Jump to content
Daruth

Opinions On A Ranking System?

Recommended Posts

If anyone else has played it, I love how cRPG handles leveling. Once you reach the maximum level for your character, your character "retires" and you start all over again from the bottom but you get a special perk that you get to add to one of your weapons. Kind of like an ancient sword passed down generation to generation. It keeps things fresh by recycling your character and no one stays as a maxed soldier, but it still rewards you with that perk you get after level 31.

I have no idea how that could be implemented into Squad though. Maybe at the start of every new round your character gets wiped so that anything you earned in the past round doesn't carry over to the next? That way everyone starts on equal footing and no XP advantages.

Nah that's too long term and really not fitting for a tactical shooter scene man... Besides, I can see most people getting pissed when they hit max level and everything resets automagically.

 

 

My idea is that confirmed kills are recorded, flag captures, other epeen-y shit.

When you die your characters stats are reset, so people have to be careful how they play. It'd stop the rambo-ing K/D lovers from running around lone-wolfing and going full retard if they want to preserve it, and as for the people who don't give a shit about stats and like to just play the tactical scene- They just don't give a fuck and play properly anyway.

People who are able to play well, as a team, and survive will earn their epeen flexing.

People who go full retard will have nothing to show.

 

I think it'd be fair that at the end of a round your stats get saved though, along with hours played- And when you do die, a death is recorded but none of the kills/other stats for that "life" in the game get counted.

 

Say you get 4 kills and die, they won't get recorded. Say you get another 5 and survive until the end of the round, you'll get them saved to your profile.

 

Even armour would have to be careful.

Imagine sitting on that hill, thinking you're king shit in your tank all round- 100 Kills and you're just the best m8.

Get cocky, go full retard.

You die, round ends before you get back into it- Suck shit m80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that's a really stupid system. How often do you see defending squads with 0 deaths? How often do you see attacking squads with 0 deaths?

 

This will just turn into a boring camp-fest for anybody that will care about this ridicules system. In this stupid system armour crews going 100-2 and wrecking enemy armour or attacking squads going 84-16 and capturing 3 flags would be less acknowledged than a bush-camper going 2-0. WTF is the point of this lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ranking systems are for people who want to have something to show off about. Make a youtube video or screenshot your stuff. The original ranking system for BF2 was meh, then Dice did go full retard on it. I hate having to unlock crud. I want to go in, play the game. Something COULD be useful, hours played, KD ratio etc what they currently have in PR works, but if it tracked it totally overall that would be cool as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A simple ranking system has still it advantages.

Next to player play motivation (well, not all, but many players get affected by this) it would  allow admins a better judgement e.g. if a noob or experienced player is playing the game.

Thus balacing teams is more easy, or you could tell a newbie to practise valueable assets before wasting them, etc. (you know what I'm talking about).

 

Making a ranked system totatlly crazy like some recent games did (ey dude, look at my '25+ kill streak ribbon', look at my '720° nonscope badge', and my 'super imba master seargent to the max' rank) only attracts the famous stat whores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I feel that a ranking system is not needed BUT it's something that is popular with the kids and makes people come back for more. It could be used for asset restriction on community servers which could work out quite well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, maybe each server should have it's own ranking, and while some servers can have, others don't.This will separate the boys from the man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, maybe each server should have it's own ranking, and while some servers can have, others don't.This will separate the boys from the man.

first post!

 

anyway your idea of giving the servers their own ranking in my opinion is bad because it basically creates a double standard players. for example the War Thunder Air forces community. you would probably start seeing 24/7 servers all over the place 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the way BF2 did it was spot on and simple. Then DICE got crazy with it for who knows why.Reference: http://www.online-multiplayer.com/bf2/bf2_ranking_points.phpKill an enemy +2 pointsChange an enemy flag to neutral +2 pointsConvert a neutral flag to your side +2 pointsFlag assist +1 pointKill assist +1 pointFlag defend +1 pointDriver assist +1 pointHeal 100 points of damage (other players only) +1 pointRevive a player +1 pointGive ammunition to player or vehicle (other players only) +1 pointRepair a vehicle +1 pointTeam damage (take off 50% of a teammate's total health) -2 pointsTeam vehicle damage (deal 50% damage to a vehicle controlled by a friendly player) -2 pointsTeam kill -4 pointsThey would have to be adjusted of course. Just keep it simple.The rank requirements were also spot on requiring a certain point total AND a time total. Want the experience (not XP)? Then you have to actually play. It kept the ranks fairly accurate in the beginning (before multiple accounts were common). See a private running around, then he's probably a new player.Biggest thing, keep it simple stupid.

