Jump to content
Daruth

Opinions On A Ranking System?

Recommended Posts

@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.

You dont actually think I was suggesting a server with literal hoops to drive through as (sole) method of training do you? Its an idiom for training. And YES I do think that training pre-requisites are an ideal. Why? Because who wants someone manning the field artillery in a live server who has never aimed or fired artillery before? And If there are no training servers, or alternately stand alone missions (a self-hosted server) then where is the ideal place to learn to use skill-based equipment? As for AFK-ing a server, *IF* it was an actual server, then an admin would see that you were obviously AFK, and could boot you.

What I imagine when I say training server is a large open map, with scripted AI OpFor. Essentially a shooting range for whatever you are learning to use. If you were learning CAS in a helicopter, there would be vehicles placed throughout the map that you could test different weapons on, maybe rockets on one, or your 50cal on the other. Vehicle convoys and ATV/Motorcycles could be scripted in loops around a diverse type of terrain, and it would provide an excellent mechanism for beginners and experts alike to practice not only methods of operations and different weapons systems, but it would be a great place to work on your pilot-copilot communications methods, where minimal or no hostile AI return fire. Not only would you learn the weapons-system of your choice in the process, but it would be fun.

There will always be ways to hack scores. You and a spare computer running another copy on OpFor and arranging to boost your own KDR. Whatever. People that want to cheat will cheat. In the end they still suck at the game and they either learn to play or they leave. People who are trying to play will be obvious by their demeanor in server, and the performance metrics of How much training on a weapons-system, and how much operational time on a weapons-system they have is a relevant and meaningful metric *for a commander* to know what his team is capable of making effective use of.

 

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.

 

Practice makes better. I doubt anyone gets worse the more they play. And even if someone did, they would be a statistical anomaly. AFK gets kicked, flagged if its a persistent problem, which I doubt it would be, because IF W:L is a metric, being AFK hurts your team = hurts your W:L ratio.

 

 

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.

 

Wow, was that a compliment? ;)  It is a good metric. But it doesnt need to be the only metric. An amalgam of KDR/W:L/SPM or whatever. The more numbers, the harder it will be for stats-whores to please them all, with out actually just trying to play the game well and help their team win.

 

 

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.

 

If there are 2 or 3 potential rewards for something that the community deems valuable, say oh... teamwork? and you have 66% (26 people) of the your team so under your charm that you can just convince them, to give you all the badges, then we should probably just make a role for a diplomat and let Mr. Charming talk the other team out of a fight. :P If someone is doing an exceptional job, the majority would need to agree. I think that commendations would rarely be given, and if so, they would speak all the more clearly about a persons nature as an asset to the team. (you see the kind of metrics I'm interested in?)

 

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,

 

this is very much reminiscent of the same old BF3/4 metrics, and while there is some useful information to be had about a player from some of this, a lot of it is prone to stats-whoring. Its an individual d*ck-measuring contest, and not a measure of how much a person regularly contributes to the success of their team. KDR is so ingrained into people's minds as a performance metric, they wouldn't know what to do with themselves if we took it out. Sure enough, I think they would realize that they just need to play the FPS game, not the stats game.

I do like your suggestion however about the rolling "Last 100 hours" metric. that would allow players to leave behind bad periods of performance and it would essentially present the most recently relevant data-set to the commander.

It is possible that there might be some confusion about where I am intending this data to be presented. This isn't for players to observe on the score-board, this is to facilitate team-leads about the capacity of their crew.

 

Just because I can go lone wolf in a tank/heli/ghille-suit that my team paid for and get 3kills/hr doesn't mean I'm doing anything to help my team win.

if you are constantly killing the most people/hour, and your team keeps losing, maybe killing isnt the most beneficial thing you could be doing for your team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You dont actually think I was suggesting a server with literal hoops to drive through as (sole) method of training do you? Its an idiom for training. And YES I do think that training pre-requisites are an ideal. Why? Because who wants someone manning the field artillery in a live server who has never aimed or fired artillery before? And If there are no training servers, or alternately stand alone missions (a self-hosted server) then where is the ideal place to learn to use skill-based equipment? As for AFK-ing a server, *IF* it was an actual server, then an admin would see that you were obviously AFK, and could boot you.

