Ranking system, why not?

[Vylker 10]

I cant understand why there is not any rank system in the game, give us something to fight for, to achieve.

The game is nice, one or two patches and would be awesome, but put some ranks, some medallions, something to play for.

[Nutlink 10]

I can kind of see where you're coming from, but you have to remember that this is nothing like the Battlefield or Call of Duty series by any means. About the closest you'll come to unlocks is the Armory. In MP if you want to play with unlocks try out the Evolution coop servers. Your stats are not persistent (they only stay with you on that server for that particular round), but you have to rank up in order to use the better weaponry and vehicles.

[An-225 0]

I cant understand why there is not any rank system in the game, give us something to fight for, to achieve.

The game is nice, one or two patches and would be awesome, but put some ranks, some medallions, something to play for.

The mission editor does not allow a ranking system, by default, as the unit ranks are set in it. After a long period of time, everyone would be the same rank, which isn't exactly realistic.

You already have something to play for - for the success of your team and the completion of your objective. That is reason enough to have a ranking system.

The game should never be about who gets the most points - it should always be about surviving the mission and accomplishing the objective. Ranks and awards would destroy this.

[maddogx 13]

A global ranking system in Arma2 would make no sense, as anyone could easily make a mission where he is invincible and can go around killing hundreds of enemies that keep respawning. Any kind of global stats system in Arma2 would be a joke.

Ranks, stats, achievements and unlocks in other games are just artificial motivators to keep people playing longer than they normally would, considering the repetitive missions and gameplay. Arma2 is about immersing yourself in the game, teaming up with other people and working together to achieve your objective, all the while feeling the adrenaline rush of knowing that a single hit could kill you.

[Andi 10]

The players of this game don't need a ranking system or "achievements" to keep being motivated.

No good sir, it's the other way round indeed!

The players motivate the game and thus it allows us to play great matches in the nearby future!

[Inkompetent 0]

The game with the best modding and mission making support short of Half-Life.. I hardly think it needs any ranking system like other, poorer games.

Ranking systems within specific tournaments and leagues are fully possible and definitely reasonable, but a global ranking system would be even more ridicilous than that for BF2.

[JoeyNickel 10]

Ranks, stats, achievements and unlocks in other games are just artificial motivators to keep people playing longer than they normally would, considering the repetitive missions and gameplay. Arma2 is about immersing yourself in the game, teaming up with other people and working together to achieve your objective, all the while feeling the adrenaline rush of knowing that a single hit could kill you.

I understand your opinion, and believe you're right. But to achieve that high goal there's quite some patches necessary. Neither is Arma2 realistic in 90 % of the game to call it a simulation (not you did so, but Bohemia does). Soldiers running or driving around in a battlefield doesn't make it a simulation.

Teaming up - and that's probably the nature of human being - is possible only (IMHO!) playing in an organized squad. Joining a public server is more like a number of chicken running around in order to get the best picks. Real teamplay's not what I see.

The campaign itself is so much loaded with bugs and slows down after a while, that there's really no motivation to play, I myself quit the campaign as I'm really fed up with loading speeds of ammo or unit lists, and not to forget the AI. The AI is mainly based all on scripts, so their abilities are very much depending on the creator of the map. A real logic, a way the AI is learning is not to be found.

Forget about the SP missions, getting back to Bohemia mentioning a simulation. Let's assume people play in teams and behave like team-players, and there's no AI present (like it's played in leagues for instance). What do you have then? A simulation or another simple FPS, pretty good looking in the case you have a decent graphics board?

Simulation..... that brings back the good old Jayne's simulators in my mind, about 20 years ago. The graphics was....... well...... 20 years old now ;) But if you tried to play on the highest realism level (remembering the AH 64 simulator), you couldn't even get the chopper from the ground. All the switches had a function, and you needed to know which and what to use it for. The flight model was very detailed, taking this into account like translational buoyant force or shifting rotor blades.

