New formula for rank?

[Screecher990]

I've been thinking about the ranking system, and I really don't like it as it is now. Since it's solely based on total points and nothing else, it doesn't promote skill, but simply playing as much as possible. Busy people who can only afford to play a few hours a weak get skewered. They might be infinitely more skilled than some of the hardcore gamers, but if they can't play more than an hour a night, then it doesn't matter. In addition, this way of doing things promotes stat-padding, since once again, it's not based on all-around skill, but simply raw numbers.

Wouldn't it be much better if we had some kind of formula for determining points per round that included:

-K/D ratio on foot
-K/D ratio in vehicles
-Team points
-Time played (this one's a big one. This way, a guy who joins at the end of the round and gets 6 kills, 0 deaths won't win simply because he has such a good K/D ratio)

However, I'm having trouble thinking of just the right way of setting up this formula. What do you guys think?

[ActiveMatx]

Re: New formula for rank?

Wouldn't work. Because the people who play A LOT, would still have a higher rank than you, and it would bascily be a bunch of officers running around in each game. Read my topic about how the ranking system is kinda hard. (posted today)

[Ghilleman]

Re: New formula for rank?

well, i think a revision is needed, but not exactly how you envision it. I just think team work should be promoted over regular points, because its the current system that encourages stat padding and other similar things. (im sure every system will encourage padding in some form, but it might be lessened in a revised system.)

[Screecher990]

Re: New formula for rank?

Maybe I had the wrong idea, then. You wouldn't get points on a round-per-round basis, but on your K/D ratio, team points, etc. in general. That way, someone who plays rarely with a good K/D ratio and lots of team points would still do well since it's based on your K/D ratio for all time, not just one round.


Could that work?

[ActiveMatx]

Re: New formula for rank?

I think EA wants to promote people to play all the time. They wouldn't be making that much money if the encouraged people to play only sometimes...

I agree though, because i hardly have time to play, and am falling behind in ranks QUICK!

[ConscriptVirus]

Re: New formula for rank?

first, i woudl like to say that ranking has sorotf ruined teh game for me and i find myself checking my score so much more often cuz it really counts...so i was thinking that for ppl who truly care about the game..they would be willing to pay for their ranks...

my idea is that the original ranking system still stays in effect, but ppl can now "purchase" a promotion...like $10-$20 for a promotion, so for those who really want to rank up...they can spend money for it...(dont flame me, but im willing to put in another $50 just to rank up even higher)

[Screecher990]

Re: New formula for rank?

first, i woudl like to say that ranking has sorotf ruined teh game for me and i find myself checking my score so much more often cuz it really counts...so i was thinking that for ppl who truly care about the game..they would be willing to pay for their ranks...

my idea is that the original ranking system still stays in effect, but ppl can now "purchase" a promotion...like $10-$20 for a promotion, so for those who really want to rank up...they can spend money for it...(dont flame me, but im willing to put in another $50 just to rank up even higher)

I too sometimes find myself forgetting that I'm supposed to be playing for fun instead of rank. However, paying for ranks isn't the way to go. Why should we let rich people with less talent quickly rise through the ranks and get all the unlocks without working? Isn't that the point of unlocks? You get them through hard work and talent? Paying for ranks seems against the point.

[AeroMan08]

Re: New formula for rank?

Yes, but he suggested that you pay for the ranks AS WELL AS keep the current basis for promotions. So, you'd still be required to get 20,000 global points to reach First Sergeant, but, once you get there, before you can actually become promoted, you'd have to pay like a $20 fee. So, you're still working hard for it, but you'd have to pay. However, I still don't necessarily agree with this, because, even though you're still working hard for the ranks, some people STILL don't have the money to pay for them, which sort of cheats them out of getting promoted...which brings me to my other point. When you say we should be playing more for fun than for ranks....well, playing for ranks is what keeps the game fun...wouldn't you say? I mean, if it weren't for the constant stream of ranks and awards that it's possible to get eventually...if you didn't have anything you were working toward, then, what would keep you going in the game other than just playing? The awards and ranks are what keeps it interesting and fun. Without them, it turns into just any other shooting game.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: New formula for rank?