What I imagine when I say training server is a large open map, with scripted AI OpFor. Essentially a shooting range for whatever you are learning to use. If you were learning CAS in a helicopter, there would be vehicles placed throughout the map that you could test different weapons on, maybe rockets on one, or your 50cal on the other. Vehicle convoys and ATV/Motorcycles could be scripted in loops around a diverse type of terrain, and it would provide an excellent mechanism for beginners and experts alike to practice not only methods of operations and different weapons systems, but it would be a great place to work on your pilot-copilot communications methods, where minimal or no hostile AI return fire. Not only would you learn the weapons-system of your choice in the process, but it would be fun.

 

That would take a long time for the devs to make. It would also take many different missions for many different assets in order to expect people to play it for more than 3h. Waste of time. Are people who play PR's CO-OP better than those who never have? I don't think so.

 

As for AFK-ing a server, *IF* it was an actual server, then an admin would see that you were obviously AFK, and could boot you.

There will always be ways to hack scores. You and a spare computer running another copy on OpFor and arranging to boost your own KDR. Whatever. People that want to cheat will cheat. In the end they still suck at the game and they either learn to play or they leave. People who are trying to play will be obvious by their demeanor in server, and the performance metrics of How much training on a weapons-system, and how much operational time on a weapons-system they have is a relevant and meaningful metric *for a commander* to know what his team is capable of making effective use of.

 
Practice makes better. I doubt anyone gets worse the more they play. And even if someone did, they would be a statistical anomaly.

 

What if I'm the server owner, or the admin, or if the server's empty and nobody cares because it's a training server. If buying 2 copies is the only way you can think of to exploit my system then great - at least 1 more copy will be sold and the devs can use the money to work on something relevant.

 

There's a lot of people who play certain assets for a long time and they still suck balls at them. Simpy owning the game and doing something longer doesn't make you better. I've seen many players with less than 1 month of experience use a certain assets better than people who have been playing for years.

 

Operational time isn't a meaningful or a relevant metric. It needs to be time based. Performance/ time, like my suggestion does it.

 

AFK gets kicked, flagged if its a persistent problem, which I doubt it would be, because IF W:L is a metric, being AFK hurts your team = hurts your W:L ratio.

 

W:L ratio is such a flawed metric. 1 person can hardly turn the outcome of the battle, commander makes 1 bad decision and the whole team is deemed bad. What if I join 3/4 of a round in? Will the win still count if I barely played? What if I leave the server with 2 tickets to go?

 

If there are 2 or 3 potential rewards for something that the community deems valuable, say oh... teamwork? and you have 66% (26 people) of the your team so under your charm that you can just convince them, to give you all the badges, then we should probably just make a role for a diplomat and let Mr. Charming talk the other team out of a fight.  :P If someone is doing an exceptional job, the majority would need to agree. I think that commendations would rarely be given, and if so, they would speak all the more clearly about a persons nature as an asset to the team. (you see the kind of metrics I'm interested in?)

 

Yeah, this is such a useless metric I have no words.

 

this is very much reminiscent of the same old BF3/4 metrics, and while there is some useful information to be had about a player from some of this, a lot of it is prone to stats-whoring. Its an individual d*ck-measuring contest, and not a measure of how much a person regularly contributes to the success of their team. KDR is so ingrained into people's minds as a performance metric, they wouldn't know what to do with themselves if we took it out. Sure enough, I think they would realize that they just need to play the FPS game, not the stats game.

 

I don't know why you're focusing on KDR, which isn't even a part of what I suggested. I was talking about a system where kills and deaths are one of the metrics used - not the only ones, not the most important ones and nowhere would it use a KDR. I also didn't speak of a stats system so I have no idea wtf you are talking about.

