DerJoachim
Member
Sadly, there is no system ever made by any Devs, to identify my skill , you will all perish in front of my iron sight.
PS : i agree with Aniallalalalator by the way.
PS : i agree with Aniallalalalator by the way.
-
Welcome to the Vanguard Community
These forums date back to the game's origins as the Crysis mod Traction Wars. Over the years the game and internet habits have evolved and discord.gg/vanguardww2 is now the principle home of the community.
The team continue to read and reply to posts here, but we can be contacted more quickly on Discord.
Not ranks, but something to indicate player's skill/experience
- Thread starter Duke
- Start date
- Status
Sydd
Member
Theres always a work around, if you dont want the lmg gunner to get points through capping objectives, have the lmg gunners get points for suppression, its simple. Added benefit: If a squad mate kills the suppressed targets, more points for both the shooter and the suppressor.
NCO: Gets points for directing squad to cap objective, defend objective.
Rifleman: Gets bonus points for securing objective and defence points for killing anyone in the cap and capping.
LMG: Explained above
.. whose left?
Point being, I very much like a uniformity in every game. One cant just power up TW and choose to be an NCO, he needs to earn those stripes, needs to be experienced enough to lead squads. There's a reason ranks were adopted in the army and there most certainly is a way to make it work here, if points are encouraging a person to lone wolf, rework the system in the manner that it will be more rewarding to have the squad work as the devs want them to, if its more rewarding people will do it.
Its simple, Besides I thought you were a sucker for realism Ani
Aniallator
Member
I am... that's why I don't want to be an LMG gunner with the rank of colonel However, I agree that we need a system where people have to "earn" classes. My answer? All classes have a course the player must complete before that class can be played. A course has the player conduct tasks assigned to their class. For example, the sapper course has you cut barbed wire, detonate a target, and plant anti-personnel mines.
Thus, players can "earn" classes without the need for points or ranks.
However, I agree that we need a system where people have to "earn" classes. My answer? All classes have a course the player must complete before that class can be played. A course has the player conduct tasks assigned to their class. For example, the sapper course has you cut barbed wire, detonate a target, and plant anti-personnel mines.Thus, players can "earn" classes without the need for points or ranks.
Aniallator
Member
I guarantee you that no matter what point system's in place, there'll be moments when someone isn't doing what they ought to be because they want to earn points. I mean, imagine a TW without a point system... no need to press TAB every minute to see your score. Seems much more fun to me.
mmiedzianyy
Member
We shouldn't be available to check score during the game but it ought to be displayed on the end screen.
It won't prevent playing for oneself tough..
The problem when players are not doing what they should for the team is not in scoring but how the game presents in gameplay and what game requiers from the player.
Insurgency and RO2 players in most cases are PTO. PR2 players in 95% of cases are team oriented.
Call of duty pto - less than 20% ;D
FlyingR
Member
Good points overall. I have mentioned in another post where everybody has to complete a training course where they have to do series of tasks like managing all weapons and such. I agree that I wouldn't like to press TAB every few seconds to check my score but it would be nice to work with points to promote teamwork.
I believe that there are regiments already created (check the regiment section I guess?), so I think once they are operational it will be more of the founder of the regiment decided who does what I think?
This point is the most important:
As for nonregimental players (which I believe will be the majority), I think at first it won't matter who does what because we will all be new players. However as soon as players start to get more experience they will prefer a class and use that usually. A lot of the experience players will start leading the squads. Usually does experienced and veteran players are the ones wanting to team play and lead the squad to victory. They should be the key players to decide what the squad needs in order to secure the objective. If any player in the squad is not following orders or not behaving then the squad leader kicks him out.
Another key player would be the commander, he will decide whether a squad created is being useful or not, he will be able to tell all the squads what to do. If a squad leader is not following the orders or not behaving accordingly then the squad leader gets kicked out.
A system of vote will also be important in order to choose or kick commander and squad leaders who are not doing their job properly.
If players, squad leaders or commanders are not promoting teamplay and disrupting gameplay they will be kicked out of the server.
This system is similar to PR but in this case, the squad leader, commander and votes will have a more important role.
I believe that there are regiments already created (check the regiment section I guess?), so I think once they are operational it will be more of the founder of the regiment decided who does what I think?
This point is the most important:
As for nonregimental players (which I believe will be the majority), I think at first it won't matter who does what because we will all be new players. However as soon as players start to get more experience they will prefer a class and use that usually. A lot of the experience players will start leading the squads. Usually does experienced and veteran players are the ones wanting to team play and lead the squad to victory. They should be the key players to decide what the squad needs in order to secure the objective. If any player in the squad is not following orders or not behaving then the squad leader kicks him out.
