Ranking system, why not?

[Nutlink 10]

It's set by the mission maker, not the game. By default you can enter and use any vehicle, but certain missions force you to either rank up, choose a particular class, or just flat out don't let you use certain vehicles.

[Herbal Influence 10]

The need for a ranking system seems to me much realistic - if you compare with real armies.

But it would narrow the openness of BI games I love so much.

Clans do ranking pages - so you might get a clan member and play on their servers.

Biggest problem I see about the rightheousness of quite any system of ranking.

For example:

The crcti-game went along and was exciting for hours indeed and people did much points. And felt high ranked. I found the enemy base and nobody was interested in that message for all forgot that crcti is about destroying enemy base. I took a support vehicle, rode straight to the base - had a lot of luck doing that but also used a lot concealment and cover tactics.

I then destroyed the enemy base from quite afar with rpgs I reloaded from my support vehic.

Game was over then.

I had about a 5 % of the points of most gamers. ;-)

No, I don't accept someone ranking me then into the least 5 %.

[galzohar 31]

Would be nice if there was some basic qualification offline that mission makers can use for online vehicle restrictions. Even if people can hack it, it'll still get the job done as it'll stop people that have no clue what they're doing to hop onto vehicles. People smart enough to hack it but too dumb to drive/fly will probably be a small minority.

[Albert Schweitzer 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.

I think you are approaching the issue far too narrow minded. I think with a little bit of creativity we could come up with a achievements, that would harmonise with the general ArmA ideology instead of contradicting it.

Unlocking weapons certainly isnt so smart, nor would a generall kill-count do any good. But for me as a Coop player I would love to get a stat stored about my longest sniper kill, aiming precision or maybe even on my job as a transport pilot. And maybe some psychomatric stats about general behaviour in combat etc. I think with a little bit of brainstorming you could come up with some terrific, ArmA-like achievements and awards.

[Andi 10]

For example:

The crcti-game went along and was exciting for hours indeed and people did much points. And felt high ranked. I found the enemy base and nobody was interested in that message for all forgot that crcti is about destroying enemy base. I took a support vehicle, rode straight to the base - had a lot of luck doing that but also used a lot concealment and cover tactics.

I then destroyed the enemy base from quite afar with rpgs I reloaded from my support vehic.

Game was over then.

I had about a 5 % of the points of most gamers. ;-)

No, I don't accept someone ranking me then into the least 5 %.

Yeah, that's why I'd like to see the "I" scoreboard being removed as well. But I guess it's necessary for the DM and CTF missions.

Some dudes get a boner by being on the top, killed lots of tanks and inf, boasting around and calling other players "noobs"... while I'm at the very bottom of this list but satcheling the base and winning the game for us :rolleyes:

Who the hell invented "achievements" anyway.

To me, it seems to be some kind of EA disease, implemented into games that get boring very soon, just to keep players motivated wasting their time with.

A good game does not NEED achievements and ranking system (and neither do simulations). Full stop.

[frederf 0]

The scoreboard screen should be sorted primarily by deaths, fewer being better. And then ties broken by number of kills not the other way around.

[galzohar 31]

Then #1 would be the AFK player. AFK players should not be #1 no matter what you want your scoring system to encourage (unless you want it to encourage AFK).

For some reason I keep finding myself at the top even though I have much worse kill:death ratio than most people. It's weird. Probably a combination of destroying vehicles and not losing them (due to not getting to use them).

[Vandrel 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.

Simply solution.... play Evolution!

[Vylker 10]

I understand your meanings, and thanks for all the replies, are respectfull.

The fact is that -I really believe- that everyone needs a "reward" for his efforts, beside the win, my exact point was not my "hunger" to achieve a 10.000 kills, or turn this game to a CS but my "hunger" for ranking, to show that I am experienced in the game,that Iam not a newbie that easily could crush a fully loaded chopper and that Iam not the one who makes the 30 friendly kills each round, I hope you get my point.

Beside that, a realistic title like Arma 2, ( let me show my sympathy here, congrats to the team, you ve made a very enjoyable War sim. ) but soldiers should have !!!ranks!!! as in real war, as example, why would a newbie jump on a tank and "destroy" it at the next 10 min? ( and no thanks, I dont wanna play only Evolution ).

About the medallions now, will you get sad or something if you could get a medal after 10 tank killings? I dont think so.., its a nice feeling.

