A Rank System.

[[SCAM]JollyRoger]

Basicly a small bar on left top corner ( idk just exmpl)
You will get exp by just playing.

And to become sl you will need lets say rank 5 which can be Unteroffizier and need like 3-5 hours of real gameplay.
To become commander you need rank idk lets say 10 Which can be leutnant and will require idk 10 hours of gameplay

With this system we will avoid no speaking SL (as much as it possible) and noob commanders who cant just pres right click and send arty or planes.

(all Numbers etc are estimated just for an exmpl)

THIS IS NOT A PROGRESSION SYSTEM.
Just small anjustment that will prepare new players before they hop in to command section of this game.
So you wont face any noob SL's which dont know how to speak or noob commanders which dont know that they need radio to call some support.

This is fully realistic cuz idk how in your armys (zimbabwe) but in NATO you need to be expirienced before you take over command of a section/squad or even battalion.


I DONT SUGGEST LINKING WEAPONS OR COSMETICS:

[PenttiOy]

Originally posted by JollyRoger:

Originally posted by Ahab187:

I don't think adding level progression adds anything to the game. Time and again it's shown that level has nothing to do with player skill. Many people with high levels that just play badly showing they have no understanding of the game they play. While some low level have experience from other games (or just common sense) and perform well.
I think locking roles to certain levels is just not a good idea. Instead there should just be a kickfunction for people who don't properly perform their role, regardless of level. If the person really is performing as bad as you think, other people will feel the same way and the incompetent person will be removed from their role anyway.

Statistics might be fun to have, but if you focus on K/D for example, some (many?) people will not want to ruin these stats and not play to the benefit of their team, but to the benefit of their stats (main one being K/D)

I havent said about linking weapons to ranks abou linking cosmetics to ranks.

Just make it so noobs need to play some before they can command.

If you don't want noobs being in command and learing how to command maybe join a dedicated clan where people are put into command places by experience :P

[Ahab187]

Originally posted by JollyRoger:

I havent said about linking weapons to ranks abou linking cosmetics to ranks.

Just make it so noobs need to play some before they can command.

I haven't said anything about linking weapons and cosmetics to ranks either. I said roles shouldn't be linked to rank.
Maybe you should reread what I said so you understand why I said this.

[ORION]

Originally posted by Maki Nishikino:

No, this has already been proven a bad idea in RS2.

How so? You can easily see if your squad leader or commander is a total noob. Glad I refunded this game that has yet again been delayed.. RO2 is a much better game, and will probably have a higher player base in 6 months......IFF this is released by then.

[DumbNumpty]

Originally posted by FD_Stalker:

No you don't need player rank system, however StatTrak system like csgo on your weapon and role during the map would be a good idea. On end of the map bring up scoreboard with best commander stats, top kill (non commander), armor destroyer, best squad's SL, etc, IN ONE MATCH. This could motivate noobs to get better and showoff your own skill

Currently the end of match summary is pants and it shoud be html and posted in a steam message to you or at least have some form of persistance whilst on that server.
It pops up you start to read and then its gone.

The stats are really important and interesting and the fact you just played for 90 mins for it to end with a flash frame of a simple team rosta is a bit poor.
The stats are really important especially for server admins and in this game there are unique stats that are extremely important to the game.

Things like match time distance to SL =<10m =<30m in percentage match time.
The standard kills K/D ratio, Total Kills, Team Kills, Kill distance =<50m, <=150m in percent.
Communication calls, Commander calls, SL calls, Squad Calls in how many times did this guy speak to others.
Match time distance to objective =<30m, =<100m % match time

There are a load of stats that compared to the game engine are feather light in terms of load that add a huge amount to the game in terms of feedback.

Also at first I was against a ranking system, but thinking about it if the correct Wn8 formula was found that fits PS then yes there rating level could have a rank as its just a name that quickly indicated rating level from private to whatver.

Servers admins should be able to optionally set options where key roles can be based on last game stats even if its only an ever increasing timer demanding on how little you did before you can pick your role.

Currently end of game stats dissapear in a flash and what is contained is pretty poor in terms of depth and the idea that server admins to players should run blind to community they play with for long term interest is FUBAR.

[ORION]

Originally posted by Spatz:

SeaDawg, go and ♥♥♥♥ your mother, and cry elsewhere your ignorant little crocodile-tears.
I've had enough now with you!

Calm down there super fan, I simply asked why RS2 and Ro2 were bad for having a rank system or how it has been proven to be a bad idea in those games.....Actully it works out rather well since you get experienced commanders and squad leaders, not some noob claiming to be an expert.

[Ahab187]

Originally posted by SeaDawg:

Originally posted by Spatz:

SeaDawg, go and ♥♥♥♥ your mother, and cry elsewhere your ignorant little crocodile-tears.
I've had enough now with you!

Calm down there super fan, I simply asked why RS2 and Ro2 were bad for having a rank system or how it has been proven to be a bad idea in those games.....Actully it works out rather well since you get experienced commanders and squad leaders, not some noob claiming to be an expert.

