Jump to content
Daruth

Opinions On A Ranking System?

Recommended Posts

-snip-

Really good points RaTzo.

On that regard, if stats were available to leaders, perhaps it they could have a low ceiling, like "hours in the last week played" where anyone could easily catch up with a show of competency. But there remain other issues, not the least of which is, as you mention, calls being made without communication.

The alternate problem is that when playing with pubs, anyone can claim to be an expert, but if there are stats/metrics to substantiate a claim I think we have the best combo. So what stat, could verify experience claimed?

With respect to OT, this is the only type "rank" that should be earn-able in my opinion, once all concerns are addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really good points RaTzo.

On that regard, if stats we're available to leaders, perhaps it they could have a low ceiling, like "hours in the last week played" where anyone could easily catch up with a show of competency. But there remain other issues, not the least of which is, as you mention, calls being made without communication.

The alternate problem is that when playing with pubs, anyone can claim to be an expert, but if there are stats/metrics to substantiate a claim I think we have the best combo. So what stat, could verify experience claimed?

With respect to OT, this is the only type "rank" that should be earn-able in my opinion, once all concerns are addressed.

Bah I love it when people can explore an idea and pick it apart with the goal of creating something great. You have no idea how exciting that is to me. No Desmo not in that way. lol I'm going to be a bit long winded as I consider your thoughts. 

Hadn't thought of "hours in the last week" as a potential stat. Perhaps, lifetime time played and hours in the last week (or month) could be displayed together. Maybe (and this may be too complicated) the Commander could select a task and the players would displayed in rank of most time played doing that task recently and historically.  

What stat could verify experience claimed
...well we can do hours... but it is true someone can sit in a helicopter and do nothing but eat up time... I'm thinking of how I would play it as a Commander - I'd look at the list generated by that task, and then ask my SL's about an individual and if they have any other candidates. The SL should have a reasonable idea about how dependable a person is. Then you risk it... maybe the solution is in the hands of the Commander to make micromanager decisions based on little info (and therefore be a poor commander in most situations, but a good one when he has weak SLs)... just provide him the info and he (or she) can decide to involve the SLs or not. A commander that doesn't involve his SLs isn't going to get a lot of support or obedience so it might be a self-correcting system. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning. Woke up to early and not tired so I'll chip in some more.

As in real life, with any job; be it a plumber or a pilot there are good and bad ones.

This is a game and everyone has the right to play, good or bad. The only thing the team would need to know is (respectfully only IMO as all I write), can he fly? Servers in PR happily kicked players with the rule "do not learn to fly here".

A good rule. Wasting teams maybe one only valuable asset is never cool.

Stats like hours played really says nothing. Players and real life workers can spend thousands of hours on their thing and still suck at it. And the opposite can occur, IE a newbie excels at it, outperforming the thousands hour players or the +25 year worker.

Organized events and clan tournaments are what we could participate in for securing best player in each role. In PR word of mouth carried a long way even in pubbing. A few servers very often were filled with as good top notch players as any tournament and was just as or more fun than it.

We have seen from every other game what stats do, and it ain't good. Who wants the guy in his SQUAD refusing to use his rifle because he is after his gold medal in knifekills or chasing medicpoints by having mates wound themselves jumping off roofs and patch entire rounds.

Take away the option for all this.

Thank you ; )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-snip-

 

I very much agree in many ways with your points. "Grind/Unlock/Pad" mechanisms in games that drive ulterior play motives are nothing but harmful to the long term community. Short term, you will have a boost, but the quality of play suffers as people dont play for the teamwork, but for some other vapor of false sense of achievement.

 

That said, while "ranks" require statistics, Statistics do not of necessity imply "ranking." I think when people hear "Stats" they think BF3 achievement unlocks, score per minute, and KDR stats. This is a common implementation, but its not the only use of gameplay statistics. When I say I favor statistical displays for leadership, I say so believing that it is completely possible to optimize how the stats are displayed so that they would reflect the majority of those who are "competent."

 

That is feasible in my opinion, and reasonable even.

In real life, American helicopter pilots have to maintain a certain number of hours (annually?) to remain certified as a pilot. I'm not suggesting we do exactly that, but if we tracked the number of hours flying heli in the last month, then we're not setting a bar so high that new players cant compete, but its significant enough that it has meaning.