 

The think is that PR works based on Tickets. To drain tickets you need to kill people, destroy assets, cap flags, not die and not lose your own assets. This is how you win rounds, there's really no way around it. Any effective ranking system for an individual needs to focus on these things. It also has to take into account other things -specializations in order to show exactly what somebody's good at. Instead of just showing how much time somebody spent doing something in an unknown time period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's my suggestion for a ranking system:
 
Performance - kills, assists, flags captured, flags defended, revives, deaths, assets lost, 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 badges - 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. There would be 3 versions of any badge - gold, silver and bronze. For example - Golden tank destroyer badge would be awarded to the person killing the most tanks in the last 100h played. He'd be considered 100%. People who are 90-100% as good as him at destroying tanks would also get a golden badge, people who are 78-89% as good would be silver and people 65-77% would be bronze. These % should be modified so not too many or too little people receive them.
 
/thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you ask me, i'd rather not have any performance metric of any sort, not even specialization badges. we shouldnt be looking at people's scores and people shouldnt be playing to boost their scores. the game will have a wide variety of kits and roles, and people tend to avoid the ones they're not good at anyway. PR's carefree system actually is best.

 

there should be a system to expose grievers, trolls and hackers across servers, that's all we need to ensure a smooth gaming experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not having any ranking system at all really is the best, but I believe the DEVs were thinking of one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, they could always rethink :3

 

i remember all the grinding people (incl myself) did on metro and locker in bf4 to stay in SKILL DIV 1 World or whatever, and i shiver at the thought that there could be SBENEH/KOKAN INF 24/7 SERVER NO RULES if PR had a cumulative scoring system

 

PR and Insurgency are pretty much the only two games that allow me to play a round and top the board then play another round and have my ass handed to me, all without any worries about the machine recording and aggregating my stats. i play to win the round, and if i dont, it's ok. it's simply far more entertaining that way, and really beneficial for team coherence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Systems that depend on statistical analysis to interpret complex concepts such as teamwork and leadership have always failed, and Squad is not going to crack a nut that Google can't.

 

I once again feel a need to shill my suggestion for a ranking/rating system. It allows players and servers to quickly establish large and isolated networks that provide a personalized and contextual interpretation of teamwork and competence, while being practically impossible to game or manipulate in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're looking for a ranking system, not ways to interpret teamwork and leadership - whatever that is. Teamwork isn't what directly affects outcome of a match - kills, deaths, assets destroyed, flags capped do. Those are the basic metrics any kind of a ranking system should focus on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's not what you're intending to rank, is it? You're trying to use that data to interpret a player's capabilities, with the intention of having other players and servers judge that player's capabilities based on the end output. None of those statistics you mention tell you anything about a player's capabilities, individually or as part of an aggregate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted Image

 

 

any sort of cumulative ranking will be detrimental to gameplay. its cons outweigh its pros in Squad's case imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the question comes down to; Do we need a ranking system?

Well lets define what kind of ranking system we are talking about. Are we talking about global leaderboards? Who has killed the most tanks? Who has the most headshots? Who has the most revives?

If that is the statistics that we are measuring and ranking, then no we don't need that garbage. why? Because that is Battlefield/Insurgency/CallOfDuty etc. This game is not going to out pace the engine and polish, at least in the beginning, of a AAA studio like DICE and EA. Why? Funding. EA has millions to put behind any game they want and they have the manpower to get it done faster. If we're trying to do the same thing as Battlefield, we might as well all go play Battlefield.

Thing is. Battlefield sucks.

Why?

 

Because people play to get unlocks, to get ranks, and to boost their stats. their personal stats.

 

If that's the type of ranking system that we are considering implementing here, then lets stop now, because everyone loses.


So what now. Everyone is the same? We know nothing about anyone and their background in the game?

"well, you will get to know people that you play with"

 

perfect, so now its a fraternity. Now a commander will only assign valuable roles to people he knows personally.

The fact is, there is a value to have statistics on the way that people play.

 

the question then becomes

 

What can we measure?

 

Kills

  • tank kills
  • team kills
  • solo kills
  • air kills
  • artillery kills
  • et. al.