Where's the simulation part in Arma2? Tracked vehicles have the ability to stear each track seperately (which makes it so difficulty to steer). There's not simply a forward button, you control the movement of the vehicle by controlling each track.

Most ITVs have peepholes where infantry can fire through. I've never seen any gunfire coming out of a BRDM or and LAV.

The usage of Javelins is a real joke. It normaly comes with two different components, the one is the tube, the launcher. The other is the control and lock-on device. You have to fit those two things together, point on a target, tell the missile to lock on that target, and choose the type of attack: frontal or top-down. It takes quite a while to be able to fire a Javelin, and never you will be able to fire it "from hip". Just pressing your right mouse button and immediately firing the missile is far away from realism.

Did I oversee anything, or is the M1A1 not equipped with any secondary weapon system? Most of them have an M2 mounted, some even M240s in addition. Where are they? I need a driver, a commander and a gunner in Arma2, because the tank has a virtual automated loading system. Not really..... there's a fourth crewman, the loader. There's not GPS (no, not Global Positioning System, but Gunner Primary Sight) or GAS (Gunner Auxiliary Sight) in a M1A1? I have to wear NVGs in order to see at night? And how do I locate a target? I do not want to call the ballistic computer inside a M1A1 "fire'n'forget", but it's pretty much different than in Arma2. In Arma you have to search for a target, or your commander or driver yells it to you. Once found, you have to guess what pitch the barrel might need, and then you fire - praying it was a hit. In RL the gunner, the commander, and in some cases even the loader are able to use the ballistic computer, using a laser rangefinder which, in conjunction with a wind meter, thermal sensors and whatever compute a firing solution, you fire and it's most likely a hit. As tanks in Arma seem to have only optical sight systems (again: far away from being real), with no night vision, no image filters, no target acquisition, no digital zoom............ (to be continued) I can only call it "Arcade", concerning the usage of tanks in Arma2. All of this will be in most cases be true for other vehicles as well, at least as long they're medium to heavy armor.

Getting back to infantry. Where's the adjustable zoom that most ACOGs have? Why do I pretty often have a problem to raise my weapon after running? Why are most aiming aids, at least in modern weapons, not lit? Why can't I use my Harris crouching, maybe putting it on a wall? Why can't I cook grenades? Why can't I control the force with which I throw them? Why do leaves and branches stop my bullets? Or remembering the situation yesterday, where a member of my squad was standing top of a tower of a ruin, taking me out with his sniper, and I couldn't even hit him, because some geometry wasn't modeled, but texure mapped. Taking a SMAW or an M1A1, trying to flatten the tower just increased operational costs, the tower didn't even lose a stone. The overall walking animation ain't very smooth. Turning, raising the gun, going a few steps with the gun in firing position, that all is very difficult to do, doesn't feel natural and and is done even worse than in most other arcade games.

The GPS....... well...... the GPS will never show my teammates and is to be seen as a mini map like in all the other FPS games. Even not 100 % realistic, but getting close to what the GRID is developing actually, I'd rather see something like an SAI, where I point my aimpoint to a location, press a button that reports I've seen an enemy, and this information could be used by my leading team member to give me orders. Painting crosses on the map, with endless discussions via teamspeak where the enemy was ("no, that THAT tower, the one south to that, and NO, not on top but third floor") is yelling for inflatable bunkers so that the enemy will not be able to blow you away during that time ;)

Oh..... and the sound. I really would like to tell whether a vehicle is behind me or not, not simply "rather left than right". To locate a vehicle (or gunfire) I have to turn around. No very good solution.

I want to stop before you guys fall asleep :p ;) To make one thing clear: I like Arma2. Once I'll get a decent graphics board soon, it will also look damn' good (even that's rather a handicap in multiplayer), so I turn scenic details totally off. The SP campaign is nuts, playing Arma2 online or LAN with friends or the squad's really fun. A real adrenaline injection sometimes.