 

in my opinion i think your idea is the best so far however i would modify some things.

 

decrease the score received by kills- makes boosting through kills a lot more harder and irrelevant to be able to rank.

 

require at least 3-5 players of the same squad to cap a flag or receive points from it- by doing so it stops lone wolfs from getting point from just being in the cap while the team is there. this applies to all objectives.

 

increase the value of capping/changing flags, or completing objective- encourages people to push harder if they do care about stats and rewards you for playing the objective properly(with your squad)

 

no need for kills assist( not final)

 

do the same but a little less of increase for defending the flag- rewards for defending

 

there might be a problem with the healing and reviving cause then medics will just always get themselves shot but i don't have an idea right now

 

more points by giving ammunition to your squad/ heavy assets- giving to heavy assets might be removed since it's easy to boost, you would get a less significant figures for just giving ammo to randoms (doesn't happen very often though)

 

team damage and team kill seems fine to me but just have some checks when it comes to mines (you can put a system that will already mark mines once placed so that if a friendly goes on it he is at fault for not checking, map will update a few minutes after mines are gone and commander gets a notification

 

basically it but to be continued...( i am at school right now, done with study hall :( )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quietly watching the conversation here as I'm very interested in people's perspectives on this issue.

 

I'll mention two points that I think are worth bringing up.

 

1. I think some sort of ranking system that is heavily time based is a quick valuable indicator to others of how much experience a person has. One important characteristic such a system should have is removing the ability to exploit the system by only counting time spent on nominally full servers (say > 30 people or so), and only considering time where you are actively participating in the match (for the sake of preventing exploitation, we wouldn't reveal how this is determined). As was mentioned I agree Battlefield 2's system worked very well in this sense as the biggest limiting factor was time played, and it took quite a bit of time to get up through the ranks.

 

2. I think if implemented well some sort of persistent teamwork score could be a valuable indicator of people who tend to work well with others. Some important characteristics that such a system would need to work well would be:

  • Not easy to exploit (involves both hiding the implementation details and measuring things in a way that is hard to fake)
  • Emphasize recent play, not rounds from a long time ago.
  • Ensure the system can easily expose griefers, intentional teamkillers, etc across servers.

 

We're still a ways off from persistent scoring systems but I would love to hear people's thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally have zero interest in a ranking system, and I don't see that it would bring value to the game at all. After playing many hours in games that lack this system and games that do, I think it would not suit Squad.

 

PR has had a point system for a long time but it's been inaccurate for as long as it has existed. I strngly believe that any kind of teamwork point system will never reflect the actual effect a player has on the outcome of the game, and any attempt to implement one that has any kind of reward, rank, or reputation system attached to it wil result in shifting the focus away from how the game should naturally be played, to playing for points which is ultimately an artificial influence on the game. Not entirely, but I think it should be a point to not have players destroying and rebuilding assets, or purposely reviving people that dont want to be, and other small but stupid instances. Even good-hearted things like going out of your own way to drop a repair station to get some points, that you normally would not, is destructive in my opinion. It might influence a player who would think it's too risky to drive to a tank, that might not even want the repair station, but he might accept that risk as a trade for some points that might earn him a higher score/minute. Then maybe he gets destroyed, or exposes that tank's position, or obstructs his view for a few seconds, and this results in a loss. Any kind of attempt at points, that is not the exact thing a player would be doing to win a game takes away from it and makes it less fun to me

 

Things like emblems, titles, player customization and such feel like such cheap carrot-and-stick incentives for players to play a game. They're drole and a bit insulting. The game will be interesting enough to play by itself, and efforts should be focused on creating and a culture, community and game that encourages, facilitates and rewards players for playing to win, and that playing to win is in the most team focused and communicative way possible. The reward should be victory, which will be an enjoyable one. Not a hollow +10000 PR points for woodland camo coat pockets.