Deaths

  • FF deaths
  • enemy deaths
  • accidental deaths?
  • et. al.

Time

  • Time spent playing
  • time spent using a specific weapons platform
  • time spent doing nothing
  • time spent in a leadership role
  • time spent using communications
  • time spent training
  • time spent performing non-combatant roles (recon/logistics)
  • et. al.

Objectives

  • captured
  • defended
  • established
  • accomplished (Task assigned)
  • et. al.

Connections (as-per Tarantico)

  • Who you know
  • who you appreciate
  • who you dont appreciate
  • who you have spent time operating with
  • common victims
  • common predator (nemesis)
  • et. al.

Wins:losses

  • wins/losses in each role
  • wins/losses per faction
  • wins/losses total
  • et. al.

These are all the metrics that have been mentioned prior in this thread.

What is a metric? Something you can measure.

What is a statistic? Its something you can measure as a comparison to the whole. they can be combined in any number of ways to provide useful information relevant to who is looking. Kills to deaths. Kills per minute. Wins per hour. etc. etc. etc.

 

What is a ranking? It is a product of statistics.


So we have all this data available to us. It can be measured and recorded. SQL anyone?

 

 

So we have a database. Now what do we do with all these metrics?

 

We learn things about the players.

 

 

what is important to know about a player on your team you have never met?

Well, ideally we would like to know that a player is competent.

 

He has launched the game, so its likely he can type and use a mouse, but maybe he cant aim for shit yet cause this is his first FPS on PC and he hasn't got the mouse thing down. or maybe hes the best damn gun in the game. Maybe hes a damn good pilot. maybe hes just a really good Jack of All Trades. A reliable infantryman? Loves Logistics work? Great at rapidly calculating the trajectories for Artillery fire-support?

If you dont know any of this, as a commander, then you cant effectively assign roles.

 

well, people will just do what they're good at right?

Have you played a PC Shooter before? People jump into vehicles and just blast off and destroy them carelessly. Whether for a free ride or just cause they dont give a shit.

 

If the commander is trying to figure out whether to buy an Apache or some field artillery, how does he know if anyone is going to know how to use it? How does he know the right person is going to know how to use it?

There are a few ways he can find out.

  • He already knows them, because they play together alot. Picking based off this alone is called nepotism. Its bad.
  • He can ask his friends about who they know. This is essentially another form of nepotism. It is also bad.
  • He can ask everyone what they are good at. A poll. In the middle of a combat game. And there is absolutely no assurance that anyone is telling the truth.
  • Statistics. Data doesnt lie, but it can be manipulated.
    Maybe some asshat will make their own server and lock it so no-one else can get in and they can sit in a helicopter for 7 hours doing nothing. OR, if all training servers are public and official, the server can just kick idle players and reject their stats because they weren't doing anything. Since the player statistics will need to be handled by the Game Devs to ensure integrity, they can implement restrictions on servers that will be able to contribute to servers as they see fit.

So, Nepotism, kinda nepotism, questionaires, or data-backed statistics.

OR we just turn on the box and let it go. No commander. No statistics. Just guns and tanks and shit. First come first serve, and who gives a damn about anyone else cause I just want to kill things and make them blow up. BF4 is over there. > Waiting for your nihilism.

Stats are useful.

 

They are easy to collect.

They provide a lot of information that can only be collected over a large amount of time.

They can tell people about what you do well at and what you do not do so well at.

There is nothing wrong with having strong points and weak points.

there is a problem with having someone that cant aim, or calculate trajectories manning your artillery.
 

 

I agree manned (artillery) is the final outcome.

This whole thing is going to be a giant evolution mich like pr for those who have been around.

If we test some intermediaries and they are fun and conducive to good teamplay.. dont be suprised if they make it in gamr until a better system comes along..

 

In reference to google not "cracking the nut", do you know how Google makes its money?