Ranks should have a role as in real life. Getting a rank should be based on your commanding and leading skills.

[IHateYou]

Re: New formula for rank?

I think one of the biggest problems in the game is the fact that everything is just 1 kill. It's the single biggest reason for all the vehicle-whoring.

How does killing a soldier on foot with 1 shot of a sniper rifle, and launching 4 or 5 AT rockets at a tank account for the same points? Now, if you got 5 or 6 points for killing a tank, then I think it would be worth it to play AT, or engi for that matter.

I also think the method in which you kill someone should account for the points you get for killing them. Basically, the harder it is to kill something (the more shots it took you), the more points you should get...

Just my $ 0.02..

[Screecher990]

Re: New formula for rank?

Yes, but he suggested that you pay for the ranks AS WELL AS keep the current basis for promotions. So, you'd still be required to get 20,000 global points to reach First Sergeant, but, once you get there, before you can actually become promoted, you'd have to pay like a $20 fee. So, you're still working hard for it, but you'd have to pay. However, I still don't necessarily agree with this, because, even though you're still working hard for the ranks, some people STILL don't have the money to pay for them, which sort of cheats them out of getting promoted...which brings me to my other point. When you say we should be playing more for fun than for ranks....well, playing for ranks is what keeps the game fun...wouldn't you say? I mean, if it weren't for the constant stream of ranks and awards that it's possible to get eventually...if you didn't have anything you were working toward, then, what would keep you going in the game other than just playing? The awards and ranks are what keeps it interesting and fun. Without them, it turns into just any other shooting game.

Oh, okay. I misunderstood. However, I still disagree with what he said.

In addition, although unrelated to the topic, I'd like to mention that another reward, instead of an unlock, would be weapon upgrades. How awesome would it be to get a silencer for the G36 or a red dot scope for the PKM? Since the upgrades are worth less than a full-on gun though, you might get 2 or 3 in the place of one gun. Just an idea.

I think one of the biggest problems in the game is the fact that everything is just 1 kill. It's the single biggest reason for all the vehicle-whoring.

How does killing a soldier on foot with 1 shot of a sniper rifle, and launching 4 or 5 AT rockets at a tank account for the same points? Now, if you got 5 or 6 points for killing a tank, then I think it would be worth it to play AT, or engi for that matter.

I also think the method in which you kill someone should account for the points you get for killing them. Basically, the harder it is to kill something (the more shots it took you), the more points you should get...

Just my $ 0.02..

I remember someone on a BF2 forum mentioning something about this. He said something about an advantage/disadvantage system. If an infantryman kills another infantryman, he gets one point since they're on even-footing. If a tanker kills an infantryman, he gets one point since he has an advantage. If an infantryman destroys an APC, he gets 3 points since the guy on foot is at a disadvantage.

Another thought.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: New formula for rank?

I think one of the biggest problems in the game is the fact that everything is just 1 kill. It's the single biggest reason for all the vehicle-whoring.

How does killing a soldier on foot with 1 shot of a sniper rifle, and launching 4 or 5 AT rockets at a tank account for the same points? Now, if you got 5 or 6 points for killing a tank, then I think it would be worth it to play AT, or engi for that matter.

I also think the method in which you kill someone should account for the points you get for killing them. Basically, the harder it is to kill something (the more shots it took you), the more points you should get...

Just my $ 0.02..

Wonderful concept, really. But...


Can we say massive statpadding?

[Screecher990]

Re: New formula for rank?

Wonderful concept, really. But...


Can we say massive statpadding?

The idea I mentioned in my post above about advantage/disadvantage (NOT MY IDEA, SOMEONE ELSE'S) might fix that.

[Ghilleman]

Re: New formula for rank?

I dont think people will apd any more than they are now, this method would merely give infantry an advantage when killing a tank. i like this idea.

[Screecher990]

Re: New formula for rank?

I dont think people will apd any more than they are now, this method would merely give infantry an advantage when killing a tank. i like this idea.

Basically, it just gives infantry an incentive to take out vehicles and help the team rather than just claymore spamming or something else like that. At the same time, it'll also make it so camping a spawn point with a tank won't automatically make you 1st in the standings.