A lot of people have recently discussed the ranking system in RO2. Should it be removed? Should it be an optional server setting? Many people already know that I am not very fond of the ranking system because I don't think it fit into RO2.
Before anyone starts yelling ''You're a Classic player, play Classic'' I first off want to that this post isn't directed to Classic players. Or Realism players. Or Action Players. It's directed at the community as a whole. And hopefully it is a food for thoughts to TWI - and if any Dev is reading this, it may at least be worth to consider it. Secondly, I am not a Classic player. In order to be a Classic player I think it would be resonable to say that you at least play Classic Mode. I neither play it or like Classic for various reasons. Ironically one of them is due to the small player base. Before anyone continue to read I may remind that I am not directly speaking to RO2 itself, or the next RO; many of these questions are directed at the franchise and it's future.
Here is a brief overview of my thoughts.
1. The Progression System is not Equal
There is no doubt that the progression system is unfair: it gives certain players advantage over others such as faster reloading time, better weapons, equipment, and so forth. In my opinion, any progression system that gives a player unfair advantage over others does not fit into a tactical/semi-realistic shooter. One of the great things in RO1 was that every player was equal; every mistake you did that resultet in some sort of failure for you was due to the fact that your opponent was a better player than you at that very moment, not because they had a bayonete and you did't, or because they had a weapon, or a perks, that you didn't have, which at every extent may and will more or less effect the outcome.
2) Those who Play Less will Automatically be worse off
From the point above one may argue that everyone have the same chance to gain these advantages. First off, this is irrelevant, because these advantages are still artificial skills and not real skills. Secondly, it's not true anyway. Those who play less - no matter their reason for doing so - will automatically be worse off. This means that someone who work or study all day and does not play as much as others will be worse off. Which is, ironically, the key point of any progression system: to make people play more. The more you play the more you win. Those who do not play enough will suffer. How you play is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is that you play
3) The System Does Not Help New Players - it hinders them3)
I may be wrong, but it at least seems to be plausible to say that the progression system was implemented in order to increase accessibility and to give people a reason to play - and to force other to play more.
Ironically, this seems to be very contradictionary. I strongly doubt people decision on whenever they should buy the game or not is depndent on the progression system. Those who're looking for RO2 either A) Falsly believe it is another generic FPS game B) Believe it is unique compared to other games. Moral of the story is: those who were looking for something unique stay, those who thought RO was another FPS game will be dissapointed because its self-evident that RO is very specific experience.
Another point here is that the progression system does not make the game more ''accessible'' for new players. It makes it harder. They will not only have to master a very difficult game but they will have to put a lot of time into getting equal to others, e.i. reaching the higest level. This is ironical, because at the same time new players have to struggle with both learning the game AND unlocking things, experienced player knows exactly how the game works (map flow, stratagic points, how to move, how to shoot etc.) while at the same time they have better equipment, weapons, and perks than new players.
4) The system causes complications in clan matches
Yet again, the same issues as in (3) and (2) arise in clan-based matches.
5) The system offers rare guns until everyone has them
One of the thoughts regarding many of the unlocked weapons in RO2 was that they would be rare. The 'rare' weapons are limited in matches, but to call them 'rare' is simply not true: these weapons are rare until everyone has them. These weapons also conflict with the historical accuracy.
6) The system Limits the Freedom of Choice
One of the great things with games like RO1 and ARMA is that you more or less have complete freedom. You pick and play. This is not the case in RO2. You have to unlock even the most basic equipment - even the bayonet which is standard equipment. This limits the freedom for easy 'pick and play'. It could of course be justified to limit the freedom of choosing a role such as squad leader, but more then that, Its really up to debate. If we go back to point (2) and (3) it just becomes even more obvious how much the system limit the freedom of choice.
7) The system causes harm to custom servers
Since everyone must earn their unlocks and perks servers which does certain changes in the game must become unranked to avoid cheating. Yet the game is open to bot farming. So now we have unranked and ranked servers. Unfortunately, unranked servers suffers directly: because who is going to play them? Even the slightest changes makes them unranked and since the progression system is there people want it. This also hinders modders for a nice try to fill their servers since majority of people wont be looking for unranked servers in the first place.