 

If there is player customization, or other such things, I would not mind. However I think there should be no unlock system whatsoever. I think all should be available to the player immediately. This is my personal view on this, because I have played games like call of duty, or gran turismo where content is locked. In situations where I can cheat to unlock everything, or have gotten everything and there is an option to wipe it out to re-earn that content, in every case if I keep the content or cheat for it the game is much more fun. You could cheat for everything in GT5, I loved it, and I gave up playing GT6 because it was so damn tedious to unlock the cars I wanted.. Some people like that stuff, but I just want to make it clear that there definitely people that dislike it such as myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could we possibly add a counter for "number of shovel animations" you perform?

And a total distance travelled while within (100m, 200m, or 300m) of enemy?

 

Also, no one posted this video, so I'll do it:

 

 

 

P.S. Actually, a cool stat would be... Spawned at (Main or a FOB), did not spawn at a rally point, did not get dead dead, did not get revivable dead, then shovelled a new FOB.  You get your ranking point when the new FOB goes active as a spawn point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 40mmrain, I personally totally agree with you, but stopped at Gran Turismo 4.

 

I do not want to play Barbie Dolls in an FPS shooter.

 

That being said, if we want to create a self sustaining business model we'll have to compromise somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My primary support for a "ranking" mechanism would be something that measures how long, and how well you have performed a certain role.

 

It would be nice to have a metric available to the commander as part of a team roster that indicated the capacity of the crew he was leading.

If I am a C.O. and have the available funds/points to requisition either an Apache Gunship, or a Bradley IFV, It would be nice to know If I have anyone that is able to fly a helicopter effectively, or if I have anyone able to manage a mechanized infantry vehicle effectively.

I constructed a table in excel with a bunch of random data that might further illustrate my point, and please forgive the unsightly nature of this data, the UI would need to be optimized to enable rapid assessment for the commander. I am not actually suggesting that we hand the commander an SQL database and have him run some stats in SPSS on who is the most optimal choice for what. Color-coding, badges, Bar-graphs and other such visuals could make this same bunch of data much easier to read.

Left # is Hours in Role

Right # is Win:Loss Ratio


Posted Image


Example: The commander has points for asset requisition. Units are requesting an IFV and other are requesting an Apache.

Commander looks at his roster:

 

 Apache Pilot Options:

  • Troy Edward has 129 hours in the seat, and he has an exceptional 0.95 win:loss ratio.
  • Taegan Corwin has 332 hours in the seat, and a more realistic but still exceptional 0.6 win:loss ratio
  • Don Peyton and Alf Vivian have >.60 win:loss, but comparatively low hours.

 

Bradley IFV Options:

 

  • Sanford Pip has 92 hours in the seat and a relatively poor 0.16 win:loss
  • Ulric Chet has 63 hours in the seat, and fantastic 0.72 win:loss ratio

 

So based on this data, the commander contacts the Troy Edwards' squad leader. SL needs Troy as 3/9 up in an embattled Infantry group. Taegan is already flying a Blackhawk doing logistics operations critical to the ground units. Even though Don Peyton and Alf have exceptional ratios, their time in the saddle is insufficient to warrant the gamble of 30-minutes worth of supply-points, so Ulric's Squad gets a Bradley IFV deployed.

 

 

 

 

Dont come at me with how unfair this is etc, these arent real people, and the hypothetical was so absolutely stripped down that there could be 100 other reasons to do differently. My point is, I think it would be extremely valuable to have metrics available to the commander about his forces that would allow him to make qualitatively based strategic decisions.

What kind of data would be useful for him to know?

