Enaris

Oh, it certainly isn't what I look for in leadership, which is why I put him as Yellow. I consider Yellow to be "mixed bag, but competent moments are more than balanced out by mistakes." *shrugs*

There's no doubting Marshall's importance in winning the Second World War, but frankly, as he never actually commanded troops in combat as a general during any war, you can't really rate him against other combat commanders. No implication on my part. A simple statement. Lee was likely the most talented tactician of the war, and one of the better generals of the war on the operational level. On the other hand, his grasp of the larger strategic aspects of the war were rather more limited. No, he wasn't the CSA Commander (that was Davis himself), but the Antietam and Gettysburg c

American Generals (heh) Purple: Winfield Scott Blue: Ulysses Grant Green: Douglas MacArthur Yellow: George B McClellan Orange: Earl Van Dorn Red: James Wilkenson

I've always thought that "Decent" might fit into that spot.

Being part of a Training Clan, I'm well aware of the fact that people outside the 10% are well aware of their numbers, and their place in the "pecking order". Now, you may well argue that M-I-T tends to attract a certain subset of lower end players (the upwardly mobile), but I've seen any number of times the excitement that people get when they manage to pass some number which causes their color to change. It becomes something of a intermediate goal as they go along in the process. I do think that's valuable, and why I think that a system which recognizes differences in the bottom 75% is of

An analogy I've used before in regards to player levels is to parallel it with one's educational level. I think that keeps us from getting the idea that it's "all or nothing" "unicum or red" or the like. Red= Elementary School Orange= Jr High Yellow= High School Diploma Green= College Degree Blue=Masters Purple= PhD Dark Purple=Post Doc Fellowship Now, of course, a major issue is that not everyone wants to go on to college or grad school (heh), and some are happy dropping out after 6th grade. However, while a PhD in any field can look at those below him and say "they don't

Pork, something to remember is the "Compression of Perspective". A player who is in the top 5% of the server sees little "real" difference between the play of anyone yellow and below. Yet, think about what Max said before. While you may consider a 47% to be a "bad" player, the truth is that he's only slightly negative on your team compared to a 44%. He'll cost his team around 1.5 of 100 games, as opposed to the 4.5 or so (assuming 48.5 average winrate) that the truly bad player costs his team. That's as much as a difference as the one between a 53% and a 56% on the "positive" side. That'

The 500 point "noise" that you mention. Is that "across the board" or "in the higher levels"? What I mean is this, does this 500 points of noise only really manifest when you're in the upper extremes of the rating (2200+ or the like), or is that rule of thumb equally true when looking down around the 1000 level also? It strikes me that a rating having 500 points of "noise" when well over 90% of the playerbase has a rating lower than 1500 (thus, "noise x 3") is more than a bit problematic.

I guess the ongoing question that remains in my mind is "Who is the color system intended to give information to?" Is it a system that's really meant to only give relevant information to the 10%? Or is it meant to have information that is useful to everyone? High Blue+ players look at those who are yellow and below and can easily say "I don't really see much difference between them." That becomes a reason not to give any kind of fine gradation to those who are below green. Well, it's certainly true enough that from the perspective of a Blue+ player, there's honestly going to be little d

All righty, who knew that he was getting enough fame (or something) to get interviewed by an actual print magazine with noticeable circulation. http://www.armchairgeneral.com/the-mighty-jingles-an-interview.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ArmchairGeneralMagazineMilitaryHistory+%28Armchair+General+Magazine%29

While my play is evidently no better than Stalker's, I dislike the growth of corridor maps, simply because I look at tanks as having something of a triangle of values: Firepower, Protection, Mobility. (Obviously, it's more complex than that, but that's a workable backhand approach.) Corridors reduce the value of mobility, which happens to be the most interesting of the assets to leverage.