 Posted Image

Google doesnt make the bulk of their cash selling advertising. They make it off of selling data. statistics. That being said, I like your idea, and I would be interested to see that kind of data collected. My only issue, and it could be misunderstanding on my part, but, what happens if someone who is well connected, say, 500 people have him +1, and some new guy comes in and meets him on a bad day and he gets the thumb down. Now he is thumbed down for 500 other people? Seems kinda heavy to me, especially since some people just communicate differently, but not really better or worse than one another. I think you might have a solution to this already, but I didnt quite get it from your linked post. Regardless, I think its an interesting concept, and another source of data that could be useful.

BanBiceps, I appreciate your fervor. Its obvious you dont like my idea. Please resort to logical analysis of where you think the flaw in my logic is, and provide constructive criticism for the benefit of finding a solution to this thread topic. I frankly dont care if my idea is the solution that the devs settle on, in part or as a whole, as long as the solution is better than existing KDR personal-ego-boost metrics that are the core of every other large scale warfare games. Teamwork is important. It is worth measuring. And I realize that its not the only thing worth knowing about people.

 

The more data the better as far as I am concerned. I am happy to assist in the data-analysis so that commanders and SLs alike are able to rapidly asses the capacity of the random assembly of players they will be working with.

As for who has the most Point$Z0rs. Who cares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I couldnt help but notice that your argument is built on the assumption that (with wrecker's asset resource system) the CO will assign assets and roles to certain players. He wont. He'll just spawn assets at base. And yes, we'll keep the first come first served rule of claiming assets. May I also remind you that almost all of our assets are crew operated. You usually CANT just decide to take a vehicle and go blow shit up, you'll have a driver. And a squad leader. And a commander. And the whole team watching you crash.

 

The game has a chain of command, you can easily resign/kick someone from a specialized squad if they're blatantly incompetent. That's our quality control, and it usually works.

 

Also, on the long run we dont want asset squads to turn into an exclusive elitist club based on performance metrics, and throw new players into the "need experience to play - need to play for experience" circle of doom. And no, new players arent going spend hours on end on training servers to try and boost their stats to compete. It's boring.

 

In the end, even if you get a bad CAS squad one round and your team loses because of it, it'd be ok, because no one is keeping tabs on your W:L or KDR ratios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I couldnt help but notice that your argument is built on the assumption that (with wrecker's asset resource system) the CO will assign assets and roles to certain players. He wont. He'll just spawn assets at base. And yes, we'll keep the first come first served rule of claiming assets. May I also remind you that almost all of our assets are crew operated. You usually CANT just decide to take a vehicle and go blow shit up, you'll have a driver. And a squad leader. And a commander. And the whole team watching you crash.

 

The game has a chain of command, you can easily resign/kick someone from a specialized squad if they're blatantly incompetent. That's our quality control, and it usually works.

 

Also, on the long run we dont want asset squads to turn into an exclusive elitist club based on performance metrics, and throw new players into the "need experience to play - need to play for experience" circle of doom. And no, new players arent going spend hours on end on training servers to try and boost their stats to compete. It's boring.

 

In the end, even if you get a bad CAS squad one round and your team loses because of it, it'd be ok, because no one is keeping tabs on your W:L or KDR ratios.

 

you're right in part about what I am thinking as far as the C.O. goes. Even if its not assigned, if the C.O. has the option to select from a various set of assets, the metrics on his teams' capabilities are something that he might want to know. This is all based on the assumption that the commander is going to have some sort of strategic capacity to lead the team. If the commander has no choice on asset requisition, then the commander doesnt need metrics on which to make that choice. If that is the case, then yes, this is all really a mute point.As for re-assigning, any check is better than no-check. However, once the $$ is spent (depending on the return mechanism) it may well be spent. If no-one knows how to effectively operate it, or is available to, itd be a waste.So, do you think the commander should be able to make a decision about which assets to spawn? Or are you thinking assets should spawn at fixed intervals a-la Battlefield?

 

Thats really the whole point of my system, is to gather qualitative metrics about player performance for leadership, not for some trophy chart. The idea being that doing so allows for the leadership to more effectively plan strategy, e.g. "we have a really good CAS pilot in our ranks, lets see if we cant requisition him an A-10."