I would like the communities input on that

My thoughts are:

  • Training: If time in the saddle is to be measured, there needs to be measurement of training. Whether its the completion of a training mission(s) or a certain number of hours on a training server where you fly through hoops in a heli, drive through hoops in an IFV, or shoot a certain number of targets as a gunner etc. Training would be something of a pre-requisite to even be considered for a role as an Apache Pilot. If you want to learn to fly Apaches, you should spend time in the Helicopter Training Mission, or Heli Training server. There could theoretically be servers dedicated to training certain types of hardware, and this would help to overcome the "lack of experience" buy-in to operate a unit.
  • Time: Wisdom comes from experience. Real experience, not some # of points, but hours of time. Even with poor metrics otherwise, someone with time in the saddle is an asset over a few lucky wins.
  • Performance: I am not sure how to measure this. Win:loss? I guess the idea is to win, so in the end, everything you do as a player should be to augment your teams capacity to win. If you measured Win:Loss on a per-minute basis, or per-5 minute basis, at the end of the game you could add these metrics to the players perpetual stats. Therefore, If I spent 2 hours playing "lonewolf sniper" on a loosing team, I would get 120 minutes of "loss" factored into my [infantry] win:loss ratio. If I spent 30 minutes flying CAS 60 minutes fighting on foot, and 30 minutes flying a BlackHawk on a winning team, I would get 30 minutes of win in my [CAS] and [Transport] stats, and 60 minutes of win in my [infantry] ratio.
  • Commendations: I think these should be team-based and democratic. Anyone should be able to vote, and if a team loves the way their commander ran their ops, the commander should by the nomination and support of the team get to receive some special decoration for his outstanding performance. If a logistics player is on the ball, making sure his squads have sufficient ammo and supplies, his artillery has the ammo they need, and people are getting transported efficiently to the front lines, that person should be able to receive a nomination, sustained by the team, and that guy should get a decoration. This is a metric that I dont think would happen that often, and sometimes not at all, but if you as a commander had a decorated Logistics operator, you would know that you had an exceptionally strong team player.

These are all ideally performance and skill based metrics. The idea is to reward people who perform, and people who develop skill in their role. There will be a lot of de-facto "grunts", and for a lot of people, that will not only be fine with them, it will be fun. What it will do though, is facilitate specialization of people willing to be exceptional assets to their team. People will beg for you to join their squad, to fly CAS or Logistics. To be a SL or Comms. To be a recon player or an infantryman.

What this will also do is limit the capacity and presence of griefers. If you create a new account to come kick shit in your team's face, you're only going to have a minor role given to you, so your SL could report you to the CO, and he could kick you and there would be minimal interference. No nub jumping into the Cobra Heli and using it as his own personal taxi to the snipe-roost on the other side of the base.

It would also discourage asshole-ery since your character, and your reputation are going to be an investment. Your unlocks are going to be community respect, and commander trust. If you dun fucked up and you need to start over, there will be no buying your way back to the top. You will need to earn it. Either as a grunt, or re-training.

Maybe this is too much for noob servers, but this is what I would like to see in a hard-core server. Persistent qualitative metrics that facilitate effective, involved, and committed gameplay by people in their relative roles.

 

-----


EDIT: After further consideration, I think the ideal metrics would separate training and operational time [training/operational/w:l]

 

[CAS]

------------------------------------------
John Doe [25/78/0.365]

Fred Doe [23/0/0]

so you would have a minumum training time before operational time is allowed. E.G. you need to have 20hours of training time in the Little Bird before you become eligible for Operational Time. The training hours could be red until the minimum is met, so John Doe could pilot a requisitioned Helicopter, but Fred would not be able to enter the pilots seat. This would all but completely eliminate the nub-waste of assets.

 

Also the commander should be able to filter the stats in question, viewing only the relevant datasets. If I want to put some artillery on the board, then I should be able to look only at the present stats of artillery operators on my team. Makes the assessment easier.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was long....

Anyway I really like your idea. However the preformance metric would be inaccurate. Because Project Reality is a team based game you are successful as your team is. You could be armor racking enemy armor and suppressing infantry, but the grunts who are in line are failing miserably to hold back the enemy team. This goes the other way too. The infantry might be the best infantry yet, but the armor is just getting their ass handed to them over and over.

Of course some assets might carry the team but it's mostly unlikely.

Most of your points are good but preformance is hard to measure without faulty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was long....

yeah... :unsure:But thanks for the feedback. 

 

Anyway I really like your idea. However the preformance metric would be inaccurate. Because Project Reality is a team based game you are successful as your team is. You could be armor racking enemy armor and suppressing infantry, but the grunts who are in line are failing miserably to hold back the enemy team. This goes the other way too. The infantry might be the best infantry yet, but the armor is just getting their ass handed to them over and over.Of course some assets might carry the team but it's mostly unlikely.Most of your points are good but preformance is hard to measure without faulty.