See post #16

[ORION]

Originally posted by Ahab187:

Originally posted by SeaDawg:

Calm down there super fan, I simply asked why RS2 and Ro2 were bad for having a rank system or how it has been proven to be a bad idea in those games.....Actully it works out rather well since you get experienced commanders and squad leaders, not some noob claiming to be an expert.

See post #16

This dumb post has nothing to do to show how it has been proven to be bad in Rs2 or RO2, it is simply giving your oppinion that some noobs are better than more experinced players. Also no one is saying to lock certain roles, roles are not locked in ro2 or rs2, you can go join as a level 1 and select commander and noob the whole game up if you want.....And you don't have to wait for the battle to be almost lost to figure out your SLs and commanders are total noobs

[DumbNumpty]

I have to sort of agree with SeaDawg but also like a lot of what you have said does sound like croc tears. Game is Beta starts on 18th runs to 9th Aug and then you have your 2 hours to decide on a refund.

No need to get so salty in the forums though if someone is just going to troll then ignore as the rest of us have your responses in addition the the original post spammed at us.

This game is not CoD/ BF/ RS2 or RO2 its PS based on Squad which is heavily sim / strat / mass co-op based.
I am also bemused that there isn't a ranking system to allow a lobby to pick the commanders and then the commanders create squads and pick SLs.
Its an optional server mode to what is just a random first in system that assures chaos in a game that lends itself to a structured co-op.
There should be no silly progression system but unless selected by a server admin some form of metric is needed to select the commanders who then create and select Squads & SL's and also can deligate function to SL's.
It would be an easy and quick way to assure a more structured and better game its optional depending on server options but as things are it is a good way to assure chaos and I just don't get the logic behind that.

[ORION]

I dunno for a game that talks so much about realism I don't know why a rank system would be so bad to show experience...............ya know like most millitarys in real life use to prevent private pile from deciding to become a general if he so chooses.

[DumbNumpty]

Originally posted by SeaDawg:

I dunno for a game that talks so much about realism I don't know why a rank system would be so bad to show experience...............ya know like most millitarys in real life use to prevent private pile from deciding to become a general if he so chooses.

Yeah there are prob some noob farmers and noobs who are scared of this but yeah its extremely daft not to have it as an option.

The end of game stats need much work so at least they can be a feed for the next game if a global ranking system isn't adopted.
The ranking system would just be a single database server with the loads we have and could and should and hope it does.
Its very early and at least give an option to feed last game stats into next game positions.

[Inogine]

Originally posted by JollyRoger:

What weapons, what progression.

My post was about getting rid of noobs who take over command both in squad or as battalion commander.
It will be more realistic to be able to play as commander after certain amount of exp gathered in battle.

I know what linking weapons to ranks isnt good and it was prooved in RO2. Please read nore carefully

Ignore the weapons part then. It still stands and is exemplified by yourself. "Darn you noobs taking the role you may be unfamiliar with! YOU NEED THIS MUCH TIME TO PLAY IT!"

I'm now completely aligned against your idea which was a terrible thing for RO2 and onwards. You'd end up with asshats who thought, near as I can tell, they'd lived through WWII trying to scream down everyone because they had rank X.

THIS system is a level playing field. It's been a while since we've seen it. No way to tell anyone apart other than name recognition. If you've played with a guy who was a REALLY GOOD leader, you're more likely to hop into their squad or ask that they be in the commander role.

You know how you get rid of a bad squad lead? You start your own.

Now in squad number locked positions: IE: All but infantry squads this could become a problem. Aside from server side administration stepping in, there's little to be done about an idiot getting in charge of a role that has few squads available to it.

You know what though? Aside from active trolls, there were few times when a new person was asked to step down from a role that they did not. In the case of trolls: administrative Server ban. Simple since they weren't there to add positively to the community anyway and will likely be acting in a VERY negative fashion regardless.

What you propose IS a progression system. It's a stat bar that once raised enough, I would guess, would unlock the desired role. If you plan to enforce that it be the decider anyway. Otherwise it's pointless. But the way you have that worded, it's a progression system with locks.

"And to become sl you will need lets say rank 5 which can be Unteroffizier and need like 3-5 hours of real gameplay.
To become commander you need rank idk lets say 10 Which can be leutnant and will require idk 10 hours of gameplay"

FD_Stalker and DumbNumpty brought interesting thoughts however. I disagree with kills being a decider ever. I believe that stat should honestly be removed, but some people like it enough that it'll almost always be around I reckon. All other things can be gamed as well. (Look no further than the medics in Squad injuring other players on their own team and even in their own squad to get heal points to show out.)

However the thought of tracking time in a role and things done within that role have some merit, just as an aside publicly viewable but not an end-match stat report or deciding factor on roles. More of a curiosity sate if you happen to end up with a squad lead you thought was really good and wanted to see how long they had been doing so. (Results might surprise you.)