But Arma2 is NOT a simulation in any way. It's an arcade game. And I always keep smiling hearing squads talk about a "realism league" or reading "realism server". In some cases I'm glad it's not real, and sometimes vice versa ;) And in my opinion Arma2 is made for squads or a group of friends who join a LAN session. A single player (not only playing Single Player Mode) is not motivated very much, and so I understand Vylker pretty much asking for medals, ranks and stuff.

[maddogx 13]

I understand your opinion, and believe you're right. But to achieve that high goal there's quite some patches necessary. Neither is Arma2 realistic in 90 % of the game to call it a simulation (not you did so, but Bohemia does). Soldiers running or driving around in a battlefield doesn't make it a simulation.

(...)

Sorry, but you're post is completely off topic and beside the point. We're talking primarily about ranking systems and secondarily about motivation to play the game. We've established that there is no global ranking system and I was trying to explain why it is neither needed nor sensible. My point was that in Arma2 gameplay and teamwork is key, as opposed to personal achievement and ranks/statistics.

I don't see how your post could possible be related to this topic.

[JoeyNickel 10]

I don't see how your post could possible be related to this topic.

As I quoted you were talking of artificial motivators in other games, that makes me believe there's no need for Arma2 to have such.

I'm only wondering where the motivation might be, when I take a look at Bohemias "simulation" keyword, and try to find the simulation. As a simulation fan I'd expect exactly that - a simulation. And there's non.

Arma2 in my eyes is just like all other games like Battlefield series, Americas Army series, and what's not out at the market. So there's my question..... what makes Arma2 so special, that there is no "need" for a ranking system?

That game is nothing special, except especially bugged at the moment, especially hardware consuming and especially unrealistic.

So it's me who's sorry, but I see my post related to the topic, as I do not see any difference between Arma2 and other games of the same genre - except what I mentioned above.

[Deadfast 43]

So to cut your previous post short you're just looking for an excuse to start a rant. Thank you, move along.

<----- Serious part bellow ----->

ARMA 2 does not need any global ranking system for the exact reasons MadDog mentioned.

The whole point of playing the game is to have fun.

If you are a competitive type feel free to compete to survive the whole mission ;)

[S!fkaIaC 10]

A global ranking system in Arma2 would make no sense, as anyone could easily make a mission where he is invincible and can go around killing hundreds of enemies that keep respawning. Any kind of global stats system in Arma2 would be a joke.

Ranks, stats, achievements and unlocks in other games are just artificial motivators to keep people playing longer than they normally would, considering the repetitive missions and gameplay. Arma2 is about immersing yourself in the game, teaming up with other people and working together to achieve your objective, all the while feeling the adrenaline rush of knowing that a single hit could kill you.

100% agree (seldom nuff :D )

If someone needs a ranking system, he needs to script it into the mission or BIS could provide a module doing this that could be activated for a mission.

But I tend to do a provocative, brainless statement: Ranking system is for gamme-kiddies, not for serious milsim freaks. :eek:

Sorry for being like that.

[householddog 10]

I think it is realistic to call it a "tactical simulation". You don't need absolute realism to achieve this.

Particularly when it comes to infantry.

[mr_centipede 31]

@JoeyNickel

from my perspective, peoples are misintepret the combat simulation part. For me it does what it say it does. simulating combat part. to simulate combat, you dont necessarily have to do what the soldier IRL counterparts do. eg, for pilots, you have all the switches and what not to fly a plane or helicopter. that does not simulate combat, thats simulating flight control system

for me, as a combat simulator, it should have firefight, coordinations with with various arms, eg aircrafts and armours. basically all what combat does. ARMA2 does that very well. Sure there are more left to be desired like armour penetration system, proper tactics, etc... so for me ARMA2 is a simulator. but not what most ppl expected - all in one simulator.

that is my take for BIS saying ARMA2 is the ultimate combat simulator. and for me, it is true

@OP

I think everyone have said what's needed to be said already

[JoeyNickel 10]

milsim

I tend to stay provocative and ask: if Arma2 is a MilSim, what's BF2 or AA? Just a "game"? Where's the difference? And if there's none - as I do think - I still see that question for ranking stuff to be legal. Not that I'd personal need it, but Arma2 also is just a "game".