8) The ranking system causes harm to all servers and modes that doesn't use it.
If Classic Mode had the progression system more people would play it. As a matter of fact, if Classic was called Realism Mode, even more people would play it. If Custom servers was ranked more people would play them. The whole 'ranked' 'unranked' 'Action' 'Realism' 'Classic' just split the community even more.
9) The ranking system is Limited to ROs own formula and the time period it represents
One of the issues with the ranking system is that it will never go beyond a certain level of complexity. The system will always be stuck with rewarding players with extremely basic rewards.
If one would compare RO2's ranking system with, let's say CODs ranking system, or Fallouts, or indeed any other shooters ranking system, it becomes obvious that RO2s ranking system is extremely limited and outright watered down. It offers a few artificial skills, such as less recoil, faster reloading, and it offers a few attachments such as bayonet.
The fact is however that any game who has a ranking system is under constant competition: you can't release the same unlocks all the time no matter what kind of game we're talking about. It has to evolve, and it naturally do so by competition.
The problem is that RO2 system is limited to two major points: the WW2 era and the formula itself.
To evaluate this: RO2 is limited to the WW2 era. Because that's the fundamental idea about the game. This means that unlocks will be limited to the sort of equipment that was available during WW2. That begs the question:
How is the unlocks supposed to evolve? As it is now, the current 'Heroes' would have to unlock the bayonet once again in any potential and upcoming RO game. Or.. will there be new unlocks?
One could argue that we could implement WW2 equipment far more distant from historical accuracy than the MkB. Because that seems like the only plausible solution. Another solution, far less plausible, would be to let players unlock every role starting from Rifleman as the only available one. This would only limit peoples freedom even more. This idea is at least in my opinion very, very bad. Yet this doesn't answer the upcoming question:
What about the next RO game?
To those who argue for this system:
How is it supposed to evolve?
Is RO2 limited to WW2?
What may be the outcome for such changes?
10) The system is Likeable because its there
To be honest, I don't believe that people play RO2 because of the progression system. I don't believe it matters much at all. People looking for RO do it because the game offers something unique. If TWI never would have implemented unlocks, then mark my words: nobody would have asked for it. If someone did the idea would be turned down. There must be a miniscule amount of players that actually care about the progression system. With care, I mean that they care about whenever the system itself exist, because as it is now, people probably care of the sake of caring: there is no idea to play without progression when it already exist in the base game!
If the ranking system isnt present in RO3 I doubt majority of players would care.
Those who decides to buy the game is likely to do it because the game is unique. Their decision to buy or not is not dependent on the ranking system - it's dependent on the game itself. The amount of players who play the game only for the ranking system must be miniscule and it is therefore far from a great loss if these people leave the community. If RO moves more into the tactical shooter genre, and steer away from the middleground it is in now, then I believe there is a far bigger niche community waiting there.
The tactical niche community is far bigger than people tend think. My experience from BIS board, this boad, and user reviews, is mixed response to RO2. Many complaints is about the directions the series have headed.
So,
We've seen in other games that the competition is fierce; an identity crisis of what the game should be is barely a safe way to make the community bigger. Neither is it safe to try to 'cater to everyone', and gaming companies who have tried that, have a) made casual players dissapointed, or b) made their fans dissapointed, or c), made both casual and fans dissapointed. This middleground does not exist in the bigger sense. Codemasters Operation Flashpoint series is a great example of a franchise that dug its own grave with this mentality. No gaming company have managed to do this. Either way one should go 'full out' for accessibility, or forgot the fact that it even was mentioned.
Still, It's not all about accessibility. Its about the game itself. How else could games like arma have survived for so long - and still growing bigger and bigger? With thousands of user made content.
The progression system cannot exist in the future - at least not if you ask me, and at least not if you want the RO franchise to release more than one more title in the future. Its probably not a good decision to remove it from RO2, though - or is it? I don't know.
