote:...
It gets to the point where it is not a helpful indicator, ...
I say the ranking system should be removed. ...
I set myself to rank 3 because that's approximately where I am. There's still lots of people around at rank 2. The worst thing about it is the many rank 1 players that are pretty good beating high ranking players and throwing the system somewhat off kilter.Warlord Zsinj wrote:See, this is why ranks are such a bad idea.
It gets to the point where it is not a helpful indicator, but a symbol of status that people actually care about.
I say the ranking system should be removed. Allow player stats to be shown, such as, games played won/lost, total units killed, total metal wasted, etc, etc, but no direct ranking system.
5 ranks, means you can quicly see roughly were everyone is, without having to read a number that could become very long and take up a load of room. plus, what does it matter 50 games or 40? Theyve both been playing it for some time. The current system works fine.Showing how many games a player has played is far more telling of their ability than a direct eschelon system