 

As for the training thing, I really dont expect it to be anything beyond a server that acts as a shooting range for all types of hardware, with scripted opfor that doesnt return fire, and respawns very shortly after its destroyed. Whole point is a place to get familiar with the weapons systems. Gathering metrics on time spent in training is cake.BUT.I appreciate the counterpoints and the insight into the alternate methods of doing it. I dont necessarily think what I presented is for "every server" per-se, but Its something I would like to see in a more organized "hardcore" server, or even elements implemented where they were found useful. Its fun to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're right in part about what I am thinking as far as the C.O. goes. Even if its not assigned, if the C.O. has the option to select from a various set of assets, the metrics on his teams' capabilities are something that he might want to know. This is all based on the assumption that the commander is going to have some sort of strategic capacity to lead the team. If the commander has no choice on asset requisition, then the commander doesnt need metrics on which to make that choice. If that is the case, then yes, this is all really a mute point.

As for re-assigning, any check is better than no-check. However, once the $$ is spent (depending on the return mechanism) it may well be spent. If no-one knows how to effectively operate it, or is available to, itd be a waste.

So, do you think the commander should be able to make a decision about which assets to spawn? Or are you thinking assets should spawn at fixed intervals a-la Battlefield?

 

Thats really the whole point of my system, is to gather qualitative metrics about player performance for leadership, not for some trophy chart. The idea being that doing so allows for the leadership to more effectively plan strategy, e.g. "we have a really good CAS pilot in our ranks, lets see if we cant requisition him an A-10."

 

As for the training thing, I really dont expect it to be anything beyond a server that acts as a shooting range for all types of hardware, with scripted opfor that doesnt return fire, and respawns very shortly after its destroyed. Whole point is a place to get familiar with the weapons systems. Gathering metrics on time spent in training is cake.

BUT.

I appreciate the counterpoints and the insight into the alternate methods of doing it. I dont necessarily think what I presented is for "every server" per-se, but Its something I would like to see in a more organized "hardcore" server, or even elements implemented where they were found useful. Its fun to think about.

Well, I'm going to assume that in the 4 or so minutes before the round starts (there wont be a squad bug hopefully) the commander could ask if there are players who would like to operate air or armored assets, and would take that into consideration when spawning those assets.

I'd like there to be a refund mechanic, sort of an "undo" button if the asset didnt leave base or a "sell with reduced ticket refund time" if it has been used.

 

As I said in the other topic, I think that there should be 3 map layouts;

  • standard - pre-spawned assets with fixed respawn intervals, like PR, for public servers
  • alternative - commanders have limited tickets and choose what to spawn, tickets are refunded after a fixed interval (varying for vehicle classes ofc), for clan servers and tournaments
  • infantry - no heavy assets or no assets at all

The standard layout would be the most played and would function largely similar to PR, so there shouldnt be any (extra) problems with the asset claiming procedures. The alternative layout would most likely be played on clan servers where they usually know who does what best, so asset claiming shouldnt be a problem there either.

 

And we'd be done with the (inherently personal) ranking systems and people would focus more on playing each round for its own sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted Image

 

 

any sort of cumulative ranking will be detrimental to gameplay. its cons outweigh its pros in Squad's case imo.

+1

You guys are discussing this matter this far, and yet is something not essential, not even welcome by some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best thing about Battlefield 2 was it's ranking system. It was easy and simple to understand and the only benefit was when applying for the position of commander.

 

If you do implement a ranking system in squad it should be as close to BF2's as possible without affecting gameplay negatively.

 

In my opinion, I think ranks should be based on the US paygrade scale. And each team should have their own unique ranks & insignia. So their is a comparative basis between ranks even on other teams. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here comes some conspiracy:

you gain points from working as fireteam;squad;platoon;team in tactical way ( getting points mainly from getting objectives,setting up fob, placing RP, keeping your squad alive and also having a good t/k ratio as seen previosly in PR)

->everyone want to be at least fireteam leader and squad leader or at all a commander.

