Not ranks, but something to indicate player's skill/experience

[Duke]

I am not a fan of CoD or Battlefield like ranking systems. But there should be some kind of profile, or stats that can be accessed easily in-game. Something that would help identify experienced players. FOR EXAMPLE when I make a public realism match it is hard to decide which public/unknown player should lead the the teams. Sometimes I like to give a chance to unknown players to try leading a squad or team but they are just trolls time to time. Since there will be no scores this is a hard thing to achieve. Only way would be if players could rate each other, but this can be abused by realism units/clans/gaming groups. Maybe if you add multiple things that can be rated, like: Teamwork points for players that are cooperative, Skill points for good players, and reputation points which would indicate how responsible the player is. All these could be added or removed by other players.

There would be a scale, 0 to 10, each player could rate each player only once and would be able to change his score. Overall rating should be based on, how many people rated a the player, and the rating of the people who rated.

So if there is a player from a group, he may have 8.4 for his teamwork skills, 9.2 for his combat skills but 2.3 for his rep. Which would mean that he is only kind to players in his group.

A player with combat rating of 8.2, reputation of 6.2 but teamwork of 2.1 would have less chance to become a mortar spotter, squad leader.

A player whose teamwork rating is high would get access to heavily team work oriented classes.

This is not a perfect system at all, it can be abused and trolled by people who have no honor. I also understand that this is not a simple thing to add since the game would have to use some kind of stats server, but idk, "I aint no dev."
Please come up with ideas.

 

[mmiedzianyy]

About week ago i have brought a similar idea in

Things that SHOULD be added and things that should NOT be added

thread to value/rank players by others. I think that this is very interesting system but... as you mentioned it is hard to get objective promotions. We can't count on that everyody will obey the rules. Clans/teams will vote for their team mates, some will beg for a single vote etc. I and likely everybody here saw a lot of childish behaviour among the players in different games and age groups. What i want to say it is complicated to do, but has a lot of potential. Imagine how rewarding it could be to be apriciated by others for your attitude in game. There is no equally satisfying ranking system i guess. Maybe with some ideas from other players we could find a golden mean to initiate this idea? Maybe Devs will consider this as an interesting suggestion.

 

[Platybelodon {TP}]

Of course, if we're looking for 'realism' then there's nothing in reality that gives me the impression that the Armed Forces are a meritocracy - it's fine by me if we have poor squad leaders, or blind mortar spotters as many a time a battle's been lost because of incompetence. Getting over those hurdles by playing with friends and being a good squad in a headless team is also fun! I often play with my brothers and as we stick together we mostly end up bunched near the top of the scoreboard, even with no higher command. Success 'in spite of' rather than 'because of' can also be fun.

I think it's important not to be too po-faced about this, as at bottom it is a game and people can play it how they want, so there's a danger that the more is given to puff-up the more experienced players, the more the chance of putting off newbies because everyone will shout at them for not knowing the intricacies immediately.

We don't know until we play it what the balance will be, I suppose. It could veer towards the simulation of ArmA (or Silent Hunter - people sailing across the sea in real time with a virtual sextant!) or towards Quake (I imagine this side of the centre, myself). But the balance of each will dictate how long people have to put aside to play it and thus the dedication and disparity between occasional players and those engaged in daily warfare.

 

[Duke]

If we manage to come up with a solution, if we do some thinking, instead of throwing the idea away, it might work. Players who do what they want, in case of a public realism we do not want to assign them to an infiltrating squad. Also newbies will get yelled at no matter what, that won't depend on the rating system. But they will have the chance to prove that they are actually trying. The greatest problem I see here is that, that some people will surely be crying to get ratings, honest people would give them bad reputation i.m.o..

 

[MausRatte]

I think this will be really cool.

 

[PFAHLMANN]

i think we should conform to reality in this issue too, give medals for achiewements....and after someone collects a certain number of medals than he/she will be promoted...

 

[Aniallator]

It's a good idea, though in the end, I'd rather not have a rating system. Seeing as people won't spend much time observing other people, I guarantee that rating won't be bothered with unless someone is cheating, hating, team killing, or freaking Rambo. I'm sure I wouldn't bother with it.

However, I agree that we need something to show a person's skill.

Decorations.

Each faction would have a dozen or so historical decorations; for example, British decorations would include the Distinguished Service Medal and the Victoria Cross, while German decorations would include the Order of the German Cross (Silver Class) and the Order of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords, and Diamonds... quite a mouthful, I know A decoration might be awarded after doing one of several things. Accomplishing objectives in such-and-such minutes, killing such-and-such enemies in a round, killing such-and-such enemies in such-and-such seconds... you get the idea. However, you can't be awarded a decoration until you've been awarded the decoration that preceeds it.

