By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - What's your new Rank???

 

What Rank are you?

Newbie 3 4.92%
 
Rookie 22 36.07%
 
Padawan 11 18.03%
 
Sea Dog 13 21.31%
 
Captain 9 14.75%
 
Agent 2 3.28%
 
Elite 0 0%
 
Hero 0 0%
 
Legend 1 1.64%
 
Titan 0 0%
 
Total:61
sethnintendo on 14 July 2011
Machina said:
*deep breath, calm thoughts, don't get snarky*

Some valid complaints here and I've taken them on board. That said, I've no sympathy for those complaining about having been here for ages and having too low a level; levels aren't based on age of account, they're based on various contributions to the site.

Anyway, we'll go about this slightly differently and start over. Since most of you seem to have missed the original discussion we'll do it this way:

1 - Introduce more levels and smaller gaps. Not massive changes, just more manageable steps.

2 - Create a thread for name suggestions and dicussion. We'll see what comes of that and work from there.


Hopefully ya'll will stop yelling at me now.

Those are the two main ideas I wanted you guys to grasp.  While names and rankings really don't mean too much to me they could mean a lot to someone else.  It just seems like we went from decent names for lower tier members to terrible names.  Who wants to be ranked sea dog?  Maybe a few but I think most people don't like that name for a veteran member.  The higher ranked names are pretty decent but the lower ranked ones to agent rank need better names. 

I would say create a thread that has brainstorming.  In that thread you can pick and choose the names that other users have come up with that seem to be good choices.  Then you should make another thread where the members can vote on which names stay.  That would be the most fair for the community.



Around the Network
Seece on 14 July 2011
Chrizum said:
After having looked into this, it appears over 99% of the site's users are on level 4 or lower. That means that the other 6 ranks are almost unreachable for over 90% of the site's members. On the current system, any rank above the fifth is absolutely useless except for a few members.

No one will ever reach level 10, or probably even level 9 for that matter.


All ranks are reachable to every single person on the site, it's up to them if they want to put the dedication in.

People at the top deserve ranks MORE than you. So having something like 100k to 500k to 1 mill is unfair on those that actually put effort into the site ...



 

sethnintendo on 14 July 2011
RolStoppable said:

Whoa, I get the impression that what you said about me is meant negatively. As if I were a borderline spammer who is only saved by the fact that he made one or two interesting threads.


It has been confirmed!  Rol is an Australian spam bot created by an evil Austrian scientist!



Chrizum on 14 July 2011
Seece said:
Chrizum said:
After having looked into this, it appears over 99% of the site's users are on level 4 or lower. That means that the other 6 ranks are almost unreachable for over 90% of the site's members. On the current system, any rank above the fifth is absolutely useless except for a few members.

No one will ever reach level 10, or probably even level 9 for that matter.


All ranks are reachable to every single person on the site, it's up to them if they want to put the dedication in.

People at the top deserve ranks MORE than you. So having something like 100k to 500k to 1 mill is unfair on those that actually put effort into the site ...

You seem to misunderstand. My point is that there are 10 ranks. But 99% of the site's users (this is no exaggeration, I mean literaly 99%) are on rank 4 or lower. Obviously I'm not saying everyone should be level 10, but it's statistically incredibly skewed when 99% (ten thousands of members) of the site is on rank 1-4, and only 10 members or so are ranked level 5-8.



okr on 14 July 2011
RolStoppable said:
okr said:

The easy site contriutions that are rewarded the most are own forum posts, posts in a thread you started, adding friends and friend's wall post. Look at rol's profile for example: More than 95.000 of his 98.000 points come from these 4 items. Rol is just an example. At least he contributed one or two interesting threads.

Actually I wouldn't really care about points, ranks or badges, but machina saying that he has "no sympathy for those complaining about having been here for ages and having too low a level; levels aren't based on age of account, they're based on various contributions to the site" is true, but a bit insulting to those who joined 4 years ago and are surpassed easily by members who joined in 2010 and make tons of contributions to the site like "yeah, lol" forum posts (3 points each) or "how are you" wall comments (2 points each).

Whoa, I get the impression that what you said about me is meant negatively. As if I were a borderline spammer who is only saved by the fact that he made one or two interesting threads.

No, it wasn't meant negatively at all towards you (or theonestarr, who seems to have misunderstood my post as well. He seems to think I wanted to say that at least you made a few interesting threads - unlike him. That's not what I meant).

So - sorry to you and him. I often have problems with expressing my opinion properly. I'm afraid my English isn't good enough and that's why my posts often are more complicated than necessary, sound more harsh than they were meant and can be easily misunderstood.

What I actually wanted to say: I don't think posting or receiving posts should be rewarded at all and I took your points as an example. You gained almost all points from posting, creating threads and receiving posts in your threads. This is your contribution to the community, which isn't a bad thing at all. But why are members rewarded at all for posting, creating threads or receiving posts? Some members have thousands of posts but rarely have anything of interest to say. I don't care if most forum posts are not interesting (that's normal for any forum), but I think posts generally shouldn't be rewarded. That's my point. With the current system people get points far too easily.

I think only database contributions should be rewarded with a point system.



Around the Network
thetonestarr on 14 July 2011

As I've already pointed out before, and as other members are pointing out, the ranking system is foolishly skewed towards people who contribute WAAAY more than is logically possible for the extreme vast number of regular users.

The site should have 15 levels, where the extra 5 are added within the 99% range that Chrizum is talking about - ALL in the lower half of the spectrum we currently have (maybe one more before the current level 2, then one between 2 & 3, 3 & 4, 4 & 5, etc).



 SW-5120-1900-6153

okr on 14 July 2011
RolStoppable said:

Well, that's disappointing then, because I was already preparing my battle plans.

A battle with you? Only in our native language. Bis dahin bleibe ich bei meinem altbewährten Motto: Wind aus den Segeln.

And these two posts mean 3 more points for you and me, provided by gamrConnect.



Faxanadu on 19 July 2011
RolStoppable said:
okr said:

A battle with you? Only in our native language. Bis dahin bleibe ich bei meinem altbewährten Motto: Wind aus den Segeln.

And these two posts mean 3 more points for you and me, provided by gamrConnect.

That's a good mantra, but I prefer to stick to what worked for me in all those years: Wer hart austeilt, muss auch hart einstecken können. Die meisten Leute beherzigen aber nur die erste Hälfte von diesem Sprichwort and then throw a fit when the tables are being turned around.

Bitte das nächste mal in einer verständlichen Sprache.



Any message from Faxanadu is written in good faith but shall neither be binding nor construed as constituting a commitment by Faxanadu except where provided for in a written agreement signed by an authorized representative of Faxanadu. This message is intended for the use of the forum members only.

The views expressed here may be personal and/or offensive and are not necessarily the views of Faxanadu.

sethnintendo on 19 July 2011

People need to start voting in the new rank threads. Discussing the possible points it takes to acquire ranks and the actual rank names.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=131803&page=1#

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=131745%29.



TomaTito on 19 July 2011

I'm a newbie, but that's because I only make my daily post. But Chrizum is right though,the level progression should be exponential rather than linear. Easy at the beginning to get people hooked, and harder as you progress. I guess the progression in the higher levels is more interesting for mods, contributers, etc. Hence why those have been divided more.

 I really don't care, I'll just continue visiting the site, make my daily post and make a thread or two.



@Twitter | Switch | Steam

You say tomato, I say tomato 

"¡Viva la Ñ!"