-> the more experienced you are, the more points you have better you become commander/squad leader.

As this fact is not too clear, there are many of us who know and like to lead and there are also veterans who are confortable to stay squadmember.

Everyone will know that Blue is a great squadleader and he also creates inf sqd at begining yet if Red creates it I'm not sure people will join it.

->The better will always lead the squads and if not they will be abandoned or the leader will make a swich with better one

I hope you got the idea why to still have pointsystem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm going to assume that in the 4 or so minutes before the round starts (there wont be a squad bug hopefully) the commander could ask if there are players who would like to operate air or armored assets, and would take that into consideration when spawning those assets.

I'd like there to be a refund mechanic, sort of an "undo" button if the asset didnt leave base or a "sell with reduced ticket refund time" if it has been used.

 

As I said in the other topic, I think that there should be 3 map layouts;

  • standard - pre-spawned assets with fixed respawn intervals, like PR, for public servers
  • alternative - commanders have limited tickets and choose what to spawn, tickets are refunded after a fixed interval (varying for vehicle classes ofc), for clan servers and tournaments
  • infantry - no heavy assets or no assets at all

The standard layout would be the most played and would function largely similar to PR, so there shouldnt be any (extra) problems with the asset claiming procedures. The alternative layout would most likely be played on clan servers where they usually know who does what best, so asset claiming shouldnt be a problem there either.

 

And we'd be done with the (inherently personal) ranking systems and people would focus more on playing each round for its own sake.

+1

 

and i do agree with unfrail that there should be some metrics which would help choose people who are best for the asset

the problem here is that we are already 4th page into this discussion and i haven't really seen any basic metric that is agreed upon. i think the discussion should put some light on what should be measured rather than the possible use of the measurement, non the less important

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a ranking system, don't use actual ranks. I hate when I see Private General Smith (ARC) in games. Use a level number like in WoW. Not BF4 with their god damn level 100 colonels. Just a simple, level 100.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard win-loss recommended as a metric and I'd just like to strongly voice my opinion against this. Win-loss can't really be affected by one player, so this metric has no real reflection on the player. I think the best metric should simply be some kind of combination between teamwork points (similar to points in PR) and time in role (ie time as a SL or CO)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So new players dont get a chance to get into assets because they dont have enough anything to be qualified?

Every round the same players on their assets, so they get more time and points in their assets and get choosen every round again because noone can keep up with that.

 

I dont think you we need a ranking system. If someone is bad in his assets well.. deal with it. In PR we deal with it all the time and win and lose with or without that asset.

I dont see why we need to change that in any direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So new players dont get a chance to get into assets because they dont have enough anything to be qualified?

Every round the same players on their assets, so they get more time and points in their assets and get choosen every round again because noone can keep up with that.

 

I dont think you we need a ranking system. If someone is bad in his assets well.. deal with it. In PR we deal with it all the time and win and lose with or without that asset.

I dont see why we need to change that in any direction.

 

Implying Squad will suffer from the same Server Curse that PR:BF2 suffer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think the idea of doing a rank system is not the best idea, it justs give way to overall competitiveness and detracts from teamwork. I support the idea of things such as bans coming into play or if you are kicked from a server maybe something alongside loadouts could be put in place like how that player is not allowed any specialist class. Possibly stat tracking might be nice to just to keep pace with everything a player has done and then have it on a playercard system so a "Squad" (eheheheh I said it) Leader could then check that player to see whether or not he wants someone who is very new in specialist roles or just as a rifleman, etc.

It's very hard when being a leader if you have to worry about people taking classes you don't want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well if the rank only means rank and there is no unlock bullshit when you reach this rank I dont see why not and it surely wouldnt be very high priority. 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind some sort of Ranking system in Squad. Only if you ranked up according to what Litoralis said. I think it would be a really good way for people to recognise who the experienced players are and what not. It also might be a good way to weed out commander applicants, like BF2 did it. i.e. player with more experience gets the job.

It obviously brings its problems, but I still don't mind the idea.

This pretty much what I was going to say

Share this post


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

×