Lock Certain Roles to Certain Levels

[Vinnie The Gooch]

My title essentially sums up my argument, but I'll elaborate here, and I am open to discussion. Please read my entire post if you wish to engage, I'm not noob-hating, but I want a more balanced experience for all.

I think certain roles should be locked to certain levels. I am sick of seeing both of my recon squads insta-locked by sub level 50 players and then getting pounded by arty while they spend the game sniping in pointless places. I'm sick of sub-level 50 players locking armor, not knowing how to play, and wasting fuel. I'm sick of sub level 50 commanders and SLs, although I do appreciate their effort to lead.
To solve this issue, and it IS an issue as, like it or not, some roles require a deeper understanding to be played effectively, I have multiple solutions.

1. All squad roles except rifleman should be locked until level 20. Squad leader should be locked until level 25. Starting as a rifleman is not only currently suggested by the game, also it is vital to learn how spawns work, how supplies and nodes work, etc. BEFORE leading and being in charge of arranging those things.

2. Recon should be locked until level 50. WAY too many players pick up this game with a friend after playing much faster-paced shooters and quickly lean towards the only weapon with a scope, as they want to snipe. The developers were very wise to make it impossible to lock sniper without help, but nevertheless, having one friend makes it too easy to monopolize this vital role without any understanding of how to be effective in the role. Moreover, sniping in HLL as your only means of winning a gunfight is a crutch. If new players only play sniper when they start the game, when they eventually do decide to branch out, they will become frustrated as their reliance on their scope has given them a flawed understanding of how to be effective in gunfights. This will cause a decrease in player retention. Locking recon to level 50 makes it a reward of sorts. If you make it to level 50, you can insta-lock sniper with your friends to your heart's content, but at least you'll have a basic understanding of what to do.

3. Armor should be locked to level 35. Armor can be as difficult, or even more difficult, to learn than recon. However, in my own experience, I rarely see armor squads without at least 1 semi-experienced player. (There are still new players that lock and solo tanks). Nevertheless, having a couple other people to help coach or guide you, depending on what seat you've taken in the tank, makes the learning process much smoother.

4. Commander should be locked to level 50. Plain and simple. The most important role in the game requires players who know how to play the game. I respect new players that attempt to command when more experienced players refuse to do so, but new commanders will always be more ineffective and, in some cases, just downright harmful to the team.

5. At this point, I've spent a lot of time laying out restrictions that would mostly affect the experience of new players, so let me extend some restrictions to the more experienced players. To solve the common issue of players refusing to play commander, which would be exacerbated by my fourth rule, I propose that all players above level 100 can be randomly picked if no commander steps up after a certain amount of time.
I suggest the same be done with squad leaders, however, with this pool of +100-level players limited to those that have chosen infantry already.
To combat players being selected over and over for leadership roles, I suggest a system be put in place that stops players from being auto-selected for them if they have been auto-selected or have willingly played one of those roles recently.
 
Lastly, the levels I have specified should not be taken as absolutes. I don't know exactly what levels each role should be locked to, but I do know that there must be a system in place to help people learn the game, while ensuring the games are balanced and important roles are filled by those who have experience. I am open to constructive criticism.

Thanks for reading.

[☭Rosa]

no.

[Vinnie The Gooch]

Originally posted by ☭Rosa:

no.

Very well-stated counter argument, thanks for stopping by.

[Magnum]

100% agree with the RECO and it's always the same thing: it's always the new players who take the reco for the sniper. The big problem is that they're generally stupid, do what they want and don't have a microphone, which makes the arty enemy overpowered.

As for the tanks, you've got to block them at 20-25, so they've got to get their kit levels up, and they've got to learn fast that playing solo = Death / Playing without a mic = Death.

[Vinnie The Gooch]

Originally posted by Osiris:

100% agree with the RECO and it's always the same thing: it's always the new players who take the reco for the sniper. The big problem is that they're generally stupid, do what they want and don't have a microphone, which makes the arty enemy overpowered.

As for the tanks, you've got to block them at 20-25, so they've got to get their kit levels up, and they've got to learn fast that playing solo = Death / Playing without a mic = Death.

Totally true for new recon players. As for armor, I wasn't sure what levels would be best, but that makes sense.

[POPO Sandh]

Recon and Commander Definitely need locking, but as for Armour and Normal Infantry Units? Nah

[Cruddy]

I just think there need to be a mandatory in depth tutorial for leadership roles, I'm really sick of ♥♥♥♥♥♥ SL/Commanders dropping a garrison in the middle of an open field that's visible from 200m.

[snow]

This is how you destroy a new player base. Imagine paying full price for this game and being locked to rifleman for the first 30 hours.

The majority of players will end up leaving this game.

You want a better experience? Play scrims on private servers.

I understand your frustration but this would be a HUGE mistake for the devs and the percentage of new players who stick to HLL will significantly drop.

The devs know this and it will never happen.

[Platybelodon {TP}]

It's a general problem. It's been the same on Red Orchestra forever. New players try to hide and get some kills without playing the objectives, as they cannot comprehend that there's another way to win.

I use RO2/RS2 as an example as it's been out longer and has shorter matches and smaller maps so it's got a concentrated similarity to HLL. It's common to have whole matches where the same people fail to get in to the capture points. Mention (politely) in the chat what they ought to be doing, you get a hatful of abuse.

I applaud the idea that you're thinking of ways to encourage people to learn how to play the game, but I think the average player is either entirely unaware of the larger picture, or even of how to comprehend the larger picture ('my trench has enemies in, I must shoot them'; while the experienced player who has considered how to be a better player is thinking 'I must sprint to the other zone as it's going to be captured faster than this one will be recaptured'), or they're thick as mince. At least the former type can learn.

