PDA

View Full Version : Do you think BF2 ranking idea fits in the new UT


kafros
4th May 2005, 04:16 PM
The soon to be released BattleField 2 will brings this new system:

The global ranking system is used to award ranks to players. When you join a game you get a place at the appropriate level (there seem to be three levels: Commander, sub-commander and soldier).

This is supposed to give more tactical control of a team (the commander can designate on the map the next attack point, the sub-commander will get his order from the commander and delegate them to the soldiers below etc.)

Whould you like to see something like that in the new UT?

A clan may not need this in their games as the Voice communication + playing together for some time is enough to plan the attack/defence.

On the other hand, I think public servers(which is the vast majority of servers) would benefit from that. It could make it easier for new players to follow the game until they learn the global strategies.

1337
4th May 2005, 04:27 PM
I'm not following some stranger's orders. I don't want to have to find private servers just to have a good experience. Following some 12 yr old's orders isn't what I find to be a good experience. Stats suck. Glory hounds suck. Assigning a rank to people sucks. I'm in this game to have fun, not to follow some other person's orders and to get a false sense of pride because a number or rank. That is what mmorgs or whateverthey'recalled are for.

kafros
4th May 2005, 04:43 PM
You DON'T HAVE TO follow orders. They are just there to help team play for who ever is listening. If you like to grab a vehicle and wonder around the map you CAN do it.

The rank will just determine who will get the commanding if more that one want it. And I reapeat: It is not an RTS type of command - you can ignore it (I understand that some people prefer to loose in team games)

1337
4th May 2005, 04:51 PM
As long as I can disable their voice clientside. :p
and don't get kicked from a server, because I didn't follow my master's orders

carmatic
4th May 2005, 08:44 PM
yeah, exactly that...

i think that orders should just show up as icons at the corner of your screen or something... if you follow them and you lose, its your commanders fault... if you dont follow them and you lose, its your fault... if you follow them and you win, its teamwork... if you dont follow them and you win, then your really good...

togmkn
4th May 2005, 10:02 PM
Glory hounds suck. Assigning a rank to people sucks. I'm in this game to have fun, not to follow some other person's orders and to get a false sense of pride because a number or rank.
I agree with that. But you don't have to follow orders, like Kafros said. I think stats would be cool, but csports.net does a good job of that. I just don't like games that take "control," by having a special clan system instead of just changing your name and only allowing players with certain stats to enter certain servers. Stats would be cool, but don't let crap like that take over. And I like what carmatic said, like icons showing up on screen. Voice chat is good enough for me though, in fact I don't even use ingame voice chat (usually), when I'm on with my clan we use Ventrilo. Higher quality audio, and just cooler in general.

Ignotium
5th May 2005, 12:47 AM
The soon to be released BattleField 2 will brings this new system:

The global ranking system is used to award ranks to players. When you join a game you get a place at the appropriate level (there seem to be three levels: Commander, sub-commander and soldier).

This is supposed to give more tactical control of a team (the commander can designate on the map the next attack point, the sub-commander will get his order from the commander and delegate them to the soldiers below etc.)

Whould you like to see something like that in the new UT?

A clan may not need this in their games as the Voice communication + playing together for some time is enough to plan the attack/defence.

On the other hand, I think public servers(which is the vast majority of servers) would benefit from that. It could make it easier for new players to follow the game until they learn the global strategies.


IMHO, it'd SUK

Mord1
5th May 2005, 02:37 AM
Stra you are a troll so you suck* IMO!
I think it would fit well into the game. Its not UT style but Envy is going to be a total new game. So I say yes, because you could keep track of your stats better.

rhirud
5th May 2005, 11:36 AM
It is a good idea. I've discussed this elsewhere; but essentially the best fraggers\point whores should not be made commanders.

There would be the same ranking system to identify who are the good fraggers - but another ranking system would run in parallel.

If you follow the commander's orders; and acomplish a lot of strategic aims in a round; you then would get promoted through the ranks to be a sub-commander. If you are a commander\subcommander your team would also get to give you a score for your comandeering skills - because I can't see that this would be easy to measure.

The commander's role would be to assign tasks to his team. Perhaps he could get a special shield that makes him static but invulnerable for 30s or less to see what's going on- which he could use once every 3 mins. Or perhaps he could go into a turret - and AI would control the turret while he's deciding on plans.

So players wouldn't be forced to listen to the commander at all - but to be a commander themselves they would need to gain rank by acomplishing whatever objectives the commander sets for them. And again it perhaps would be the commander himself that would rank his team??

In a 32 man game - 16 a side there would be
1 commander and 3 sub-commanders. The sub commander would lead a team of 4, and recieve orders from a commander; and would rank those 4 and be ranked by them - the score being weighted by the ranking score of those making the decision (so if somebody is experienced, his decision would carry more weight than the oppinion of somebody who is new.)

Obviously these decisions would need to be kept confidential - or there would be much rancour.

kafros
5th May 2005, 12:05 PM
nice description for a 16 player game rhirud.

I believe that team games (as number of team players increases) will need one person solely for having a look at what is going on and planing the attack/defence without having to get into the fight himself.

There have been many times in ONS that I shout over the team channel about an incoming threat only to see noone coming to help (which is bad) or three coming simultaneously (which is even worse). As it is, fighting and planning at the same time is difficult and troublesome most of the times. Even if the team members want to play for the team it is confusing when one player calls for support and an other for attack. You cannot judge who is right since you don't have the whole picture (where is the enemy, how well the team is going, what are the immediate treats etc).

I really hope the developers consider bringing something like that to the game

]SideWinder[
5th May 2005, 08:05 PM
IMHO, it'd SUK
I agree!

I like the rank system they have planed right now. The better you get, the higher your rank or whatever, and you get placed in to servers full of people with equal skill level. But from what I understand now, its an option, so you dont have to be placed by the game, you can still just join up in any server you feel like. I think it would be nice to see, maybe an average rank next to the server name so you can see if your going to jump in a get Pwnd or not.

JaFO
6th May 2005, 09:36 AM
...
I really hope the developers consider bringing something like that to the game
ie : the kind of stuff that Tribes had ages ago ?
The kind they removed in T:V, probably because it was too complicated to be used in public servers and clans didn't really need it either ... (then again they could have 'simplified' it without removing it completely)

And then of course there's a game called 'Savage : battle for New Erth' with similar features (commanders, orders, bonuses for following orders, etc). It didn't get to be that popular either (altough that's probably because the game was too weird for most gamers as it didn't feature 'realistic' weapons or terrorists)

I'd say if you want stats and promotions of some kind you'd have to play either America's Army or any mmorpg. This kind of stuff even barely works in games that were build for the audience that is supposed to like it. I doubt it would work for an audience that never had to use it.