 

---

Also, keep in mind that I am a huge advocate of fundamental proficiency badges. I probably grind some people's gears with this opinion, and thats fine, its just an opinion, but I think 90% of people have sufficient competency in most tasks after a certain number of hours. Sniping: 5? Tank gunner: 10? etc etc. I would not be opposed to seeing this competency metric standardized, so that it can be applied in different server environments.

For example:

 

  • I am strongly in support of "noob/training servers" These are servers that will get high traffic, and will have low expectations for high intensity teamwork but will have high expectations for player-driven mentoring. Here there could be no limits to asset access.

     

  • On the other hand, there could be "Expert" servers, where you cant fly CAS if you dont have 100 hours in the seat already. This would be fine because you came to the "Expert" server, not to unlock, but to perform where you excel. If you have spent the time in flight training servers, or practicing as CAS in "noob" servers, then you have qualified yourself *comparatively more* than people who haven't flown at all.

Of course those exceptions who are "Qualified, but not capable" are handled case by case by admins, but at least we are reducing the statistical probability of a noob talking his way into a pilot seat that could very well kill the round for someone who doesnt have the time to waste. As for the other statistical anomaly (those who are competent but not qualified), what can I say? I might be a damn good lawyer, but until I pass the State Bar examination, I have no business selling my services as a lawyer to other people.

 

 

So in that regard, I do support "Competency Unlocks" but ones reasonably set, and enforced only in environments that advertise themselves as "Expert"/"Hardcore"/"Advanced," whatever. I expect there will be plenty of "Noob servers," because demand; Having a full "Noob" server will be preferred to having an empty "Expert" server, and if you handle your "Noob" server well, it would be a good way to introduce new players to your team as a capable, reputable Clan.

---

Regardless of where we may disagree, I really enjoy this type of conversation. I appreciate your critical considerations and the good conversation.

 

P.S. I think that it should be taken strongly into consideration, that what has traditionally worked in PR, may well not ever exist in Squad, at least in terms of happenstance competency and server administration checks. We dont know how controlled the public hosting model is going to be, but many games with public server hosting have deplorable admin consistency at an average. Also, the player-base of PR pre-1.3 was considerably more interested in participating, filtered by the effort to acquire and install the game. Once it went standalone "double-click" installer, the game playerbase is considerably different. Many have been rather off-put as a result. Squad, too, is going to be a double-click install, at a comparatively cheap $35 retail. I expect the wanderers and ADHD Opportunists to outweigh the Tac-Junkies considerably, and permanently as this game goes Early Access and after. "How to" stop noobs from wrecking your CAS when you have other players interested in try-hard and chasing "The Squad Experience" but are new enough they still haven't found a "home?" Just food for thought.

Edited by unfrail
Format. Spellengs. And a Wall of PS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No unlock rank shite. It'll attract COD kids and bunnyhoppers.

Only ranks I suggest are within the squads.

Sergeant as squad leader and Corporal as 2IC.

Making a 'set' squad leader kit like in project reality.

But for the 2IC implementing a little box in your kit selection you would have to tik to show members of your squad you are 2IC. This way the 2IC is able to take different kits as is required.

The other option is also making a set kit for a 2IC ingame like the squad leader.

What do you think? Is this possible yo implement DEVS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im with you unfrail, the sheer amount of asset wasting in PR is mind boggling. Helicopters crashing into buildings, people using logitrucks as personal transports, tanks with no gunner(yes i´ve seen this). Having some kind of wall to at least filter/minimize the number of people that can use a teams valuable assets would be great. If anything, make it a server option so i know which servers not to join.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stats like hours played really says nothing. Players and real life workers can spend thousands of hours on their thing and still suck at it. And the opposite can occur, IE a newbie excels at it, outperforming the thousands hour players or the +25 year worker.

Organized events and clan tournaments are what we could participate in for securing best player in each role. In PR word of mouth carried a long way even in pubbing. A few servers very often were filled with as good top notch players as any tournament and was just as or more fun than it.

 

OMG YES this is what I want, a competitive mode of some sort that you can raise your rank in, we don't need levels otherwise IMO. just ranks. I did say earlier that cs go was a good example but I would accept anything as long as I can form a clan/solo competitively to strive for top of the leaderboards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of segregating training hours from active hours is a great idea , as well as a minimum training level before being allowed online , but it would requires and extensive training program , similar to what ArmA3 supplies. A slew of SP scenarios and a method of attaching these hours to a players profile.