I understand your point, and it would be absolutely frustrating to be what... 50 kills and 2 deaths as an effective armored combatant, and still have a losing team. I guess the point is, whatever you can do to help your team win is what you should be doing. If your team needs better ground troop efficacy, you should do work to assist your ground troops. If your ground troops need firecover, you should do what you can (coordinated with CO) to assist in providing firecover. The idea is that this changes the personal KDR incentive to "what can I do to make sure my team wins?"

 

Maybe I am being to naieve regarding what would actually happen in this scenario.Thanks again for the input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, very naive indeed. Nomad is right, you can't blame everybody for losing or winning. We need a better system (or a simpler one).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scores:

 

I think individual scores should be hidden. Squad based/Team based scores should be shown and they should be points in reguards to objectives as oppose to just kills.

 

Nothing worse then the best 'teamplayer' being the guy who sat on his own with a sniper rifle camping a spawn point.

 

Global Ranking:

 

I think an enforced training system would be a great long term goal. The whole 'Read the manual' ingame message rarely works anymore as people do not pick up and play, but Americas Army 1/2 (3 doesnt exist imo lol)

showed us that an enforced training system can work in an online shooter. Now it doesnt need to be ANYWHERE near as indepth as AA but a few courses.

 

Basic training badge- All new player must complete before allowing online play, Basic weapon, movement, communication, teamwork (short 5 - 7 min training) - Should help enforce basic tactics and create better teamplay

Armor Training badge - Required to use armored vehicles. Basic controls, tactics and uses (short 4 - 5 min) - Should hopefully stop common basic mistakes

Air Training badge - Required to use air vehicles. Basic flight, weapon usage, tactics (short 7 - 8 min) - Hopefully will lead to less noob pilots crashing at spawn

Sniper badge - Required to use sniper kit. Basic tactics, spotter use, ranging etc (short 3 - 4 min) - Hopefully reduce the non team player snipers.

 

Ranking Unlocks:

 

I do not like the idea of a ranking system ala bf2 nor any weapon unlocks. With the exclusion of the training requirements mentioned above for those listed kits, all weapons/content should be available from the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

win/loss ratio isn't a totally flawed system, but it has shortcomings.

 

If a single player can't effect their win/loss a lot, if you play enough games, then you're just going to have a 50:50, with a bit of variation against or for you. So a 60:40 win to loss ratio might be extremely good for a Squad player because they are good enough to directly influence victory in that many games. However this system is definitely prone to those who play with large clans or parties. No surprise that if you tag along with a big party of good players your win:loss ratio will inflate a lot, maybe more than it should. Furthermore, hours in a role time can definitely be prone to abuse of its own. AFK'ing comes to mind of course. There can be countermeasures to abuse of these systems but a developer vs. player war of making an air tight skill rating might be a big waste of time.

 

Finally, another issue that we can have is that it could end up impossible to ever get out of a low skill rating. IF a commander is choosing his pilots or armour operators, or squad leaders why would he ever choose a player with a less win/loss or skill rating or whatever. Obviously winning is the goal, so what you might be left with is some elite players always butting out average players from using assets. Not only would this prevent a lesser player from getting better at the game or demonstrating that he has gotten better, but this kind of elitism and lack of inclusion can be obnoxious.

 

Public PR game's "first-come-first-serve" ruling for asset distribution is ideal, in my opinion. Players that are bad at certain things tend to avoid them anyways.

 

in PR:BF2 squad leaders already do have the option to kick members of squads if they know someone they want to act as pilot or whatever for their squad. This kind of natural selection of important roles is better than having a potentially artificial and abuse-able number attached to names.

 

Maybe some kind of rating system where you rate players you have played with at certain roles could be the most accurate indicator of skill and willingness to cooperate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe we should have an "hours spent flying" badge for players who'd be jet pilots, counting stats from normal servers and official training servers. however, such badges wouldnt be used in an automated system to pick pilots for teams, it'd just be there as an assurance of skill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

win/loss ratio isn't a totally flawed system, but it has shortcomings.

