Which Ranking System is better

[Superstar]

I was shocked when I first logged on since Friday to see the ranking system names were changed. I loved the old Captain, Admiral names. I guess this was a nessecary change for the forum but I really liked the old names. What is you opinion?

[zero2000]

Well, it isnt a socom 3 based forum anymore, so it sort of should of been changed. I like the new names, but I really dont care, it isnt really in the way or anything. So it doesnt bother me.

[Jimdalf]

Initially I was horrified at my rank, but now I don't mind as the new system is quite good... a little knowledge of vintage consoles is all you need to understand the new ranks, and I agree with DK that they are kinda funny and a little cute... well, the old ones like Atari 2600 (or whatever the number is) have a cute rustic feel to them

[Dionysus]

It was a needed change considering this is no longer just a Socom forum, but the new ranks are more clever and better anyways.

[idubkiller]

i think that the old ranks were better but thats just me

[Cylon]

I think the new ranks are good, and obviously they fit this forum perfectly. They are creative, since as you progress up the "ranks" the consoles get more up to date.

The old ranks were nice as well, and based off of Socom 3's online ranking system. Good for a Socom forum, not good for a general gaming forum which is why they had to be changed.

Either way, it really doesn't bother me, both ranking systems are/were great.

[Erg]

I liked the old ones more. Maybe Im just to used to the Navy ranks on here...also the Navy ranks had a definite pattern to it. The one right now is open to discussion/arguement/etc.

[Chimaira]

All I have to say is: This ranking system is as whack as SOCOM 3's.


I mean come on, I'm a Sony Playstation? Ooookay.

Have a nice day everyone.

[DaKilla]

The ranking system is actually quite intuitive and obvious if anyone cared to think about it.

As you increase posts you progress through time; beginning posters start as the first generation consoles, while top posters (like the mOBSCENE) wind up being seventh generation consoles (which are yet to be released). Within each generation the consoles are listed by increasing release date (for the most part), or by popularity, or by system power (ie, handheld versus "desktop"), with decreasing priority through the aforementioned list.

In other words, I listed them (in increasing priority):

1. System type or power (handheld vs. non-handheld)
2. Popularity (if two came out at the same time, which seemed more popular at the time; someone always has to be on top)
3. Age (this is the most deciding factor; what came first!)

It's really quite simply, and I was hoping that it would get some users interested in gaming history. We've progressed from those old consoles, and that's what posting here should symbolize; don't forget your roots, but still embrace the future.

Without knowledge of the history of gaming, there is little you can do to really improve the field.

I hope that answers some questions of why the ranks are what they are, and also gives some people the urge to look up some of the older consoles and see what it's all about.

Lastly: if anyone has any requests of other consoles they'd like to see in the list, feel free to post them. I would gladly make changes to the list to include more consoles (I've used about twenty of probably forty or fifty consoles, so we can always add more as the need arises).

[RadioactiveMan]

The way you described the rank system is almost poetic, DaKilla.