As part of the recent updates, Blizzard has introduced
ranks for the the different races, depending on the number of kills said unit has. While this is purely a superficial feature and so low in priority, I think it should still be up for criticism anyway. Personally, I don't like many of the ranks given.
Starting with the Protoss, it feels weird that it's entirely possible for the Protoss to have multiple Executors on the same battlefield when previous representation of the title conveyed the feel that there was only one (or at least, very few of them) at a given time and s/he heads the entire Protoss fleet. Otherwise, what makes Selendis so notable a figure in Protoss society? For Terrans, while the term 'Commander' can be applied to those in charge of batallions, regiments, etc., it has too much of an attachment to Commander-In-Chief, which leads to the same problem as the Protoss' Executor. Lastly, there's the Zerg, which just sounds somewhat out of place for a swarm-like race. And what on Earth is a metamorph? Sounds like some kind of shapeshifter to me.
The following is my revised idea for the ranks:
Terrans:
0 - 4: Recruit
5 - 9: Corporal
10 - 14: Sergeant
15 - 19: Lieutenant
>20: Captain
Zerg:
0 - 4: Whelp
5 - 9: Predator
10 - 14: Warrior
15 - 19: Butcher
>20: Champion
Protoss:
0 - 4: Apprentice
5 - 9: Master
10 - 14: Guardian
15 - 19: Prelate
>20: Praetor
Prelate and Praetor are titles previously used by the Protoss leaders (as is Steward but I didn't know where that fit in since Fenix was both, a Praetor and a Steward). Rather than using unfitting, unimpressive terms like 'Mentor' and 'Instructor', make use of them instead!