• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Are persistent "rankups" realistic?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
VariousNames

VariousNames

Grizzled Veteran
Aug 6, 2009
1,226
521
#1
For those that don't know, there are plans for a persistent ranking system in HoS. The details are unknown, but the following from Ramm-Jaeger in this thread gives an idea of what we may be able to expect:

[TW]Ramm-Jaeger said:
[...] it IS realistic to have players characters increase their abilities over time. It happened to real soldiers, it's going to happen with ours. [...]The effects of any capability changes will be really subtle, and probably be a max difference of say 10% between lowest rank and highest rank.
Click to expand...
(Please read the quote in context in the linked thread)

Is it realistic?

Persistent rankups are realistic to the extent that they follow the life of a single avatar and his progression.

When a soldier progresses from a greenhorn to an elite soldier, he gains experience, buttons under his cap, and so forth that make him a more effective soldier. Until he dies. Then the progression ends. In real life, anyway. Ergo the proposed model of player progression through rankups is not realistic because it transcends the lifespan of the avatar.
 
Last edited:
#2
You are right, that's for sure. However, I really think the rank ups are for the player, not the avatar. Basically, as Bobdog illustrated in a different thread, as you rank up, you, the player, gain access to a pool of veteran avatars. There are still plenty of green ones, it's just that you now assume control over a select few "heroes" instead of assuming control over a great many "green" or "moderately experienced" soldiers.
 
Upvote 0
#4
My philosophy on this is that it may not be perfectly realistic, but it gives players something new to play for. I don't really see the harm as far as gameplay goes with Heroes since the benefits that aren't aesthetic will be fairly light.

Personally I'm still hoping for some kind of uniform customization with Heroes, but we still haven't seen enough to know what the ranks actually do besides give slight bonuses and change the appearance of your avatar. It'd be nice to see that some options are given at each rank to make yourself closer and closer to the RO version of Steiner, rather than just having each player follow the exact same progression.

I would rather have battles in RO populated by people of various experience and appearance as it was in reality than to see the exact same German or Russian cookie-cutter soldiers. This might seem like a bad thing in the sense where you want everyone to have the same abilities, but the fact is it's not as if every player cannot attain these abilities eventually as their ranks increase. So why bother adding it in the first place? Well, for that diversity in battle. It makes things interesting and gives people something to work on while they enjoy the game.
 
Upvote 0
#5
It may seem like grinding in some situations where the ranks are actually substantial enough to make the end rank (or level) significantly more enhanced, but the devs are talking about a measly 10% difference in gameplay terms between the first and last rank.

One could argue that soldiers should look the same for the most part, but we've all seen images from the war that were taken days and weeks following some battles. Soldiers hardly ever seemed to keep their uniformity. They used the opposing side's weapons, and their equipment was worn to suit themselves personally. Napoleonic warfare might see a need for consistently decorated soldiers with identical appearances, but even the redcoats got dirty when the rank and file were broken.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#6
Reise said:
My philosophy on this is that it may not be perfectly realistic, but it gives players something new to play for....
Click to expand...

i remember when ppl were happy to play for enjoyment, and progression simply ment the satisfaction of getting better.

It seems nowadays most games require some kind of leveling or collection of pun-based graphic momentos to satisfy the player.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not suggesting what tripwire is planning is a substitute for a quality game - but to me personnally stats, ranks, achievements and the like are just cold figures and a distraction from the gameplay experience.
 
Upvote 0
#7
dogbadger said:
i remember when ppl were happy to play for enjoyment, and progression simply ment the satisfaction of getting better.

It seems nowadays most games require some kind of leveling or collection of pun-based graphic momentos to satisfy the player.
Click to expand...

Well in most cases I would agree, but Heroes has a justification based in realism for the ranking system, and it happens to work out.

I don't let things like ranking systems change the meaning of the game for me. From BF2 to the steaming pile MW2, I always just played the game and each rank was just a small bonus and acknowledgment for my time playing.

The difference here is a max rank soldier in RO isn't going to be armed with gold plated dual wield MG42s with extended box magazines and the ability to call in nuclear bombing runs when he gets 25 kills.
 
