My idea of how rank progression system would work.

[Nicholas]

Okay so people have been arguing about this, they think that if its about score than everyone will become heroes, or that your K/D ratio will affect your rank instead of teamwork, here's how I think it should work.

Your overall score should be compiled from your score with all the classes, and different classes should have different scores....

Riflemen and assault would get score for completing objectives.

AT and Engineers would get score for taking out tanks.

Machine gunners would get score for the number of enemies killed.

Snipers would get score for killing specific enemies like Machine Gunners, Squad Leaders, other Snipers ETC.

Squad leaders would get score for completing the objectives they were ordered, and for giving artillery coordinate.

Platoon leader would get score for winning battles.

Tanks would work different, every crew member would share the score for enemies/other tanks killed.

All this score would be compiled into one, and would affect your place on the leaderboard which would affect your rank, you wouldn't have to play as every class, just play different classes the right way.

 

[Zetsumei]

I think there should be score system that somewhat differs per class and action.

But that the actual score outputted needs to be normalized with respect to deaths, and how long you've been playing in this map.

The time is important, because someone that has been playing a map for 30 minutes will obviously have a different score than someone that has been playing for 1 minute.

Deaths are important, because too many people do not care about dying so to get atleast the people that care for stats concious about staying alive, taking deaths in account is important.


Basically the end score would then be computed by.
Score / Time multiplied with Score / Deaths .


This would give you score squared divided by time*deaths.

 

[Nicholas]

I forgot about deaths, sometimes people need to die to get the job done, so I don't think deaths should affect your score, the penalty for death is waiting a long time to respawn.

 

[Zetsumei]

Its all about balance I think.

In any score system you try to quantify things, even though there are not always hard boundaries. its basically a case of fuzzy logic (look it up )

Its about finding a nice representative amount. A sniper and MG should be punished more for dying in their score than say an assault guy attacking a trench.

 

[Nicholas]

Maybe it could even depend upon the map, or in campaign mode how much manpower a team had.

 

[FlyXwire]

It's hard to quantify player *success* from one game to another, or between soldier classes.

Issues arise like how many times a player actually dies in a match to achieve kills, and if it's wasteful or benefitting the team objectives. As we know, pursuit of individual success doesn't always mean that the groups succeeds at their common goal.

I'm of the mind to keep things simple and universal for all players, and not break down rank awarding by situational or class-based formulas.

Players should be awarded for:
1) individual kills (based on k/d factoring)
2) taking objectives
3) as a team when their side is victorious in a session

There's plenty of incentive provided by these basic systems for both individual achievement and to reward teamwork.

The varying *points* awarded between these three systems will need to be refined by TWI, and stress-tested in beta play.

 

[Nicholas]

It's hard to quantify player *success* from one game to another, or between soldier classes.

Issues arise like how many times a player actually dies in a match to achieve kills, and if it's wasteful or benefitting the team objectives. As we know, pursuit of individual success doesn't always mean that the groups succeeds at their common goal.

I'm of the mind to keep things simple and universal for all players, and not break down rank awarding by situational or class-based formulas.

Players should be awarded for:
1) individual kills (based on k/d factoring)
2) taking objectives
3) as a team when their side is victorious in a session

There's plenty of incentive provided by these basic systems for both individual achievement and to reward teamwork.

The varying *points* awarded between these three systems will need to be refined by TWI, and stress-tested in beta play.

This.

 

[vonKietz]

When looking at this at a realistic view:classes shouldn't be higher than a shutze or gefreiter. Mg gunners are still machinegewehr shutzes. I don't know about snipers but they can get pretty high I think (feldwebel - maybe) Squad leader should be a felwebel or perhaps higher but I would only go as high as leutant.

The concept of being a hero doesn't matter what rank you are in the the military, being a hero reflects your courage and achievements through battle, even a shutze can inspire the troops around them, however, a hero class feldwebel should give more moral than a hero class shutze. If someone in your squad shot up a bunch of russians in a matter of seconds with a mauser wouldn't you be inspired? If a anti tank soldaten destroyed 13 soviet tanks within minutes (true story) would you be inspired? so I can't totally aggree with OP's idea - points are points that reflect your achievements in the match (of course doing certain things should give you more points).

If TWI wants to make their game realistic then there shouldn't be a ranking system - only keep the hero status concept which is fine and all but I don't think that will keep players playing, perhaps they should adopt some kind of character customization - unlocking badges that you can wear (and are visible) such as assault badge, sniper badge or anti tank badge and other visual changes such as uniforms but lets keep that in the appropriate thread.

 

[Zetsumei]

text

Don't forget time.

Someone playing in a server for 5 mins will have a lower score than someone playing for much longer. For countdown the K/D ratio will be a great representation of personal killing skill, but for territory with the quick spawn system actual frequency of killing gets important.

 

[FlyXwire]

Understood, but you can't manage the time available that players have for their gaming, or what game modes they mostly choose to play. So I wouldn't weight advancement based on which game mode(s) a person prefers to play.

As an example, I think timing individual game objectives is unrealistic (get to an objective in 3 minutes or lose), and so I won't be interested in playing Countdown much. I wouldn't expect to be penalized or rewarded in my advancement by something weighted into the achievement system if I prefer not to play the Countdown mode. If there's a higher frequency of killing opportunities when playing in the Countdown mode, then I still have the choice of playing it if I think that's where the advancement opportunities are greatest. Still, I'm sure I'll advance ok in RO2, and will do so by playing in the game modes I think suit my play style best and that I enjoy most.