 

If a single player can't effect their win/loss a lot, if you play enough games, then you're just going to have a 50:50, with a bit of variation against or for you. So a 60:40 win to loss ratio might be extremely good for a Squad player because they are good enough to directly influence victory in that many games. However this system is definitely prone to those who play with large clans or parties. No surprise that if you tag along with a big party of good players your win:loss ratio will inflate a lot, maybe more than it should. Furthermore, hours in a role time can definitely be prone to abuse of its own. AFK'ing comes to mind of course. There can be countermeasures to abuse of these systems but a developer vs. player war of making an air tight skill rating might be a big waste of time.

 

I think the crux of my argument for a win:loss in certain roles is that making the win:loss the primary metric means that whatever you are doing in the game, it should help your team win.

If you're a crappy Heli Pilot, then maybe you shouldn't be flying the Heli.

If you want to AFK into a heli for "more win-points", doing so would tie up an asset that could help your team *win*, thus actually increasing the chances that you will get *loss* points added to your ratio.

I feel like there is a legitimate reason to try and move past the KDR ratio, because it can be completely self-serving, and detrimental to the team. Pinning the victory or failure to the success or failure of your team will mean that you need to work as a team, for your team.

 

 

Finally, another issue that we can have is that it could end up impossible to ever get out of a low skill rating. IF a commander is choosing his pilots or armour operators, or squad leaders why would he ever choose a player with a less win/loss or skill rating or whatever. Obviously winning is the goal, so what you might be left with is some elite players always butting out average players from using assets. Not only would this prevent a lesser player from getting better at the game or demonstrating that he has gotten better, but this kind of elitism and lack of inclusion can be obnoxious.

 

Public PR game's "first-come-first-serve" ruling for asset distribution is ideal, in my opinion. Players that are bad at certain things tend to avoid them anyways.

 

You make an excellent point. If I have an ace-pilot, and I have a problem with air-superiority at the moment, why would I want anyone else in that pilot seat? The only reason I could see not putting the best guy for the job in, is because he's more valuable as an asset somewhere else. So maybe the best and most qualified pilot in the game, is also the most qualified leader. Having a good C.O. is going to help the team much more in the long run than just a good pilot. If my CAS guy is running logistics operations, and thats what he wants to be doing, he should have the option to be doing what he wants. But if the commander has a better guy for the job, I dont think there is a reason to facilitate nubs learning to fly while 38 other people on their team are trying their damnedest to win.

 

There can be simple scripted training missions for everyone to learn on, and in the process they will bump their training hours. If I have a guy with 25 training hours and 25 operation hours, and another guy with 250 training hours and 4 operational hours, I'm inclined to try the guy who has spent a significantly greater time in the seat.

 

 

 

maybe we should have an "hours spent flying" badge for players who'd be jet pilots, counting stats from normal servers and official training servers. however, such badges wouldnt be used in an automated system to pick pilots for teams, it'd just be there as an assurance of skill.

This is what I want to see. How it gets implemented can vary like the wind, I just want to see skilled people able to be an asset to the team.

 

 

I'm not really trying to defend my idea because I think it's infallible, I am sure there are some big issues, and some have already been pointed out, but I want to make sure that the full reason, context and idea are adequately expressed.

I think this would need a gradual implementation for the community to test and troubleshoot before it becomes as involved as I am describing it.

I think KDR might still be a relevant metric, despite its overemphasis, but I think it needs to be complimented by the success that we are interested to see; cooperation as a team and commitment to the goal of winning as a team.

regardless, I appreciate the constructive insight into the ideas I have been kicking around for a bit. Please keep them coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this belongs here as well

I'm going to try and make my point more clear. Having ranks and unlockables actually benefits games in a way, it brings people back and keeps them playing. However, this is short-lived and counter-intuitive. People will play for the sake of unlocking and ranking up, and when they finally do, they are not going to look back at the game again, it'd be one of those dime-a-dozen grinding games that they have fully completed. To prevent this from happening, you'd have to have a huge dev division doing nothing but churning out new content periodically, like WoW does. This gets people addicted, brings them back, and the the same time makes them hate themselves and the game. This is not the spirit of Squad, and definitely not its model.