Another key player would be the commander, he will decide whether a squad created is being useful or not, he will be able to tell all the squads what to do. If a squad leader is not following the orders or not behaving accordingly then the squad leader gets kicked out.
A system of vote will also be important in order to choose or kick commander and squad leaders who are not doing their job properly.
If players, squad leaders or commanders are not promoting teamplay and disrupting gameplay they will be kicked out of the server.
This system is similar to PR but in this case, the squad leader, commander and votes will have a more important role.
Sydd
Member
Well its obvious, no matter what... there will always be those "special" kinds of noobs/ignorant idiots who will do whatever he pleases, you think if there's no point system he will stop doing it? He will camp eitherways because he can.
If that's bothersome remove the tab to check the scores option. Or I have a suggestion:
Have a difficult course, on different levels... if a person completes the entire course we can expect him to be quite experienced and like flying says, have a vote system for mutiny if the commander sucks, but what team does he join if hes booted, not to mention if hes an NCO?!
FlyingR
Member
If he does not promote teamwork or if he is ****ing around he should be kicked out of the server, create a new squad with the promise that he will follow orders, or join a squad and follow the squad leader's orders.
The thing is that in the beginning there might be lone wolves and such trying new things and the like... so we have to have patience. This is where Admins, commanders and squad leaders must not get angry or impatient, but helpful and guide everybody to help the team.
Like in real life military, respect authority, follow the rules and obey orders.
Aniallator
Member
Yeah, K/D shouldn't be shown until the round's over.
mmiedzianyy
Member
I agree with [MENTION=2672]Sydd[/MENTION], no matter if there is ranking/point system or not this will never prevent players from playing for oneself.
The game must require team play, it's gameplay and enviroment when you feel that you can't accomplish anything alone.
It relates to majority of course, there will be some rambo players which will be able to destroy whole units by themselves.
These are rare exceptions from the rules, like maybe.. Josef Frantisek? Never fought in a squad but he became pilot ace very quickly and his tactic was to leave the unit when the fight had started.
We all want to play for the team here, but it's impossible to force everybody to do so.
The game must require team play, it's gameplay and enviroment when you feel that you can't accomplish anything alone.
It relates to majority of course, there will be some rambo players which will be able to destroy whole units by themselves.
These are rare exceptions from the rules, like maybe.. Josef Frantisek? Never fought in a squad but he became pilot ace very quickly and his tactic was to leave the unit when the fight had started.
We all want to play for the team here, but it's impossible to force everybody to do so.
Sydd
Member
^ Exactly what mmie sodifnhaof said. (How do you even pronounce your username?)
But yeah, as long as you can get a majority of the people to play the objective by using the points system you win. Oh and if ranking system needs to be implemented, you can do so on every type of unit so lmg starts with he lowest rank of recruit, completes the regimental training (i.e. a detailed tutorial) becomes a private, and heads up 2-3 ranks up until the max rank an lmg can achieve which is probably cpl? So that can be done again its just a suggestion, I clearly stated a big if. I couldn't care less if there are no ranks but..
Shoulder badges, medals, ribbons, the iron cross and stripes turn me on hahaha
But yeah, as long as you can get a majority of the people to play the objective by using the points system you win. Oh and if ranking system needs to be implemented, you can do so on every type of unit so lmg starts with he lowest rank of recruit, completes the regimental training (i.e. a detailed tutorial) becomes a private, and heads up 2-3 ranks up until the max rank an lmg can achieve which is probably cpl? So that can be done again its just a suggestion, I clearly stated a big if. I couldn't care less if there are no ranks but..
Shoulder badges, medals, ribbons, the iron cross and stripes turn me on hahaha
Attachments
-
German-soldiers-make-a-dog-pose-WWII.jpg
Last edited:
Mikoto_Suoh_TheRedKing
New Member
Imo, as long as TW plays like PR (game where teamwork is really important, otherways you're doomed to fail if you play solo), it doesn't matter if we have a "ranking" feature. That's just my opinion regarding this subject.
Aniallator
Member
If TW has ranking, it loses realism... and personally, I'll be very disappointed. Ranking is something you see in CoD, not realism games.
Now imagine...
TW with a point system. You know you ought to do Y because it benefits the team, but you're going to do X because you get points, and your name goes higher on the scoreboard.