But okay..... as Deadfast said: the whole thing is just about having fun. That's what one can have with Arma2, indeed. Was just trying to point out that I don't see a difference between THIS game and others and that so a ranking system might be a nice addition. And..... Arma2 does not deserve the tiny word "simulation" in any way.

Over.

[galzohar 31]

Just the fact that there are no real official missions/gametypes make it impossible to have a ranking system even if they wanted to. You can probably imagine how messy and imbalanced such a system would be with all online missions being user made.

Also, I'd rather not play another "World of Warcraft" variant. I quit it for a reason.

[Alex72 1]

There is indeed a difference between BF2 etc and ARMA2. Its already stated what that difference is, but i agree with MadDogX about ARMA2 being the type of FPS where you team up - dont bother with who shot who - and finish the objectives together in a brotherly fashion. You only care that your team pulls off the missions and enjoy the ride while doing it.

This is what i personally think is the core of this game. Thankfully enough though - you can create whatever type of mission you want. So be it some BF2 closed off cap flags or the more "realistic" missions approach with briefs, objectives, debreafs etc.

One big reason to why i still play BIS games is that they are so far the only FPS's that give me kinda magical experiences. I remember the missions where i was maybe lying with my mates in a bunker while explosions went off over our heads cause our pilot missed the target a bit and we screamed "FUUUUUCK!!!!!". At the same time the sun was about to go down and a colourful sky was setting... :)

This i cannot get from any other FPS - believe me i tried. This to me is a huge difference alone to why ARMA is ARMA and not BF2. Freedom and diversity :) But we are all free to make our own game modes with stats windows if we want to. This is another reason ARMA rocks.

Also, times like ArmA1 RPG only DM against mates (Celery mission?) where we were all closed in very small space with a barn and shooting eachother with RPG's so when someone got hit he would fly 200 meters up in the sky...oh man... Laugh fest. Priceless.

What did this have to do with global ranking system? Shit tbh i dont know lol. I just went with the flow.

Alex

[Yoma 0]

I tend to stay provocative and ask: if Arma2 is a MilSim, what's BF2 or AA? Just a "game"? Where's the difference? And if there's none - as I do think - I still see that question for ranking stuff to be legal. Not that I'd personal need it, but Arma2 also is just a "game".

It's not A game, it's THE game! :D

[Dallas 9]

I love BI games' achievement system, where the reward for the achievement, is the achievement ifself, not some retarded title you get for making a 540° jumping headshot with a sniper rifle.

[maddogx 13]

100% agree (seldom nuff :D )

:D Thanks. I'm still not gonna marry you though. ;)

But okay..... as Deadfast said: the whole thing is just about having fun. That's what one can have with Arma2, indeed. Was just trying to point out that I don't see a difference between THIS game and others and that so a ranking system might be a nice addition. And..... Arma2 does not deserve the tiny word "simulation" in any way.

In your opinion. It depends on how you define the word "simulation" and whether or not you can tolerate a certain level of abstraction for gameplay purposes.

In any case, I still believe you are off-topic. Whether or not the game deserves to be called a "simulation" is in no way relevant to the merits of a ranking system. The point is that Arma2 is designed to be flexible. It derives its longevity from the fact that it is extremely dynamic and completely moddable. Mission makers and modders will churn out countless missions, addons and mods over the next months and years, each with different design and gameplay aspects in mind. Hell, people are even working on modding the game into an RTS.

In order to implement a sensible ranking system, a game requires a strict set of rules and fixed gameplay mechanics -i.e. a static base so that all players are on equal terms. Arma2 is exactly the opposite of this, so a global ranking system makes no sense at all.