Upvote 0
#8
Would it be realistic for players to take on the role of and portray a greenhorn every time he spawns in a battle taking place ie. three months into the Stalingrad campaign? If you have to imagine yourself playing as a single soldier, being him, what would be realistic is that you got kicked and banned from the server after your first death.

Try to think of this ranking system as a means for you, the player, to be allowed to take on the role of the experienced soldiers. Surely some of those existed during the time.
 
Upvote 0
#9
Reise said:
The difference here is a max rank soldier in RO isn't going to be armed with gold plated dual wield MG42s with extended box magazines and the ability to call in nuclear bombing runs when he gets 25 kills.
Click to expand...

You've mischaracterized what the game actually is. For instance....in the case of Call of Duty 4, the only thing you received for your levelups were weapons, perks or a new icon. The perks, however, were balanced against eachother. For example, a later level player may get Juggernaut, but the counter for it was available at level 1....stopping power. With the exception of Bandolier, I personally kept all the starting-level perks. And you had to trade old ones out for new ones.

The guns, likewise, were balanced against eachother.

Ramm Jaeger, however, in the post quoted in the OP, says pretty plainly that the dev team's intention is to give a margin of superiority for top tier players. The only example given was in suppression....higher rank players are going to receive reduced suppression. So from a gameplay perspective, COD4, at least, was actually more balanced (as far as persistent progression mechanics) than what is being proposed for HoS. It's simply a fact. Less realistic, obviously, but more balanced.

It also doesn't help your case that the gold plating on the shotguns literally confers no benefit, it's just a skin, purely cosmetic.
 
Upvote 0
#10
Don't pretend there isn't a difference in superiority between a rank 1 player in MW2 and a max rank.

Especially with MW2's inclusion of "pro" perks which are essentially better than every other version of the perks.

I have confidence that RO's ranking will be nothing like that, and that the "superiority" difference will be marginal.

VariousNames said:
The best players are already going to defeat new players or bad players, so what's the point of giving them access to the best soldiers all the time?
Click to expand...

Again we don't know exactly what constitutes "best" as far as this ranking system goes. We've heard that suppression effects may be lessened for Heroes, but that kind of benefit isn't really something that will break a new player's game. Good players are always going to be good players. Being able to see better under fire and possibly provoking someone into peeking out to get his head blown off isn't going to change that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lucan946
Upvote 0
#11
Reise said:
Don't pretend there isn't a difference in superiority between a rank 1 player in MW2 and a max rank.

Especially with MW2's inclusion of "pro" perks which are essentially better than every other version of the perks.

I have confidence that RO's ranking will be nothing like that, and that the "superiority" difference will be marginal.
Click to expand...

Don't pretend I didn't specifically mention Call of Duty 4, which is exactly as I described, and does not include "pro" perks, which are an innovation specific to Modern Warfare 2 and only Modern Warfare 2.
 
Upvote 0
#13
Is it realistic? No. Are they ever? No.

We don't have sufficient information to make any sort of real informed judgement on exactly how much the player progression will affect the players "in game" behaviours. The differences could be far more subtle than you expect them to be, and it was stated when the Heroes system was announced that it would be much harder to progress, and nothing like any player progressions systems that you've seen before.

The "margin of superiority" doesn't seem to be that intrusive on what we know so far, and having players that are obviously more experienced in a team based game is better for the team, because it gives them an anchor and helps the team to advance - they know who to follow, they know who to let lead, and they know who to try and emulate to become better players themselves.

You seem to be bothered by the fundamentals of the system, and you have stated on several occasions quite bluntly, and a little rudely - that with the inclusion of it (in any form) you will not be buying RO:HOS.

So given all that, and the fact that it is clear that the game will feature a progression system (the finer details to be sorted out during beta) as it has been in planning since before the game was actually announced - why are you still questioning it?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#15
SheepDip said:
Is it realistic? No. Are they ever? No.

We don't have sufficient information to make any sort of real informed judgement on exactly how much the player progression will affect the players "in game" behaviours. The differences could be far more subtle than you expect them to be, and it was stated when the Heroes system was announced that it would be much harder to progress, and nothing like any player progressions systems that you've seen before.