Feel free to continue the discussion - or not.
Before anyone starts yelling ''You're a Classic player, play Classic'' I first off want to that this post isn't directed to Classic players. Or Realism players. Or Action Players. It's directed at the community as a whole. And hopefully it is a food for thoughts to TWI - and if any Dev is reading this, it may at least be worth to consider it. Secondly, I am not a Classic player. In order to be a Classic player I think it would be resonable to say that you at least play Classic Mode. I neither play it or like Classic for various reasons. Ironically one of them is due to the small player base. Before anyone continue to read I may remind that I am not directly speaking to RO2 itself, or the next RO; many of these questions are directed at the franchise and it's future.
Here is a brief overview of my thoughts.
1. The Progression System is not Equal
There is no doubt that the progression system is unfair: it gives certain players advantage over others such as faster reloading time, better weapons, equipment, and so forth. In my opinion, any progression system that gives a player unfair advantage over others does not fit into a tactical/semi-realistic shooter. One of the great things in RO1 was that every player was equal; every mistake you did that resultet in some sort of failure for you was due to the fact that your opponent was a better player than you at that very moment, not because they had a bayonete and you did't, or because they had a weapon, or a perks, that you didn't have, which at every extent may and will more or less effect the outcome.
2) Those who Play Less will Automatically be worse off
From the point above one may argue that everyone have the same chance to gain these advantages. First off, this is irrelevant, because these advantages are still artificial skills and not real skills. Secondly, it's not true anyway. Those who play less - no matter their reason for doing so - will automatically be worse off. This means that someone who work or study all day and does not play as much as others will be worse off. Which is, ironically, the key point of any progression system: to make people play more. The more you play the more you win. Those who do not play enough will suffer. How you play is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is that you play
3) The System Does Not Help New Players - it hinders them3)
I may be wrong, but it at least seems to be plausible to say that the progression system was implemented in order to increase accessibility and to give people a reason to play - and to force other to play more.
Ironically, this seems to be very contradictionary. I strongly doubt people decision on whenever they should buy the game or not is depndent on the progression system. Those who're looking for RO2 either A) Falsly believe it is another generic FPS game B) Believe it is unique compared to other games. Moral of the story is: those who were looking for something unique stay, those who thought RO was another FPS game will be dissapointed because its self-evident that RO is very specific experience.
Another point here is that the progression system does not make the game more ''accessible'' for new players. It makes it harder. They will not only have to master a very difficult game but they will have to put a lot of time into getting equal to others, e.i. reaching the higest level. This is ironical, because at the same time new players have to struggle with both learning the game AND unlocking things, experienced player knows exactly how the game works (map flow, stratagic points, how to move, how to shoot etc.) while at the same time they have better equipment, weapons, and perks than new players.
4) The system causes complications in clan matches
Yet again, the same issues as in (3) and (2) arise in clan-based matches.
5) The system offers rare guns until everyone has them
One of the thoughts regarding many of the unlocked weapons in RO2 was that they would be rare. The 'rare' weapons are limited in matches, but to call them 'rare' is simply not true: these weapons are rare until everyone has them. These weapons also conflict with the historical accuracy.
6) The system Limits the Freedom of Choice
One of the great things with games like RO1 and ARMA is that you more or less have complete freedom. You pick and play. This is not the case in RO2. You have to unlock even the most basic equipment - even the bayonet which is standard equipment. This limits the freedom for easy 'pick and play'. It could of course be justified to limit the freedom of choosing a role such as squad leader, but more then that, Its really up to debate. If we go back to point (2) and (3) it just becomes even more obvious how much the system limit the freedom of choice.
7) The system causes harm to custom servers
Since everyone must earn their unlocks and perks servers which does certain changes in the game must become unranked to avoid cheating. Yet the game is open to bot farming. So now we have unranked and ranked servers. Unfortunately, unranked servers suffers directly: because who is going to play them? Even the slightest changes makes them unranked and since the progression system is there people want it. This also hinders modders for a nice try to fill their servers since majority of people wont be looking for unranked servers in the first place.