You should be able to look up the decorations each person has received, and what they received them for.

 

[Pjosip]

I don't mind ranks, gives you a good idea about who you're fighting against.

 

[Duke]

Only real problem is that this would take too much time to implement and it is not something that adds to the realism. Other thing is that since the game has no scoring this player based rating would be the only solution (I see at the moment).

 

[Aristle]

I wouldn't mind ranks either. In war, you usually wouldn't be promoted unless you made conspicuous efforts and survived. It also wouldn't be surprising if you earned a medal for your bravery along with that promotion. The problem is that games use these ranks according to player earned points from kills.

So, a way we can implement ranks in a different way is by allowing only developers or those chosen by developers to present promotions and maybe medals. Personally, I believe that medals are a sign of your combat efforts, so it could probably be implemented through statistics such as saving 100 allies who were being shot at (only if you survive each battle where you did save someone). By making those statistics hidden, it would add an element of "surprise" or "distinction". Furthermore, by allowing only developers promote people, they can hand pick specific people who have had a constant clean record. This system isn't perfect, but you can always demote someone. Promotions would show that they've been given some trust by the "Generals" of the army and have at least some honourable skills.

I have also seen many people noting of having a NCO and their special authorities. I would rather see real ranks than just a title of "NCO" to designate a NCO.

 

[Alex]

I'm not sure that ranks would work.
After the game has been released for a year or two, everyone will be a commissioned officer.

 

[Aristle]

Referring back to my suggestion, not everyone can be trusted, so not everyone can become a CO. Basically, that is what happens in a game like Heroes & Generals.

 

[FlyingR]

I don't think there should be ranks... Unless the ranks will promote teamwork, ranks usually just make players stop the teamwork in order to obtain those ranks and will avoid fights.

Medals could be granted for the soldiers performance in the battlefield, but like the ranks you have to be careful in not promoting lone-wolf behavior.

 

[Aristle]

Avoid fights with the enemy or teammates? I don't quite understand what you mean when you say that people will avoid fights.

 

[FlyingR]

Avoid fights with the enemy or teammates? I don't quite understand what you mean when you say that people will avoid fights.

Sorry for the lack of explanation. I meant with teammates. People would complain as to why was someone promoted to a higher rank and not them when they actually have done a better job and not just worry or focus on kills/deaths. If someone was promoted due to their individual skills, I would be mad, but if I know that they actually put their effort into being a teamplayer and noticed that the person had good leadership and teamworking skills, I wouldn't mind. I would even suggest it to a higher official to promote said person.

If you're going to use rank system, at least use it based on at least 2 or 3 criterias, like you mentioned in my post.

 

[mmiedzianyy]

You all say that every player should stick close to their squads and put the team play above all 'killing'. Agree - it's important to support your mates but.. soldier should kill as many enemies as it's possible and this should be rewarded to. I think that this cant be forgoten and put on the second plan because its CODish. Take a look at the marksman class. Beside his recon job is to eliminate high value targets, hard to approach or simply eliminate enemies before they can reach the cap/defend zone. Kills should be important, maybe not as much as cooperation but they should.
Had little time so i've tried to reply fast [emoji14]

 

[Aristle]

I agree. Like I mentioned, those who constantly make conspicuous efforts should be rewarded with medals. Medals during WW2 was permitted for a wide variety of reasons including being brave (saving others), having some of the most confirmed kills, and surviving at all costs to complete an objective.

 

[PFAHLMANN]

yes..heroes and generals didn't really solved teamwork....so what the ranking system will be based on?....perhaps individual achewment?....that will kill off teamwork here too....

 

[Sydd]

How about adding a system like battlefield that shows your average scores you achieve by completing objectives. I mean we never ever looked at ranks in battlefield 3. I belonged to a mil sim clan and all we were interested in was their "objective score"

 

[Aniallator]

From one of my other posts...

Ranking just encourages playing for oneself rather than for the team; TW encourages the opposite. Ranking implies a point system to go up in rank, and points, too, encourage one to play for oneself. Even team-oriented points, like capturing an objective; let's say you're an LMG gunner. You should be set up on those sandbags laying down suppressive fire as your squad advances to capture the objective, but instead, you're off to cap the objective with your squad because you want to get those points. In a game like TW, point and rank systems just don't make sense.