 

There are other ways to ensure competence in new players, for example requiring a week (20 hours) or so of playtime before allowing new users to play as squad leaders or commanders, just to get them oriented with the game. There shouldnt be any difference in soldier gear or abilities between a dev and a first time noob. This goes for rail attachments as well, as regular privates, corporals and sergeants dont get to modify their weapons nor do they get any extra gear that is not vital for their mission (NVGs). The game should stay true to its ethos.

 

One last point, imo games with extensive ranks/unlocks tend to get a lot of hackers (look at Payday 2 or CS:GO) who try to shortcut all the grinding. Not saying that games that dont feature it dont get hackers, but I believe it's way less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scores:

 

I think individual scores should be hidden. Squad based/Team based scores should be shown and they should be points in reguards to objectives as oppose to just kills.

 

Nothing worse then the best 'teamplayer' being the guy who sat on his own with a sniper rifle camping a spawn point.

 

Global Ranking:

 

I think an enforced training system would be a great long term goal. The whole 'Read the manual' ingame message rarely works anymore as people do not pick up and play, but Americas Army 1/2 (3 doesnt exist imo lol)

showed us that an enforced training system can work in an online shooter. Now it doesnt need to be ANYWHERE near as indepth as AA but a few courses.

 

Basic training badge- All new player must complete before allowing online play, Basic weapon, movement, communication, teamwork (short 5 - 7 min training) - Should help enforce basic tactics and create better teamplay

Armor Training badge - Required to use armored vehicles. Basic controls, tactics and uses (short 4 - 5 min) - Should hopefully stop common basic mistakes

Air Training badge - Required to use air vehicles. Basic flight, weapon usage, tactics (short 7 - 8 min) - Hopefully will lead to less noob pilots crashing at spawn

Sniper badge - Required to use sniper kit. Basic tactics, spotter use, ranging etc (short 3 - 4 min) - Hopefully reduce the non team player snipers.

 

Ranking Unlocks:

 

I do not like the idea of a ranking system ala bf2 nor any weapon unlocks. With the exclusion of the training requirements mentioned above for those listed kits, all weapons/content should be available from the start.

i second your basic training idea and AA really had it imo (of course 3 doesn't exist! :P) and personally i don't think it was really that hard (i had difficulty due to low FPS) except maybe the AR training (i just ran out of ammo way to fast).

 

though to acquire certain badges, specifically air assets, i would add maybe a time requirement (can be achieved in multiplayer of training servers) and a minimum successful landing which both won't be tedious and we will not know the parametric to achieve those landings to make it harder to exploit. and even if you find a way to exploit it that person is probably a dedicated airman. and if he isn't he would probably get banned so there isn't really a worry except from the force multiplier that might be lost due to that prick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Unfrail your suggestion isn't good at all.

 

Let's look at the metrics you use:

Training - who and why will make a training where you'd dive an IFV through hoops? What kind of a metric is that anyway, how would time spent on a training server even be measured, so I just connect, go AFK for 7 day vacation and when I come back I'll be the best IFV gunner ever? This is 100% useless.

Time - play more, get better. Well, not everybody does. There's a lot of PR players who have been playing for a long time and are still terrible. Also the AFK thing... useless.

Performance - first decent suggestion, but as already pointed out win/loss isn't a good way to measure that. You can be the best damn rifleman in Squad and you'll still have minimal impact on the outcome of the match.

Commendations - there's exactly 0 sense in this. Being a friendly player with lots of play-friends and clan affiliations doesn't mean you're a good player. Useless.

 

A much better system would be performance/ time + specializations. 

Performance - kills, assists, points, flags captured, revives, heals, flags defended, armour kills, cas kills, trans kills etc. etc. etc.

Time - performance should be based on a time unit. For example performance per hour for the last 100h played. This would resolve the going AFK issue and the play more become better issue.

Specialization - to get an idea of what a certain player is good at the system should first track a bunch of performance data. Based on this data certain badges would be awarded. For example if somebody killed an average of 2.3 tanks/ hour a golden Tank destroyer badge would be awarded.

 

In the end you'd be looking at somebody's profile and you'd have it like this: banBiceps 9999 Gold Tank destroyer, Silver CQB Rifleman, Bronze IFV gunner. 9999 is the performance score per last 100h and the 3 badges are what a player did most and how effective he was,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×