Ranking system?

[McCaffrey 1]

I would love for this game to implement an Army or Marine ranking system that shows one's experience and skill level and teamwork. NOT a ranking system like Battleifled or CoD that is geared towards ADHD kids and you can get 10 ranks in a day. It would take weeks of play to gain a rank at minimum and not just gametime is measured. It feels really nice to earn a promotion that takes alot of gameplay to attain. It makes you feel like you earned it and you feel like you accomplished something in thi game. Seeing someone with a rank of Master Sergeant would mean the person has alot of experience in this game and Lieutenant would have more skill or experience etc etc. But it would have to mean something and would have to force people to use teamwork and not lonewolf. Lonewolf would not count towards ranking up. I am not sure how to implement this but that is what the community and developers are for.

[Grumpy Old Man 3546]

So you want something, can only describe how you NOT want it to be and have no idea how to implement it?

Wow.

 

Cheers

[dmarkwick 261]

You'd need a teamwork game mechanism for this, and the game relies on players doing that themselves. If you wanted to force it, you could make some mod where player skills are reduced if they fall outside of some arbitrary distance of the group mean location, and have some mechanism where the squad leader can create small (even one-man) sized subgroups so they can be split etc. But I suspect this would not be a popular mod :)

[Belbo 462]

This 'function' is carried out by all the player communities out there that find it interesting to play with a rank system.

An 'implemented' ranking system as you imagine it however would be the very opposite of what Arma, as a military sandbox, stands for.

[McCaffrey 1]

I don't see how a ranking system would be the very opposite of what Arma is about lol.  Anyways I can guarantee that i am not the only one who would like  a ranking system.  I have almost 400 hours of Arma 3 under the belt. I know what Arma is about. I know how to play it and I play it pretty well. I jsut think this game needs a ranking system. The game wants to be a realisitic military sim/shooter and the military is all about ranks so we cant pretend like ranks are not what Arma is about. The tricky part as I said is how to implement it without it being a ranking system for ADHD kids that ruins the gameplay.

[Midnighters 152]

You seem to through around ADHD too much. Almost loses complete meaning. A "ranking system", if you want it then go implement it how you like. Arma 3 is a base game ready for content creators to build off of it, not a community compilation of what is should be. Figure out that tricky part with the ranking system so that ADHD kids can't ruin the gameplay. Because god forbid people have ADHD, who the fuck do you think you are honestly?

 

[Savage_Donkey 243]

30 minutes ago, McCaffrey said:

I don't see how a ranking system would be the very opposite of what Arma is about lol.  Anyways I can guarantee that i am not the only one who would like  a ranking system.  I have almost 400 hours of Arma 3 under the belt. I know what Arma is about. I know how to play it and I play it pretty well. I jsut think this game needs a ranking system. The game wants to be a realisitic military sim/shooter and the military is all about ranks so we cant pretend like ranks are not what Arma is about. The tricky part as I said is how to implement it without it being a ranking system for ADHD kids that ruins the gameplay.

So the military awards ranks on how many hours you've been a soldier?  Wow, I've been misinformed... Arma 3 is all about defining your own experience, whether it be a "lone wolf", playing in a mil sim unit or even *shudders* playing Altis life.  There is no reason to want/need to compare your stats to anybody else, much less spend hundreds of hours coding a system that is effective, bug-free, and doesn't become the focus of the game.  So yeah, you could "pretend" that ranks are not what Arma is all about.

[BroBeans. 279]

Unlikely anything like this would be added to the base game. 

 

But you could check out some of the Insurgency and CTI missions, they often have a ranking system where you gain xp for capturing, killing and supporting other units. 

[beno_83au 1369]

Ranks would work much better being assigned on a mission-by-mission basis, as part of that missions design and if the creator saw reason to have them (as some do). Or, leave it to milsim groups or clans to enforce their own rank structure among their members. You say you have around 400 hours? I'm approaching 4000 hours and i can tell you there's way to many variables between player preferences, mission types, mods, etc, for ArmA to have a standard rank assigned to everyone. Seems a bit gimmicky for something going for realism. 

[PuFu 4600]

8 hours ago, McCaffrey said:

I don't see how a ranking system would be the very opposite of what Arma is about lol.  

that lol at the end of a sentence does emphasis the serious nature of your posts

 

Quote

Anyways I can guarantee that i am not the only one who would like  a ranking system.  

I have seen this before : when lacking real arguments, use the plural I = we to get more weight behind whatever you are posting...

 

Quote

I have almost 400 hours of Arma 3 under the belt. I know what Arma is about. I know how to play it and I play it pretty well.

 

i am sure i have way less actual game hours clocked for A3, that said, i am pretty sure i know arma as a franchise better than yourself...number of gameplay hours is pretty meaningless btw

 

Quote

I jsut think this game needs a ranking system. The game wants to be a realisitic military sim/shooter and the military is all about ranks so we cant pretend like ranks are not what Arma is about.

you can always set the ranks as you want per individual mission. Other than that, there is really no point for it, rather than boast to some friends....

[mistyronin 1181]

6 hours ago, beno_83au said:

Ranks would work much better being assigned on a mission-by-mission basis, as part of that missions design and if the creator saw reason to have them (as some do). Or, leave it to milsim groups or clans to enforce their own rank structure among their members.

I agree. Ranks are something that are better set per mission or per milsim group. 

BTW, if it's worth anything, which I don't think it is... Steam says I played Arma 3: 7981 hours* (feel free to check it on my Steam profile, same nick). And been around these forums since 2003 (check my forum profile), and playing the series since 2001 - day 1. So I guess you could say I have a little experience in the OFP-Arma series. 

*Note: Obviously the amount of hours Steam says it's not true as I'm married, have a job and I study in the university another degree. It's mainly due to a bad interaction with the anti-virus that makes Steam think I'm playing 24/7 non-stop. 

[beno_83au 1369]

12 minutes ago, mistyronin said:

BTW, if it's worth anything, which I don't think it is...

 

Yeah, with a few thousand hours on steam, forum member since mid-2001 but less than 500 posts, these stats don't always mean the same thing, or much at all. 

 

I think most of my steam hours have been spent in notepad++ or on the net trying to figure out what mistake I've made this time when I'm trying to build a mission or write scripts. 

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

Many years ago, I penned a post about how the USMC rank structure (in Arma) was incorrect. It utilised Lieutenant, Sergeant, Private, etc. My specific complaint was that USMC Corpsman (not called medics) are U.S. Navy personnel. Therefore, their ranks should correctly reflect that (HMSN, HM3, HM2, etc). What I realised is that I wasn't seeing the bigger picture. Arma encompasses more than just the USMC and US forces in general. Where I was seeing USMC, USN, USAF, Soviet/Russian forces, Chedaki, ACR, etc.; Bohemia only saw BLUFOR, INDFOR, OPFOR. Ranks were a generic structure meant to convey the Chain of Command on the battlefield, not who was better or had more kills. Imagine how difficult it would have been to include every known armed forces rank structure into the base game.
 

I know that was not your point, but it lays a bit of groundwork for why what you suggested is unlikely to make it into the base game.

Game modes like KOTH already track certain stats like assaulting, holding, capturing, kills, etc. Domination rewards teamplay with units/vehicles/points. KOTH and Wasteland are successful because they collect data from ONE SPECIFIC creator controlled ecosystem. The same can be said with various other game types. The sheer number of game modes and individual scenarios out there will play havoc with any sort of stat tracking.

If I decided to play a mission called, "Kill the Civ", that would negatively penalise me on a globally tracked rank system because I’d be killing civilians. There are just too many variables to track to be incorporated into the base game.

But, as a mission designer, one could award point based on role specific activities and a player’s ability to stay in role:

Medic:

·         Successful revives/treatments vs deaths.

·         Amount of time taken to initiate care. Penalties for delay.

Engineer:

·         Vehicle Repair.

·         Returning Vehicles to base.

·         Resupplying units via ground.

Points for:

·         No unnecessary collateral damage (don’t carpet bomb a town for one enemy).

·         Time before being detected (difficult matrix to quantify).

Penalties for:

·         TK (obviously)

·         Lone Wolfing

·         Failure to follow Task Assignments

·         Etc.

 

So, as a suggestion to improve gameplay by incorporating it into vanilla Arma it is far from optimal. However, it can be “relatively” easy to implement (but not without problems) if one had the time and resources to manage such an endeavour.

In the meantime, as others have suggested, ranking is what communities are about. If you play with one group long enough, they will know your skill level. They will know if you make sound tactical decisions or not. In turn they, will recognise this with increased responsibilities or opening up new roles to you.


 

[dmarkwick 261]

The rank structure in ArmA is not meant to be real IIRC, it's there to give commander inheritance structure, so the correct subordinate takes command if the commander is killed. This is how you can set an Officer unit to a cpl, and have a rifleman with a rank of Colonel. The rifleman will assume command first over the group ahead of the officer.

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

47 minutes ago, dmarkwick said:

The rank structure in ArmA is not meant to be real IIRC, it's there to give commander inheritance structure, so the correct subordinate takes command if the commander is killed. This is how you can set an Officer unit to a cpl, and have a rifleman with a rank of Colonel. The rifleman will assume command first over the group ahead of the officer.

Correct. 

[wsxcgy 1960]

Arma isn't about using arbitrary and meaningless rewards systems to make you feel good and accomplished, its about walking away from the AO your team intact and your objectives complete to make you feel good and accomplished. You don't prove your skill by a couple chevrons next to your game name, you prove it in combat. Maybe this isn't the game for you.

[SpacePilotMax 47]

The only good idea I have for a ranking system is na OPTIONAL module to be placed in missions that gives players a rank based on how many Steam hours they have. Otherwise, it's prone to cpommunity backlash (which I'd be a part of.)

[warden_1 1070]

The only good idea I have for a ranking system is na OPTIONAL module to be placed in missions that gives players a rank based on how many Steam hours they have. Otherwise, it's prone to cpommunity backlash (which I'd be a part of.)

That idea is actually one that would cause the most backlash as the people with thousands of hours often times are the ArmaLife kids. If any sort of time related shit is going to be used it should be how much time that user has logged on the specific server.

[Belbo 462]

Ranking systems and such are systems that are mostly only interesting for achiever personalities. I suppose that most Arma players are either explorer or socializer personalities according to Bartle's taxonomy.

The deeper question we could ask is: If we presume that BI should try to cater for different gamer personalities, how could achiever personalities be compelled to play? A hardcoded ranking system seems to be out of the question - can we think of other ways for the game to give players who need it the necessary feeling of accomplishment?

[SpacePilotMax 47]

7 hours ago, warden_1 said:

That idea is actually one that would cause the most backlash as the people with thousands of hours often times are the ArmaLife kids. If any sort of time related shit is going to be used it should be how much time that user has logged on the specific server.

Probably you're right. I did say it should be optionasl though. And we don't really need a ranking system.

[Midnighters 152]

9 hours ago, warden_1 said:

 

That idea is actually one that would cause the most backlash as the people with thousands of hours often times are the ArmaLife kids. If any sort of time related shit is going to be used it should be how much time that user has logged on the specific server.

I have a little over 2,700 hours and all that time is mostly in the editor

[Tavish 41]

On 2017-5-7 at 2:36 PM, McCaffrey said:

I would love for this game to implement an Army or Marine ranking system that shows one's experience and skill level and teamwork. NOT a ranking system like Battleifled or CoD that is geared towards ADHD kids and you can get 10 ranks in a day. It would take weeks of play to gain a rank at minimum and not just gametime is measured...

Surely a bad idea to hard code this, as ArmA 3 is a sandbox and supports hundreds of modes. What you've really posted is a mod request.

Also, I notice you mention ADHD kids in a lot of posts you make. Impatient is a word I think you should add to your vocabulary.

 

On 2017-5-12 at 3:40 AM, beno_83au said:

Ranks would work much better being assigned on a mission-by-mission basis, as part of that missions design and if the creator saw reason to have them (as some do). Or, leave it to milsim groups or clans to enforce their own rank structure among their members. 

This.

 

8 minutes ago, Midnighters said:

I have a little over 2,700 hours and all that time is mostly in the editor

Ditto. 

 

 

[SpacePilotMax 47]

Does anyone have an idea as to how this could be made without a controversity surrounding it?

[beno_83au 1369]

4 hours ago, SpacePilotMax said:

Does anyone have an idea as to how this could be made without a controversity surrounding it?

 

Yes. As many, including myself, have mentioned it is best left to a mission creator to implement into their mission, or leave it up to squads/clans to have their own rank system.

 

A generic "rank system for all" wouldn't have a place in vanilla arma. Far too many variables to consider. 

[Grumpy Old Man 3546]

I love MP missions with rank/money systems stored in profileNameSpace. *blink blink*

 

Cheers