TW without a point system. You don't need to worry about what points you're earning and how you're competing against your own teammates, so you do Y knowing it benefits the team.
I'll be redundant by saying there's no point in a point system. The negative outweighs the positive. Please, please, devs... I implore you... no points!
Now imagine...
TW with a point system. You know you ought to do Y because it benefits the team, but you're going to do X because you get points, and your name goes higher on the scoreboard.
TW without a point system. You don't need to worry about what points you're earning and how you're competing against your own teammates, so you do Y knowing it benefits the team.
I'll be redundant by saying there's no point in a point system. The negative outweighs the positive. Please, please, devs... I implore you... no points!
FlyingR
Member
Yes and no. If you consider rankings in the forms of ranks (Private to General) then it is realistic, it's a way to measure someones effort in some sort of way. It's how you measure the ranks that it can or cannot be considered realistic.
For example, if your squad leader/commander sees that you have done an exceptional job achieving the objective, then he should consider you for a promotion. This for me is realistic. Now, the thing is to find a balance on how to give promotions.
However, if you killed 50 with a knife in a single row and you reached level 4, then got promoted to a new rank, this is not realistic.
I wouldn't mind having ranks, as long as it doesn't interrupt the realism from WWII, you wouldn't get new perks or anything, just a rank, meaning that you could be eligible to lead a squad or the whole division. If ranks are implemented, then maybe the higher ranked players should have a priority over lower ranked to run a squad just like in the actual war. Like that no new player is with no idea or experience should run it.
As for the points:
Maybe for the points, you should show points, but only your points. If you press tab, you would see your points and your information, meaning you wouldn't know how the others are doing, therefore wouldn't focus on trying to beat anyone's score. Points could be given in relation to the class you choose. Riflemans in capturing flags, LMG in killing people, Sappers in destroying or repairing objectives, Medics in healing people and so on. The value of the points for each class will be different for every class.
Squad leaders would be able to see their squads points and performance. As for commanders, they could see every squad leaders' points and information.
EDIT:
Promotions
If ranks would be implemented, maybe a solution to promote could be that the squad leaders would be allowed to select a person from their squad for a "nomination" for promotion (or maybe only the top 3 players of the squad would have a chance on being nominated). This would be done at the end of every round. Once a player has the number of necessary nominations, he will be promoted to the next rank. The commanders would do so for the squad leaders.
Last edited:
FlyingR
Member
Very good point. It wouldn't be every player though that would vote, only squad leaders and commanders. Maybe a squad leader/commander could vote the same person once a week or give him limitations in the number of votes to the same person.
Meaning if SQL A voted player B once, A wouldn't be able to vote B for the entire week or month or whatever limitation is given.
No mater how much I keep thinking about it, unless thats internal clan structure only it would be making players belonging to clans generaly higher ranked than "non-clan" players regardless of their skill.
However having some sort of command delegation inside your clan might be cool, but way to excesive for Chapter 1 and maybe even Chapter 2
However having some sort of command delegation inside your clan might be cool, but way to excesive for Chapter 1 and maybe even Chapter 2
FlyingR
Member
I'm sure there's a way to solve the voting of clan-members only.
If something would be implemented, it wouldn't be in the first Chapter as you mentioned. It's all about trial and error though, so the team has to try almost everything until they find something that works but is balanced, fun and realistic at the same time.
If something would be implemented, it wouldn't be in the first Chapter as you mentioned. It's all about trial and error though, so the team has to try almost everything until they find something that works but is balanced, fun and realistic at the same time.
Aniallator
Member
No matter how they're implemented, ranks'll be spammed and spammed. People will just promote their mates. I won't look at a high-ranked person and think "Man, that guy's good." I'll think "I wonder what clan that guy's in?" Classes are linked to a rank anyway. Look at Brit classes, for example; Assaults are lance corporals. Commanders are lieutenants. NCOs are corporals. Riflemen are privates.
Thus, a ranking system is infeasible and unrealistic.
As for points, were they implemented, I'd have them done the way [MENTION=2433]FlyingR[/MENTION] suggested. However, I'm still against them. I say TW should be released without a point system, and if all goes well, there's no need for one. If people are jonesing for one however, a suitable system can be implemented in Chapter Two.
Thus, a ranking system is infeasible and unrealistic.
As for points, were they implemented, I'd have them done the way [MENTION=2433]FlyingR[/MENTION] suggested. However, I'm still against them. I say TW should be released without a point system, and if all goes well, there's no need for one. If people are jonesing for one however, a suitable system can be implemented in Chapter Two.
- Status