 

Other than that , ANY kind of publicly viewable "stat" tracking will just turn the game into just another "my stats are better than yours so bugger off" FPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a grunt, this is my opinion.

Ranking system

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

- Cons -

o. Lose some realistic as people said, but it's a game whatever.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

- Pros -

o. I'm not a veteran of realistic warfare game, so one thing after played matches. Grunts can get boring because there's no objective to play.(except game objective in each match.)

    - so, ranking might be one objective to play for.

o. In a game room, 50 grunts vs 50 veteran couldn't be good right? maybe rank restricted or veteran limited in each room may cause good points. Balance is a thing. 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

- I don't know -

o. from a word that I say rank restricted for balance, if there's no ranking. Maybe win/lose rate or some kind like that could be that thing instead ranking.

 

 

Oh and an idea that I found out from reading comments is,

Ranking might not be improved by win win win win, but maybe from a ranking match that you can play some in one month I don't know.

Maybe get vote from players, "leader, Intellectual, blunt head, noob or whatever" may show the performance that player have instead played hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if i was seeking gratification through pseudo-progress towards a distant pseudo-goal id get stamps on my starbucks customer card or buy EA games or soemthing.
im not even dogmatic about this, if persistent stats re-encforce the desired gameplay, so be it, but i woudlnt want to see squad to cater to the demands of people that are hooked to their BF4 profiles and do not care whats going on in the game beyond their own crosshair. dont forget squad stands in a tradition where incentives through individual stats have been deliberately obstructed in favour of more immaterial (incorporeal) gratifications that require a player to communicate and cooperate etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of ranking. I believe the ranking should be included, however minimal and not given any extra perks. For example;

 

Delta Force and Joint Operations had personal ranks based on your experience/score earned in the game. The ranks were only cosmectic and did not yield any extra perks. This gave a sense of advancement without creating an inbalance in the game. I strongly believe that some sort of personal ranking system should be included. However the ranking should take a LONG time to advance to each rank.

 

I am all for not having leaderboards and that crap. Usually populated by cheats anyway. What are people's thoughts on this? I personally am not a huge fan of No Ranks. It's almost like; what's the point of playing long term? I hope to be in this game for many months/years to come. However I can't help but feel like time will be cut short without some sort of advancement.

 

In this game, based on my expierence, solo-play tactics and "do your own progression" hurts you more than it helps. A squad that works together obtains a much higher score than those who do not. I played in a game where a squad was running around all chaotically and scored about 800 total points with a 5 man squad. An 8 man squad I was apart of score 6,000 score as we worked together.

 

You're always going to have those who will do their own thing. But if the score of your squad is increased based on teamplay, the lonewolf is going to lag behind. Hopefully this will show them that solo-play doesn't work, as the game is intended to be.

 

-Darth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOOOOOO


please


just let me bond with my brothers on the Battlefeild


let me fight and die amongst men i have only just met


let me forge friendships


let me die trying to rescue a fallen comrade


let me rejoice in the Victory


let me bleed with the loss


All i need is to know is that my squad mates were glad I was there


 


When its all over give me an "I was there" badge


 


until that day leave my sleeves bare of badges


 


The achievement is the participation


 


 


long live squad


 


 


 


 


double post sorry 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

NOOOOOO

please

just let me bond with my brothers on the Battlefeild

let me fight and die amongst men i have only just met

let me forge friendships

let me die trying to rescue a fallen comrade

let me rejoice in the Victory

let me bleed with the loss

All i need is to know is that my squad mates were glad I was there

 

When its all over give me an "I was there" badge

 

until that day leave my sleeves bare of badges

 

The achievement is the participation

 

 

long live squad

 

 

 

 

double post sorry 

 

 

With all due respect, it is a game. The end-game is long term player play and large player base. Without something to strive for and work torwards, the game will die. I want Squad to last, but not having a basic rank system will kill it. It is what it is.

 

The alternate solution is to have Ranked and Unranked servers. Split up those who don't want ranks and those who do. I'd even settle for server only ranks (plugin or whatnot).

 

That's just the gaming industry and the audience today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we have had this debate forever and mulitple times I am going to lock this one too. 

 

We are all fully aware that many want it and many dont.  Starting multiple threads or a new thread every week is going to change nothing.

 

Im going to simple lock any new threads I see as soon as I see them that deal with Ranking, perks, leaderboards and similar.  If the Dev's put something into the game along these lines then and only then will new discussion happen.

 

Thank you.

 

-Ray

Share this post


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

×