Yes, I don't want the rank system touched because it gives "good" players a well deserved rank and "bad" players a not-so-much-wanted-rank. Post your thoughts and feelings about leaving the rank system alone only. All other comments and posts will be removed immediately. I'm aware that some players worked hard to get where they are and don't want "newbies" to hold the same rank as them.
I'm also aware that many players wanting to get higher ranks faster will probably spam this thread. With AG's cooperation I'm sure they'll help everyone get a say in what goes on during AG3. I personally would like to have a vote take place like this: Do you want more a lenient ranking system? Do you want the rank system untouched? Do you want a more strict rank system?
Yes, I don't want the rank system touched because it gives "good" players a well deserved rank and "bad" players a not-so-much-wanted-rank.
First off, not players It's users. Second, the current rank system doesn't tell people if the user is good or bad. If you think having a low rank makes you a bad user, you are a terrible user.
All other comments and posts will be removed immediately.
As long as they are relevant to the topic, that's not up to you.
I'm also aware that many players wanting to get higher ranks faster will probably spam this thread.
Why this spam this thread over any other thread? Besides the mod team and Cormyn monitor all the comments and post and delete spam.
And lastly, the right place to post this is probably here
it gives "good" players a well deserved rank and "bad" players a not-so-much-wanted-rank
define a "good" and a "bad" player... you don't have to be good at anything to post in the forums, rate games, and post comments. Am i better than you because i have more ap than you?
I agree with you that deleting AG2's rank system may bring inconvience to original users. But I think the biggest reason for users dislike changing of this system is not "it gives "good" players a well deserved rank and "bad" players a not-so-much-wanted-rank.", but users need to rebuild their rankings in AG3 which is much harder to be advanced.
many players wanting to get higher ranks faster will probably spam this thread.
The new developed "ranking system" is assumed to be "reputation system"([url=http://armorgames.com/community/thread/7374403/ideas-and-discussions-about-reputation-system]) which certainly reduces a lot of spams.
I would like for the point system to be more strict. Like you get points for getting to certain parts in a game, you don't get points for rating a game, you don't get points for commenting, you don't get points for posting on the forums, but you do get points if you have good reputation and such, when people vote up your comments and posts.
Also, the points system on AG2 doesn't define good or bad players on the site. Just because you have a lot of points doesn't mean you are a good user. Points are incredibly easy to get in the current state of the site and anyone that wants to spend a mass amount of times on the site can get a lot of points.
I'm sure that the AG Developers have something in-store for us that everyone will enjoy and it'll be somewhat difficult to get points for some people but easier for others.
Besides, Ranks and points are not really important. This is a games website after all.
@GhostofMatrix I have to admit, you've single-handedly changed my opinion about the new system. I read everything about the new system and didn't even know about this, you definitely pay more attention to these things than I do. Thank you.
Not necessarily how active the user is, more like how much he has contributed to the website. Users like firetail don't go on anymore but still have extremely high ranks.
Not necessarily how active the user is, more like how much he has contributed to the website. Users like firetail don't go on anymore but still have extremely high ranks.
Contributing to the site is being active. He didn't get to be number on this site by not being active. He used to be very active around the site but that activity gradually went down.
Contributing to the site is being active. He didn't get to be number on this site by not being active. He used to be very active around the site but that activity gradually went down.
I know, what i was saying is that he isn't active anymore. He contributed a lot to the site when he was active but even though he is not active anymore he still has a high rank. So it doesn't necessarily tell you "how ACTIVE the user is" it tells you that the user was active and has contributed a lot.
This is partly why we were looking at the idea of a "decaying" reputation ... if you have a bad reputation, or a really great reputation, over time, your reputation would sway back to a neutral value, so users like firetail_madness who have been incredibly active in the past but not so much lately, wouldn't have as much reputation 6 months or a year later, because they haven't contributed anything.
Whether we actually implement it like that, I don't know.
To stay on topic, I'll direct all reputation-related chatter to go in this thread.
As far as the user ranks go, we'll probably pair the new AP system AND the Reputation system to determine a rank. Honestly, we haven't even discussed the ranks as part of AG3.
I think changing it would be nice and like adding some lower ranks and adding like an emperor rank which needs tonnes of points so no one has the maximum rank yet. It would probably make people use AG more to get a better rank.