To conclude, I think that ranking would be an AWESOME detail to this game and they should deffinetely consider it.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Vylker

[Inkompetent 0]

But HOW would one have a fair ranking system that can't be abused by making stuff in the editor only to boost one's rank? I can't see ANY kind of ranking system working for ArmA that can't be abused, meaning any retard or completely worthless player still can have the best rank of everything, without being any good at all.

[Master gamawa 0]

The fact is that -I really believe- that everyone needs a "reward" for his efforts, beside the win,

Well then it may be hard for you to believe but a lot of us are happy just playing the damn game even if it ends up in our team losing.

I think that a good game doesn't need to reward anyone with gimmicky ranks and points.

This reward thing is an "arcade residue". Do you remember back in the 80s when games were shitty and you needed to have score boards to "show the other people that you RULE!" because the game it's self sucked donkey balls and you really had nothing better to do with your life... because you were like 10 years old and you were developing your competitive instincts?

Yeah... that.

[Vylker 10]

Master Gamawa I see what your point, in fact I ve never played such games, but no, I dont think that '80 games have any relation to this "reward" that Iam talking about. Anyway, player thoughts are just thoughts, I would really love to hear what Bohemia have to say about ranking.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Vylker

[Murklor 10]

But HOW would one have a fair ranking system that can't be abused by making stuff in the editor only to boost one's rank? I can't see ANY kind of ranking system working for ArmA that can't be abused, meaning any retard or completely worthless player still can have the best rank of everything, without being any good at all.

Oh its easy to see a ranking system that cant be abused so much, the problem is that it comes with more or less limitations. You could limit it to certain servers and certain missions, but that might be bad for the open design of Arma2. I say "might" because I still dont see the evil in ranks. Having a number of "official approved" mission that all store rank in the same way (ie while its free to make the mission as you like, it must have a certain point system that comes straight from BIS, no edits) when you play on them would be pretty neat... And encourage some competition in the community to make really good missions. Making it work is a tricky matter though, lol

[HOPEnSPIRIT 10]

Its a Military Simulation maybe you get promoted if the rank above you dies, but I think there are more important things to deal with.

[Vylker 10]

Hi, apologies that I have to open a new post for this but Iam really curious about this issue, I would like to see what is the opinion of the community about a possible ranks system.

So, please vote!

Edited July 28, 2009 by Vylker

[knicked 10]

1. For sure also achievement which will keep me playing longer

[HOPEnSPIRIT 10]

The achievement of staying alive is good enough.

[_pi_ 10]

Too late!

/10char

[Rogue_Trooper 10]

Having fun with your mates is enough for me

[Vylker 10]

Guys, we dont have to choose between you know.., we could have them both

[Placebo 29]

Hi, apologies that I have to open a new post for this

Threads merged, if such a situation arises again just use the report post button and we'll merge them for you, or whatever the situation requires :)

[Vylker 10]

Thanks! I tried to merge it but I failed..

Btw, do you think that we could have an official state about a possible "ranking" system?

[Placebo 29]

Anything is possible if something proves popular enough, but nothing's ever certain in life either :)

[Vylker 10]

Do you think that maybe we could make "Sticky" this post to find out? xD xD xD

[BeerHunter 0]

Do you think that maybe we could make "Sticky" this post to find out? xD xD xD

Why? You apparently are the only one that voted yes.

Rankings can ruin game play (just look at the problems BF2 had with "stat padders".

Rankings are absolutely meaningless. IRL you move up through the ranks as your abilities to lead and command grow , not based on how many points you rack up.

Virtual Generals can be just as totally useless to a team as a total n00b player.

Rankings in a video game are nothing more than a marketing ploy to pad the waning egos. If a game can't offer anything more to entice the player to keep coming back then there's really something basic in the game missing isn't there..how about .. GAME PLAY?

Serious gamers don't pay any attention to the ranks anyway. Even in BF2 a virtual General didn't automatically take over as commander (in fact lots of them flew around in choppers trying to rack up even more points). The best player was usually the commander , not the highest "virtual rank".

And don't even mention "unlocks". The dumbest idea anyone ever had. (sure there are some in ArmA in the armory etc but these can easily be unlocked as they are for your own amusement anyway).

Here's and idea if rankings are so important to you.

Create your own spreadsheet , keep track of your wins/losses and award yourself a rank if it's so important to you I suppose.

I HATE THE IDEA OF RANKINGS