DOTW: Ranks in Battlefield 3

[Simon Moon]

Since Battlefield 2 we have experienced the "ranking up" feature, trhough playing on ranked servers. Every kill, every assisting action, every capture of a control point has been counted towards a rank progression. That, together with awards, has been a constrant driver for many people to keep playing, to reach higher ranks.

The Ranks in BF2 were rather far spaced out. For some in the middle you needed badges to get them, but you had to ahve the badges before you hit the magic number mark, otehrwise you get a "lower" rank. I get about one email a week that asks me about First Sergeant or Sergeant Major ranks in Battlefield 2. Please no more of that please. I wouldn't mind the extra effort for the high up ranks, and may they take a long time too, no problem, but putting a timer on those is really crappy. The badges and awards have a timer, that should be enough for that.

And then come the BF2142 Ranks. Fast paced, in a rather weird progression. The beginning makes somewhat sense, but the end is totally senseless. Some voodoo is applied to get the last 3 ranks, which is not transparent and poses an annoyance to a large number of people playing Battlefield 2142 and would like to ever reach those high end ranks. It gets worse. Not your actual score, but "career points" count for the rank. You can get those through awards as well as "normal" score. While BF2 makes you sweat for 200'000 points through raw brawns, BF2142 already folds the chair up and goes into retirement at 57'700 points with the help of very large boosters through badges and medals. Just getting awards that are rather easy to get, puts you already more than half way there, and I am not even talking all awards.

So now we are looking forward to Battlefield 3. How should that one work? More stretched out like BF2, or rather compact and easy to reach the maximum like BF2142? Maybe a mix? Should the ranking system resemble the same army ranks as in the previous two games or go on a tangent and try something different this time?

[Trotter]

Both. Set the ranks up as distant from each other and therefore something you have to really work at to attain (no one month generals like in COD4), but break them up with "stepping stones" on minor rankings.

Say the game sets up eight ranks: Private, Corporal, Sargent, Lt., Captain, Major, Colonel, General. In these, set up a progression, such as five steps to each rank. these step-ranks would be easier to reach, but are also part of the path of progression. Make the unlocks fit the actual ranks it is given... a minor unlock for a set-rank, and a larger unlock for a main rank. Call the step-ranks "classes" or something.

[ArgonV]

I'd rather see the CnC system, you get a rank based upon your place in the worldwide ranks. So don't attach ranks to a certain score. It'd work like this: if you're in the top 5%, you're a general. If you're above 50% of the players, you're a captain. If you're just starting out (or are just plain crap), you'll be something like a private. Or base the ranks upon SPM or something.

That way people who play good or a lot will have that reflected in their ranks. And you won't have the rather silly situation where there's 40 Brigadier Generals running around on one Battlefield
And don't start with 'ranks won't be an indication for skill anymore', because they already aren't. Brigadier Generals have a lot of points, but aren't necessarily good. I'm a BG, but I'm nothing special. And this system will reward dedication and/or skill (just skill when it's SPM based).

I'd deal with the unlocks like so: You just get unlock for certain point boundaries. If you get 100 points, you get your first unlock. When you reach 200, you get the second. At 350, the third. You get the idea

[Simon Moon]

Originally Posted by Trotter

Both. Set the ranks up as distant from each other and therefore something you have to really work at to attain (no one month generals like in COD4), but break them up with "stepping stones" on minor rankings.

Say the game sets up eight ranks: Private, Corporal, Sargent, Lt., Captain, Major, Colonel, General. In these, set up a progression, such as five steps to each rank. these step-ranks would be easier to reach, but are also part of the path of progression. Make the unlocks fit the actual ranks it is given... a minor unlock for a set-rank, and a larger unlock for a main rank. Call the step-ranks "classes" or something.

Sounds like an ineresting idea, but wouldn't it then be the same as it is now? The only difference would be that you have two types of unlocks, "minor" and "major" which IMHO is the most interesting part of this.

Originally Posted by ArgonV

I'd rather see the CnC system, you get a rank based upon your place in the worldwide ranks. So don't attach ranks to a certain score. It'd work like this: if you're in the top 5%, you're a general. If you're above 50% of the players, you're a captain. If you're just starting out (or are just plain crap), you'll be something like a private. Or base the ranks upon SPM or something.

That way people who play good or a lot will have that reflected in their ranks. And you won't have the rather silly situation where there's 40 Brigadier Generals running around on one Battlefield
And don't start with 'ranks won't be an indication for skill anymore', because they already aren't. Brigadier Generals have a lot of points, but aren't necessarily good. I'm a BG, but I'm nothing special. And this system will reward dedication and/or skill (just skill when it's SPM based).

I'd deal with the unlocks like so: You just get unlock for certain point boundaries. If you get 100 points, you get your first unlock. When you reach 200, you get the second. At 350, the third. You get the idea

So the unlocks would still be score based (like the ranks are now) while the ranks would be given out in a different way. I like it. SPM might not work too well, if you only play 10 minutes and get an SPM of 500 (because someone stat pads) then they can be top of the rank instantly. If you go by score alone, then just the ones playing the longest get the highest ranks.

Maybe a mixture of badges and certain scores? Say you wont be advanced past sergeant until you get the basic combat badge in all classes. You wont get major until you have the vehicle basics, etc. So you wont get awarded General until you got the NATO and MEC duty medal (or one of them). Still a pure score and badges thing would not be very indicative of player skill.

As far as I see it here, a rank is the number one indicator (besides their name) you get inside the game. If that rank would be reflecting their skill that would be highly welcome, did I get that right?

So how could you make a rank reflect the skill, without using off the bat SPM (score per minute)?

[GNR_Rosewarne]

Sadly I think badge restrictions are probably still the best way to regulate that sort of thing.

SPM is just a stat-padder's best friend.

I like the BF2 system. You actually have to work your butt off for rewards. Maybe not as hard this time though lol. I'm still only a First Sergeant I think lol

[Simon Moon]

The first sergeant is one of those ranks that area "special". You get a "lower"rank with the same point score if you dont have the badges for the "higher" rank. Makes no real difference though. If the badges would be a requisite, that you need them before advancing that would be a lot more interesting.

[Sydney]

Originally Posted by Simon Moon

The first sergeant is one of those ranks that area "special". You get a "lower"rank with the same point score if you dont have the badges for the "higher" rank. Makes no real difference though. If the badges would be a requisite, that you need them before advancing that would be a lot more interesting.

That would indeed make ranking up very interesting and a lot more fun.

I would like a system like BF2 rather than 2142. Given the game has replay worthy gameplay of course.

[Rudd_Medicman]

Originally Posted by ArgonV

I'd rather see the CnC system, you get a rank based upon your place in the worldwide ranks. So don't attach ranks to a certain score. It'd work like this: if you're in the top 5%, you're a general.

x2

In bf2 and bf2142 ranks simply translated to "how much time of my life can I waste on this game?"

Having ranks decided by global (or in game?) relative scores would be the best. I join a server and I'm a Sgt because the points indicate I have a level of experience that places me at that rank.

TBH, i'd like to see a little of AA seep in rank wise, where you volunteer for particular positions. Although BF2 or 2142 has this to an extent with commander and SLs. Although in vanilla SL translates to mobile spawn point. The kind of rank system I'm thinking about would contribute largely to gameplay in mods heavy on teamwork.

[Chaos Theory]

A global ranking system has some merit, I think, but the problem is how to determine the rankings.

There have been some valid points so far, SPM is prone to stat-padding, and overall score wouldn't change the current system of "those who have played the longest have the highest rank" and not be indicative of skill. To make this as close to being solely skill based as possible, I think a Score/Round system should be put into place and the current score system be rebalanced.

Being ranked on your average score per round, counting only if you play the whole round and don't manually switch teams, is of course still vulnerable to being stat-padded, but if the score system is rebalanced, I think some of this can be mitigated. Make supporting the effort of having your team actually win the round contribute the most to your score, and have things that promote lonewolf "screw my team I'ma go spawn camp for points" type behavior less to a player's overall score. Basically I see something like this:

(Numbers are, of course, up to debate)

• Capping a flag - 8 points
• Assisting a capture - 6 points

• Defending a flag - 4 points + 1 for the kill
• Assisting a kill when they die in a defense zone - 2 points + 1 point assist

Note: The defense radius for a flag should be huge, you get the points if you're anywhere remotely near the flag.

• Kill - 1 point
• Assisting a kill - 1 point
• Assisting a team member (heal, resupply, revive, repair) - 1 point

It's been awhile since I've played, so let me know if I've forgotten anything. The reason I purpose those actions be worth so much, and the actions that most people solely try to do in any given public game so low (also to prevent stat-padding), is because if we look at it in terms of what can I do get more points, I can help my team try to win the round, team play is rewarded, rather then rewarding selfish behavior.

As for unlocks in this system, I think it's only fair to tied them solely to points, that way it doesn't matter how good you are, you can eventually have everything without having to be in the top fifth percentile of players.

[Simon Moon]

I would also propose a win bonus. Say your team wins, you get an extra bump... like 50% more score or something.

[ArgonV]

Well, if you look at CnC Renegade (again ), you got points for winning the round, but the worst player on the winning team didn't get any points. The losing team lost points, but the best (two) player(s) on the losing team didn't lose any points, depending on server size.

Also, if you hadn't been on long enough to make any difference (I believe if you played for less than two minutes), you didn't lose or gain any points.

Everybody started out with 10.000 points on the leaderboards, so losing a round didn't mean a negative score, unless you did nothing else than losing

[PsylentStorm]

Originally Posted by ArgonV

Well, if you look at CnC Renegade (again ), you got points for winning the round, but the worst player on the winning team didn't get any points. The losing team lost points, but the best (two) player(s) on the losing team didn't lose any points, depending on server size.

Also, if you hadn't been on long enough to make any difference (I believe if you played for less than two minutes), you didn't lose or gain any points.

Everybody started out with 10.000 points on the leaderboards, so losing a round didn't mean a negative score, unless you did nothing else than losing

very nice. i like.

[Simon Moon]

Not counting the points if you have not played long enough, should be a standard. Or at least not counting the "win/loss" and bonuses associated with that. Like if you have not played at least 10% of the total round time, then you wont be counted.

[Trotter]

I can see negative points for team kills/damage, but not for not being good at the game. Everyone has an off-night, and everyone has to start somewhere. Besides, if you only award the best, only the best move forward and everyone else is stuck where they are. Sort of the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I know I am not the kind of player who lands in the top few with any regularity, so something like this comes close to home.

Setting up the points to reflect teamwork and objectives would be great, though. There are so many who only want to rack up a body count or run around reviving because it is worth more than a heal. If the points were for achieving a goal such as taking a flag or defending it, that would be great. As it stands now, few bother to defend a flag at all because they get more points fragging someone.

Ranks should be based on points, as well as achievements and time. Want to make a general in a couple of weeks? Tough, put in some time. No one become an officer overnight in the Marines, so why should they online? Ranks should be based on more than a single thing, period.

[siiix]

team win bonus = YES but not 50%, more like 10%

unlock credits should not be connected to ranks

so least say you get 1 unlock credit every 2000 points
but ranks i would prefer more like bf2 (less/fever ranks, more visible), the 2142 ranks where just confusing and even after 400 hours i had no clue witch rank is higher or lower for the majority of the ranks

how ever rank promotion could give you an extra unlock credit as bonus

awards/medals/batches should give you points but just a few NOT 1000's

i would like to make the entire game more hard/difficult, 2142 was just way to easy and way to fast to rank up