[S!fkaIaC 10]

I tend to stay provocative and ask: if Arma2 is a MilSim, what's BF2 or AA? Just a "game"? Where's the difference? And if there's none - as I do think - I still see that question for ranking stuff to be legal. Not that I'd personal need it, but Arma2 also is just a "game".

But okay..... as Deadfast said: the whole thing is just about having fun. That's what one can have with Arma2, indeed. Was just trying to point out that I don't see a difference between THIS game and others and that so a ranking system might be a nice addition. And..... Arma2 does not deserve the tiny word "simulation" in any way.

Over.

Well, OPTIONAL. The core of the old OFP freaks do not want to have a ranking system. The sugar that the OFP/ArmA monkey needs is to go into battle, preferably with some online-mates, to accomplish a mission and enjoying that tactics worked out.

For me personally the body/vehicle counter you reach with "I" is already odd.

I use it personally from time to time for cheating.

If you have a hidden enemy you press "I", check the numbers in your line, then you plaster the area with indirect fire (handgranades etc.) and you check from time to time the counter with "I", there you will see when you hit something.

I feel ashamed for doing this ;) , already for this cheating risk I would remove that simple "ranking" that shows the wildest in-mission-killer.

[Baff1 0]

I think you could get a rank score for the amount of time you stay in formation.

There is no reason why a ranking system can't encourage teamplay.

Ranking systems are a bit of fun, if you don't enjoy them, no need to pay it any attention.

I don't expect to use it myself, but I do believe it has some benefits for the multiplayer community.

Pilot rankings for example would be a great way to identify who is most likely to crash the helicopter and who is most likely to get you to your destination alive.

That sort of thing would be great for teambuilding.

[ebud 18]

I played BF2 for a week or so a couple years ago but left because of several reasons and the ranking system was one of them. I couldn't stand the thought of some 13 year old "Captain" who had nothing better to do than play BF2 for days upon days ranking up and then getting special unlocks or skills or whatever the ranking system rewarded you with (or just made the game less gimped for you, such as normal accuracy). Rankings based on individual stats or time playing is a horrible idea unless they mean nothing to actual gameplay and are just for stroking your ego.

[bhaz 0]

If it were server-based or community-based, in a PvP or team vs. team situation, I could see it happening. But something like a global ranking leaderboard, I can't see that being remotely viable to a game like this.

[hund 0]

Wouldn't you need more control over the servers to implement a ranking system? Arma2 is a pretty open-ended system, and people could easily make missions or mods that would allow you to rank up artificially. This of course could be countered by only allowing rank on a certain number of predefined missions and servers, oh yeah that idea goes right along with the basic principles of arma2.

Ranking is meant to keep you playing long after the game has gone stale, as some other bloke said. Arma2, in theory, will never go stale because new content is constanly being released. So in effect you do have ranking, we just call it mission and mod making skills.

I don't really think ranking is suitable for the arma2 platform, and even if it was, I'd rather have BIS working on other things, like an expansion pack or even a sooper dooper patch.

[GTO 10]

The whole point of playing the game is to have fun

Exactly but some people are not having fun. It's no fun to spawn at a base full of vehicles that you can't use.

Is ArmA2 a game or a sim?

If it's a game then we should be able to use any vehicle at any time in MP, because it's a GAME.

If it's a simulation of warfare/military life then why can't we have some kind of qualification system. In real life if I want to fly a military helicopter I join the army, learn how to fly, take a test and become qualified to fly. I've never heard of anyone getting into a helicopter and being mysteriously ejected from it by some invisible force.

IMO what’s needed is a series of tests for all vehicles in SP (ie the armoury) and if you complete the test you become qualified to use that vehicle no matter what your rank.

PS

This should also include weapons.

Just my opinion:o

Edited July 23, 2009 by GTO