The "margin of superiority" doesn't seem to be that intrusive on what we know so far, and having players that are obviously more experienced in a team based game is better for the team, because it gives them an anchor and helps the team to advance - they know who to follow, they know who to let lead, and they know who to try and emulate to become better players themselves.

You seem to be bothered by the fundamentals of the system, and you have stated on several occasions quite bluntly, and a little rudely - that with the inclusion of it (in any form) you will not be buying RO:HOS.

So given all that, and the fact that it is clear that the game will feature a progression system (the finer details to be sorted out during beta) as it has been in planning since before the game was actually announced - why are you still questioning it?
Click to expand...

^^^
This and the fact that the game isn't about a new player vs a veteran player that has advantages over him. Most likely there will be a mix of all types of players and experience levels on both sides.

I don't think there is any intention of trying to keep things balanced other than perhaps the teams on a map so that each side has roughly the same chance to win each map round. Within that spectrum there will be unbalanced weapons, better players, classes that may count more for capturing objectives etc.

I personally have stated that I don't care for a ranking for players or perks. I don't necessarily care for the fact that more experienced players are going to have better/quicker access to certain classes. But TWI has said that benefits due to those things will be subtle and to be honest, we haven't actually seen much information on just how that all will work to say otherwise. If it actually is as they say, I might not care for it but it will be believeable and I can certainly live with that.
 
Upvote 0
#16
SheepDip said:
Is it realistic? No. Are they ever? No.

We don't have sufficient information to make any sort of real informed judgement on exactly how much the player progression will affect the players "in game" behaviours. The differences could be far more subtle than you expect them to be, and it was stated when the Heroes system was announced that it would be much harder to progress, and nothing like any player progressions systems that you've seen before.

The "margin of superiority" doesn't seem to be that intrusive on what we know so far, and having players that are obviously more experienced in a team based game is better for the team, because it gives them an anchor and helps the team to advance - they know who to follow, they know who to let lead, and they know who to try and emulate to become better players themselves.

You seem to be bothered by the fundamentals of the system, and you have stated on several occasions quite bluntly, and a little rudely - that with the inclusion of it (in any form) you will not be buying RO:HOS.

So given all that, and the fact that it is clear that the game will feature a progression system (the finer details to be sorted out during beta) as it has been in planning since before the game was actually announced - why are you still questioning it?
Click to expand...

This. Really, I think we ought to wait to pass judgment for the system until we see it. I was kind of hoping it would be shown at PAX, but instead they unveiled tanks, which we all knew would be in there anyways, which is okay.
 
Upvote 0
#18
Lucan946 said:
This. Really, I think we ought to wait to pass judgment for the system until we see it. I was kind of hoping it would be shown at PAX, but instead they unveiled tanks, which we all knew would be in there anyways, which is okay.
Click to expand...

Check out the topic line. It refers to a generic concept. Look at the OP. It includes a specific quotation from Ramm Jaeger confirming the basic premises I need to draw the conclusion that it's unrealistic.

A) the progression system is persistent and will factor irrespective of the life of your avatar
B) your progress ends IRL when you die
C) ergo the progression system is unrealistic

This isn't rocket science.

And if A is not the case, so what? It's an internal critique based on a conditional premise, i.e. if A, then C follows. We can still talk in the abstract and make a legitimate point. Why is it that on these forums I'm only allowed to chase a specter? People make recommendations all the time, this is an idea and suggestions forum.
 
Upvote 0
#19
It is unrealistic. Sure and ?

You realised that there are gameplay enhancing side effects ?

iirc current Version of "Rank System"
- Rank decides which Classes you may play, at the beginning your limited to simple classes to introduce you to the Game.
- Rank decides who has the shot for Commander, not who's got the fastest machine, and usually you find more people knowing how to effectivly play Commander within those that have more Experience.
Same thing with loadouts (classes)

And there will be the option to gain more Rank in a Game session that you'd actually have. eg. if you do really well in a round you gain a temporay boost to your Rank.


And one can still play on Servers without that System if you really can't stand it.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu