Rank system,good idea or bad idea?

[meyamoti 0]

Rank systems are not really all that good if you think about it,they cause people to cheat more just so they can be on the top,on another note ranks are useless because its the same thing,the difference of being a private or corporal or sergeant,it would be the same thing,now if you were unable to enter or atleast drive/gun certain vehicles until you achieve a certain rank then it could be helpful,possibly realistic,for one it gives you time to get familiar with the game,two if you really want to be in the vehicle you would have to practice offline and three it would make the rank system not just a useless option. Opinions?

And yes I figure this thread has a 50/50 chance of being closed but I think this might be an important question,course I could be wrong.

[gonk 0]

I give 99/1 that is will be closed....

[aus_twisted 0]

Bad idea, people will end up cheating the system and it will also cause kiddie fights over who has a better rank.

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

It would be a nice idea if there were some kind of integrated squad/clan support and the squad leader could administrate promotions, as in World War II Online (now).

For some reason piloting and tankering seemed to work naturally in Joint Operations: Escalation. Pilots didn't get much in the way of points, so only those who enjoyed flying did so. Tanks were taken out easily by infantry, so lots of JO:E players would prefer to remain on foot.

But I think I like BF2's approach to piloting better: the flight models require such practice (helos because they're helos and jets because the maps are so darn small) that only those who practice can effectively operate them.

It is not impossible that a grunt might have acquire a pilot's license in a fixed wing or rotary aircraft. If I had stayed in the Army, flight school might have been something worth spending my extra cash on.

[messiahua 0]

If it will be like BF2 system, then it's very very bad idea.

[luemmel 20]

elite (xbox) has a simple ranking system. i think it was not bad.

[Zerg 0]

... it will also cause kiddie fights over who has a better rank.

Ratings don`t cause kiddie fights. Kiddies cause kiddie fights.

[meyamoti 0]

True,and yes that is correct about the way a helicopter works,I can't lie,I love piloting the cobra,it can be either very effective or very unneffective depending on who you play with..but anyway.

AUS_Twisted Had a point which I can't believe I missed, After saying how it would be bad to have the ranks,causing people to cheat simply to be higher,having it so vehicles were locked to rank would even cause more rucuss.

[aus_twisted 0]

... it will also cause kiddie fights over who has a better rank.

Ratings don`t cause kiddie fights. Kiddies cause kiddie fights.

Kiddie fights, arguments, whatever you want to call them. It will happen over ratings and allready has in so many games with younger players and adults.

[Commando84 0]

I don't care much about rankings, just finnishing the mission is enough for me usually

[VISTREL 0]

in the end it will show who is the biggest nerd out there

[bravo 6 0]

I think this can/could be a good idea in certain points.

<span style='color:green'>Only in SP or in Multiplayer in Campaigns only</span> (Coop for 2 like BIS announced).

In Coop or CTI or DM theres no sence using these rank system.

[meyamoti 0]

True about the nerdyness and and true about the mission,the problem is in OFP our vehicles don't respawn,which is more realistic so thats not the problem,the problem is how people would go for or TK for a vehicle,having to have high ranks to enter certain vehicles would stop this (until alot of people got that rank).

[deanosbeano 0]

you spelt rank wrong , it begins with a W.

like suggested before it would contribute to the cheating.i play co op only , but for ctf types maybe this system would wash with them.

[M9ACE 0]

I am happy with the way it is in OFP and I am not in favor of a rank system at all.

[Guest Ti0n3r]

If it was 100% optional and worked like in BF2 (gain rank, unlock a new weapon etc), then I'd say maybe...

Oh and I'm sorry for mentioning BF2

[deanosbeano 0]

placebo said

Quote[/b] ]there is no "earning" weapon system or anything like that. This is a realistic game, so there's none of the "kill 50 tangos and earn points to unlock shiny new gun" nonsense.

not gonna happen.

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Then we need to create BF2 mod

...

[bravo 6 0]

i only hear BF2, BF2.. crist the game sucks big time.. whats so especial about it?

Tested and hated it.

Only some sounds and effects are nice rest is crap. grrr

[meyamoti 0]

I think people kind of misunderstood what I meant. There is bound to be a scoring system of some sort,usually is. But the thing is why not make the scoring worth something,this doesn't necessarily judge by whom you kill but how you perform and whatnot,mission status and thigns of that nature,I just think it might be rather silly to see a private get into a tank and then whine about only being able to drive or gun..actually I'm rather looking forward to hearing the whining.

[NeMeSiS 11]

IMO even the OFP scoring screen is too much, i would prefer that people would play as a team, instead of 15 rambos who try to get as much kills as possible

[bravo 6 0]

that depends on the persons you play with..

Score tables are usefull some times.. i don't mean as a "cheat mode".. i think score tables completes somehow the entire game.

but you have a point there too.

[Zerg 0]

... it will also cause kiddie fights over who has a better rank.

Ratings don`t cause kiddie fights. Kiddies cause kiddie fights.

Kiddie fights, arguments, whatever you want to call them. It will happen over ratings and allready has in so many games with younger players and adults.

With non-mature players there will be kiddie fights regardless of wether there are or aren`t any ratings. Only the topic of the fight can be affected by inclusion of the ratings.

If you don`t like kiddie fights, then just don`t get into them. But its a bad reason to torpedo a feature because someone other than you will fight over it. What is it to you if some immature score junkiees argue about it?

___

I am in favor of ratings as a form of statistical trivia. Say I wouldn`t mind if the game kept a track of hours played (maybe sorted by coop,CTI,CTF...) and for instance counted all the times I got killed in the game and so on and possibly made that info public. (Then no need to ask unknown players that join a CTI server and take the command slot if they know how to command. You just see how many player hours they have.)

But I am strongly against any kinds of ranks that would be a basis for any kinds of blocks in multiplayer or any kind of ratings based hierarchy. (But I also don`t belive there is any chance of anything like it in ArmA so I am not concerned about it.)

[CameronMcDonald 146]

I liked the rank system in OFP, since I could finally make squads with realistic values (Sergeant in command, Corporal XO, etc etc etc.)

[Metal Heart 0]

Maybe it could be of some use against cheaters or people who ruin games. After everyone knows such person's player name, he wouldn't be able to ruin so many games and he would have to create a new account and spend hours and hours again to get the neccessary xp, playhours or whatever to get on a server.

Personally, I'm all for a portal system in MP games so a malicious player could be banned from all public internet games. Of course, a good copy protection/cd key system would be necessary for this to actually work.