I never fail to be astonished by how people cannot grasp over the course of half an hour that their actions are not helping the team's objectives. Zone after zone falls, and they still persist in the same actions.

I don't think pure time or levels (that are tied to time played) have any bearing. It's only that some people are interested and want to understand the mechanics in order to get better, and others load up to shoot something and get frustrated when they don't (so the faster running speed is great for these guys).

Maybe I'm shouting at the clouds here, but it is so blindingly obvious what's going wrong in many rounds I play, yet no-one does anything. If I play with a couple of friends, it's not uncommon for a sniper to be having a field day and no-one to mark, ping, comment or otherwise until we take it on ourselves to sort him out. All it takes is a basic interest in the flow of the match, awareness of where people are being held up by enemies, and talking, which holds true for RO/RS and HLL.

You won't solve it by level-locking, but I guess the people who get those levels might have the chance of a better awareness.

[Solar_Flare]

what PLatybelodon said is pretty accurate. Locked levels or no, it comes down to the individual at the end of the day. Look at warfare maps. You take a point from the enemy, one they can't take back and the commander then drops an air head for next point. How many people redeploy immediately and push the next objective?. At that point in the match, it's infinitely easier to get on the point, as most of the enemy is still fighting at the last (lost)point.
Leaving them there, and just dropping in on the airhead is the best thing to do.
Most matches, I see maybe a quarter of the team do this though. The rest want kills, which in turn makes it harder for the push on the point, as they all respawn there.
Simple tactics, but a lot of people either don't understand or willfully ignore the fact. Then they complain when the match is lost.
Not sure how to fix that mindset, as like i said, it's in the individual themselves to want to change, and at the end of the day it's a game and people want to have fun.

[Hugh G Rection]

No .

If someone doesn't know something and you do there is this new things the kids are doing called telling them . Mind blowing concept I know .

[[BoA] Depadumama]

Level-locking is a horrible idea, the game has no matchmaking so there will always be a chance your team would be consisted of low ranked players. Imagine the imbalance if another team has more 100's than the other (actually quite a common scene these days), not only would you be starved from key roles/classes but from your suggestion even tanks?!

Everyone started from somewhere, low ranked player may be way better as commander than someone at rank 100 or above and even if they weren't they should be allowed the chance to learn and participate same as everyone else before them.

If you find yourself in a team with low levels playing certain key roles, tough, that's just how it is sometimes. You can offer your advice to them or find a server that enforces level requirements as a rule but to bake this into the game itself would be awful.

[Vinnie The Gooch]

Originally posted by POPO (Sandh Palne wala):

Recon and Commander Definitely need locking, but as for Armour and Normal Infantry Units? Nah

I'd be on board with that.

[Vinnie The Gooch]

Originally posted by snow:

This is how you destroy a new player base. Imagine paying full price for this game and being locked to rifleman for the first 30 hours.

The majority of players will end up leaving this game.

You want a better experience? Play scrims on private servers.

I understand your frustration but this would be a HUGE mistake for the devs and the percentage of new players who stick to HLL will significantly drop.

The devs know this and it will never happen.

Firstly, I don't think it takes 30 hours to get to level 30.

Secondly, I'm not unwilling to admit my solution might not be the best. Regardless, I don't think the overarching issue that newer players can play roles that require experience to do so effectively can be ignored.

Thirdly, playing scrims isn't a viable solution in my opinion. I am a casual player, as are many others, and I don't want to play against ultra-competitive players to have a balanced experience.

Maybe my solution is too harsh. But ignoring the problem entirely is going to cause casual, yet experienced players like myself, of which there are many, to drift away.

[Vinnie The Gooch]

Originally posted by Solar_Flare:

what PLatybelodon said is pretty accurate. Locked levels or no, it comes down to the individual at the end of the day. Look at warfare maps. You take a point from the enemy, one they can't take back and the commander then drops an air head for next point. How many people redeploy immediately and push the next objective?. At that point in the match, it's infinitely easier to get on the point, as most of the enemy is still fighting at the last (lost)point.
Leaving them there, and just dropping in on the airhead is the best thing to do.
Most matches, I see maybe a quarter of the team do this though. The rest want kills, which in turn makes it harder for the push on the point, as they all respawn there.
Simple tactics, but a lot of people either don't understand or willfully ignore the fact. Then they complain when the match is lost.
Not sure how to fix that mindset, as like i said, it's in the individual themselves to want to change, and at the end of the day it's a game and people want to have fun.

This is valid argument. Experience as the sole level of judging competence is flimsy at best. Nevertheless, it's a starting place.

[Vinnie The Gooch]

Originally posted by BoA Depadumama:

Level-locking is a horrible idea, the game has no matchmaking so there will always be a chance your team would be consisted of low ranked players. Imagine the imbalance if another team has more 100's than the other (actually quite a common scene these days), not only would you be starved from key roles/classes but from your suggestion even tanks?!

Everyone started from somewhere, low ranked player may be way better as commander than someone at rank 100 or above and even if they weren't they should be allowed the chance to learn and participate same as everyone else before them.

If you find yourself in a team with low levels playing certain key roles, tough, that's just how it is sometimes. You can offer your advice to them or find a server that enforces level requirements as a rule but to bake this into the game itself would be awful.

Thanks for pointing out that an imbalance in the exp. between teams would have a huge negative impact. My solution however is to simply balance experience between the teams automatically. Players with friends can have an option to queue together with slightly longer wait times to find an available slot in their chosen server.