and for ranking/rewards a formula (the simpler the better) that rewards wins, rewards survival (but to a lesser degree), penalizes NMR's, rewards non-NMR's, rewards hosting a game.
I agree with Tom's basis for ranking posted this morning. But as to the ranks, I'm wondering if we should scratch all existing ranks and start over. It might be more in keeping with our desire to recreate the site in the eyes of old and new players and maybe increase the sense of good competition once again. One thing I do like about the judge sites is that they have levels based on points, rather than arbitrary ranks, which avoids the whole issue of military vs non-military ranking systems. Second, every game you enter forces you to invest some of your ranking points, thus creating the potential for descending in the point total as well as rising. As many of you know, this is more or less how chess and other board game associations (go, shogi) handle things. Yes, they have ranking titles (master, grand-master, etc.), but they are based on accumulated and maintained point totals. So, total points would create a relativistic ranking system that is easy to understand.
Tom also suggested a star-rating, similar to how we rank movies. On the surface, it makes sense. But like the labels (genera, adjutant, master, etc), the issue is where we set those levels. How many wins/survivals does it take to make a new rank? Or the next one? It might be intellectually fun to argue over this, but it would suffer from exclusivity and lack of comparability. That is to say, it means nothing outside of Redscape. If we're not concerned about that, fair enough. The same could be said for a basic point system, such as I suggested. But the difference is that there are no arbitrary levels, as such. It is accumulated points. So, for example, a solo nets 8 points; a 2nd place (based on centers) nets 4 pts, and the other survivors get 1 pt. A DIAS results in all survivors getting 4 points (or something like that). NMRs would be -5. We could have a sidebar that displays the top 100 players by points.
I reckon it could be possible to make arbitrary slices in a point ranking to assign some kind of label (master, diplomat, general, etc). For example, if we slice the point continuum into quarters, the top %25 would have the highest named rank. Thus, players have the opportunity to rise and fall in the ranks over time. Just because you made "dignitary" or "general" does not mean you get to keep it forever, like some honorary badge. Your rank must be earned and defended.