[ORION]

I would actully buy this game again if it had a rank system, bad enough all the bugs, fuzzy graphics, and servers crashing....But the entire circus of noobs claiming to be experts running the the chaos without any sense of team work or direction, it's just not the greatest experience... "Oh look we are down to the last objective, "hey guys i think our commander is dumb he does not even talk, and the SL seems to have only selected his role for the gun" Always nice for people to start to relize these things when the battle is lost... Pretty much how it goes.

Also ranks give you something fun to work for... No ones saying to lock roles, just so you can see their experience level right off the bat....You know RL armys have a rank system for a reason there you so called realism buffs.

[Inogine]

Originally posted by SeaDawg:

I would actully buy this game again if it had a rank system, bad enough all the bugs, fuzzy graphics, and servers crashing....But the entire circus of noobs claiming to be experts running the the chaos without any sense of team work or direction, it's just not the greatest experience... "Oh look we are down to the last objective, "hey guys i think our commander is dumb he does not even talk, and the SL seems to have only selected his role for the gun" Always nice for people to start to relize these things when the battle is lost... Pretty much how it goes.

Also ranks give you something fun to work for... No ones saying to lock roles, just so you can see their experience level right off the bat....You know RL armys have a rank system for a reason there you so called realism buffs.

Talking about real life counterparts and then calling people "so called realism buffs." .... Kay.

I rarely saw instances on what you speak of. Keep in mind, the commander does not talk to you, the squad following the squad leaders. He talks to the squad leaders. This has led to a false sense of "OUR COMMANDER IS DOING NOTHING!" among a lot of people. Often times the squad leaders don't even communicate that they were getting orders at all. Some even got salty and began blaming the commander for their own faults and poor leading, to which the commander can't even know that he's being insulted to other people. He's not in your squad picking up your coms. Did ya factor that in?

There's been a push that we should also only use radios provided at hardpoints or radiomen as well. I can't even begin to imagine the exacerbation that it would cause to that issue. Not only would you deal with orders being hard to get, you'd deal with people making assumptions about a leader who might actually be good but communications would be hard to come by in a timely manner leading to frustration.

And yes, as stated above, you ARE talking about locking roles. Having to have a specific time to get into a role is locking that role.

[ORION]

Originally posted by Inogine:

Originally posted by SeaDawg:

I would actully buy this game again if it had a rank system, bad enough all the bugs, fuzzy graphics, and servers crashing....But the entire circus of noobs claiming to be experts running the the chaos without any sense of team work or direction, it's just not the greatest experience... "Oh look we are down to the last objective, "hey guys i think our commander is dumb he does not even talk, and the SL seems to have only selected his role for the gun" Always nice for people to start to relize these things when the battle is lost... Pretty much how it goes.

Also ranks give you something fun to work for... No ones saying to lock roles, just so you can see their experience level right off the bat....You know RL armys have a rank system for a reason there you so called realism buffs.

Talking about real life counterparts and then calling people "so called realism buffs." .... Kay.

I rarely saw instances on what you speak of. Keep in mind, the commander does not talk to you, the squad. He talks to the squad leaders. This has led to a false sense of "OUR COMMANDER IS DOING NOTHING!" among a lot of people. Often times the squad leaders don't even communicate that they were getting orders at all. Some even got salty and began blaming the commander for their own faults and poor leading, to which the commander can't even know that he's being insulted to other people. He's not in your squad picking up your coms. Did ya factor that in?

There's been a push that we should also only use radios provided at hardpoints or radiomen as well. I can't even begin to imagine the exacerbation that it would cause to that issue. Not only would you deal with orders being hard to get, you'd deal with people making assumptions about a leader who might actually be good but communications would be hard to come by in a timely manner leading to frustration.

And yes, as stated above, you ARE talking about locking roles. Having to have a specific time to get into a role is locking that role.

Never said to lock the roles, just so people will say hey our commander is a rank 1 noob please give up the role. who cares about the commander McNoob talking to SL McJustBought The Game, it is the same result.

Of course it is a good idea that Commander McNoob is calling the shots while Sun Tzu the ultima gamer is sitting in a bush with a rifle on orders of his SL, Lt. JustBoughtTheGameAndWantedTheMachineGuN.... Sorry my mistake, the circus is great fun.

[Inogine]

Originally posted by SeaDawg:

Never said to lock the roles, just so people will say hey our commander is a rank 1 noob please give up the role. who cares about the commander McNoob talking to SL McJustBought The Game, it is the same result.

Of course it is a good idea that Commander McNoob is calling the shots while Sun Tzu the ultima gamer is sitting in a bush with a rifle on orders of his SL, Lt. JustBoughtTheGameAndWantedTheMachineGuN.... Sorry my mistake, the circus is great fun.

Aie't, let's change to that discussion then. Why didn't Sun Tzu the ultima gamer take the commander role? Why does JustBoughtTheGameAndWantedTheMachineGuN still have his machine gun? These are two very controllable factors. One moreso than the other admittedly, but still controllable.

So rather than listening to how he's actually leading the group and deciding based upon the merits of his leadership that he's fit for the role... You'd rather have an arbitrary timed system that everyone will eventually surpass? Even the new folks you hate and the trolls, even when they don't ever touch said commander slot?