8) The ranking system causes harm to all servers and modes that doesn't use it.
If Classic Mode had the progression system more people would play it. As a matter of fact, if Classic was called Realism Mode, even more people would play it. If Custom servers was ranked more people would play them. The whole 'ranked' 'unranked' 'Action' 'Realism' 'Classic' just split the community even more.
9) The ranking system is Limited to ROs own formula and the time period it represents
One of the issues with the ranking system is that it will never go beyond a certain level of complexity. The system will always be stuck with rewarding players with extremely basic rewards.
If one would compare RO2's ranking system with, let's say CODs ranking system, or Fallouts, or indeed any other shooters ranking system, it becomes obvious that RO2s ranking system is extremely limited and outright watered down. It offers a few artificial skills, such as less recoil, faster reloading, and it offers a few attachments such as bayonet.
The fact is however that any game who has a ranking system is under constant competition: you can't release the same unlocks all the time no matter what kind of game we're talking about. It has to evolve, and it naturally do so by competition.
The problem is that RO2 system is limited to two major points: the WW2 era and the formula itself.
To evaluate this: RO2 is limited to the WW2 era. Because that's the fundamental idea about the game. This means that unlocks will be limited to the sort of equipment that was available during WW2. That begs the question:
How is the unlocks supposed to evolve? As it is now, the current 'Heroes' would have to unlock the bayonet once again in any potential and upcoming RO game. Or.. will there be new unlocks?
One could argue that we could implement WW2 equipment far more distant from historical accuracy than the MkB. Because that seems like the only plausible solution. Another solution, far less plausible, would be to let players unlock every role starting from Rifleman as the only available one. This would only limit peoples freedom even more. This idea is at least in my opinion very, very bad. Yet this doesn't answer the upcoming question:
What about the next RO game?
To those who argue for this system:
How is it supposed to evolve?
Is RO2 limited to WW2?
What may be the outcome for such changes?
10) The system is Likeable because its there
To be honest, I don't believe that people play RO2 because of the progression system. I don't believe it matters much at all. People looking for RO do it because the game offers something unique. If TWI never would have implemented unlocks, then mark my words: nobody would have asked for it. If someone did the idea would be turned down. There must be a miniscule amount of players that actually care about the progression system. With care, I mean that they care about whenever the system itself exist, because as it is now, people probably care of the sake of caring: there is no idea to play without progression when it already exist in the base game!
If the ranking system isnt present in RO3 I doubt majority of players would care.
Those who decides to buy the game is likely to do it because the game is unique. Their decision to buy or not is not dependent on the ranking system - it's dependent on the game itself. The amount of players who play the game only for the ranking system must be miniscule and it is therefore far from a great loss if these people leave the community. If RO moves more into the tactical shooter genre, and steer away from the middleground it is in now, then I believe there is a far bigger niche community waiting there.
The tactical niche community is far bigger than people tend think. My experience from BIS board, this boad, and user reviews, is mixed response to RO2. Many complaints is about the directions the series have headed.
So,
We've seen in other games that the competition is fierce; an identity crisis of what the game should be is barely a safe way to make the community bigger. Neither is it safe to try to 'cater to everyone', and gaming companies who have tried that, have a) made casual players dissapointed, or b) made their fans dissapointed, or c), made both casual and fans dissapointed. This middleground does not exist in the bigger sense. Codemasters Operation Flashpoint series is a great example of a franchise that dug its own grave with this mentality. No gaming company have managed to do this. Either way one should go 'full out' for accessibility, or forgot the fact that it even was mentioned.
Still, It's not all about accessibility. Its about the game itself. How else could games like arma have survived for so long - and still growing bigger and bigger? With thousands of user made content.
The progression system cannot exist in the future - at least not if you ask me, and at least not if you want the RO franchise to release more than one more title in the future. Its probably not a good decision to remove it from RO2, though - or is it? I don't know.
Feel free to continue the discussion - or not.
Last edited:
