1 2 3 4 5 6 109 Replies Latest reply on Nov 13, 2013 6:03 PM by DavetheDisturbing Go to original post
• Test #1
###### 30.Re: A Much More Accurate "Ranking" System (It's Not Kills to Downs)

@ Kexplx I know your K/Dis 218 but you got to get up the rest of your stats.

and the friends that i have that have shotguns, well we didnt start trying to go for shotguns when we already had past 70 000 kills.

so I'm thinking is that there is a minimal total kills till you rank.

Just an example i started a new account played my first game ever on a new account and got 1000 kills 1 down i wouldn't get shotguns straight away would I.

so im thinking theres a minimal total kills

Last Edited: Mar 20, 2013 8:42 PM
• Test #1
###### 31.Re: A Much More Accurate "Ranking" System (It's Not Kills to Downs)

I honestly don't see how this could disprove anything I've said, so it's all good.

The higher the amount of games and kills, the more solid your stats will be, as they are less likely to change the more you have. For example, it will be easier to gain shotguns after playing less games than more (disregarding any minimal kills situations) provided you have the skills. Say you had one-thousand kills and ten games played, that means the equation results in one-hundred. Now say you play another game and rack up five-hundred kills. Your equation becomes one-thousand, five-hundred divided by eleven. The result is one-hundred and thirty-six-ish. There has been a massive boost to that number.

However, say you've played three-hundred games and have forty-thousand kills, that equates to roughly one-hundred and thirty-three. Then you play another game and rack up the same amount of kills as the first equation gained (five-hundred). The equation of forty-thousand, five-hundred divided by three-hundred and one barely shifts the result at all, giving you a result of around one-hundred and thirty-four.

The randomness of your kills to downs equations further solidifies that the system may very well be based on your kills to games played.

Last Edited: Mar 21, 2013 12:41 AM
• Test #1
###### 32.Re: A Much More Accurate "Ranking" System (It's Not Kills to Downs)

This weekend I intend to utilise my second account and discover whether there is a prerequisite number of games to be played or kills to be gained, so we will find out. More information regarding the logic can be found in the main post.

Last Edited: Mar 21, 2013 6:43 AM
• Test #1
###### 33.Re: A Much More Accurate "Ranking" System (It's Not Kills to Downs)

If you are saying its kills to games games played it should be a column in the stats. ( unless I didn't know it was already )

Your theory got me thinking though that before you do level up from single bone, say first game ever.

you must have a minimum games before it does let you level up to the next level or else all the guys that i heard started a new account would have a pretty solid theory for ranking up now.

Last Edited: Mar 21, 2013 1:07 PM
• Test #1
###### 34.Re: A Much More Accurate "Ranking" System (It's Not Kills to Downs)

Or, perhaps you'd need yer blue eyes first prior to ranking up... I can't recall if I was blue-eyed or not when I up'd to skull way back when, but most likely. I don't know if this has been discussed, but it seems like the only real purpose for tallies/blue eyes...

Last Edited: Mar 21, 2013 2:52 PM
Member
• Test #1
###### 35.Re: A Much More Accurate "Ranking" System (It's Not Kills to Downs)

It doesn't have to be in the stats, but it would make it easier. Besides, it technically is in the stats, or rather, your emblem, which shows the amount of consecutive days played (tally marks) and the shield piece (kills versus games played).

Last Edited: Mar 21, 2013 3:06 PM
• Test #1
###### 36.Re: A Much More Accurate "Ranking" System (It's Not Kills to Downs)

I don't think you are required to have had blue eyes before hitting the higher emblems, because I don't recall having blue eyes on either occasion I gained the knife emblem. As everyone has realised by now, the tally marks stand for days in a row played, and I don't think there's much more to them.

Last Edited: Mar 21, 2013 3:10 PM
• Test #1
###### 37.Re: A Much More Accurate "Ranking" System (It's Not Kills to Downs)

Well express yourself more often mate because you've got a lot of potential.

Last Edited: Mar 21, 2013 3:13 PM
• Test #1
###### 38.Re: A Much More Accurate "Ranking" System (It's Not Kills to Downs)

i made a new account....played like 6 games....had 6 downs and 10k in kills....got my shotguns....its your k/d lol

Last Edited: Mar 21, 2013 3:23 PM
• Test #1
###### 39.Re: A Much More Accurate "Ranking" System (It's Not Kills to Downs)

You played six games and gained six downs? In both cases the number is six, meaning kills divided by deaths and kills divided by death equate to the same number, so nothing has been proved.

Last Edited: Mar 21, 2013 4:04 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6