Pages: 1 2

 

Poll

Is the Ranking System Worth It?

Yes, I like it the way it is92%92% - 136
No, I dont like it4%4% - 7
It would be better if there were no medals(just points)2%2% - 4
Total: 147
2006-08-20 21:56:16
killaer
Member
+41|7189
I was just wondering this to myself once, Is the ranking system WORTH it?

We have all done stupid things for medals or a promotion, or have something bad happen to US because of it. In the end, is it worth it?

I think it is a great addition to the game and all, but sometimes it just causes huge problems...
Stat padding, etc,

And don't deny that sometimes you forget that the game is about HAVING FUN, but not getting fancy immages on our internet profiles.

I'm not complaining about it, I'm just wondering what everyone thinks about it.
2006-08-20 22:00:15
kontrolcrimson
Get your body beat.
+183|7299|Australia
i like the way you can see your progress. see and track all your actions. The rank part, needs a revision, i mean hell, i was up there, but i suck more than im 'own'. The real good players dont get in the rankings.
2006-08-20 22:02:18
Doggehspike
~Ð~
+41|6964
Wheres the "I couldn't give a crap" option?
2006-08-20 22:09:33
pt_22
Member
+9|6965
I agree with kontrol crimson, the stats are a good way to compare how your playing now to how you use to play. Also it reminds you of your best rounds so you can reminisc on old times....

and the badges are a damn good thing to aim for if you've lost the plot on playing to win. And sometimes when your getting annoyed at all the silly things about the game hearing the drumroll and getting a medal/ribbon can just brighten the round so you enjoy it again and play it for the reasons you were meant to.. FUN
2006-08-20 22:10:51
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7233

To be honest, I preferred the way Joint Ops was set up.  None of this fake badge crap, just real long battles with a day and night cycles.  If they combined the best things about Joint Ops with the best things about BF2, you would have the best modern warfare game ever.
2006-08-20 22:17:57
oberst_enzian
Member
+234|7214|melb.au

usmarine2005 wrote:

To be honest, I preferred the way Joint Ops was set up.  None of this fake badge crap, just real long battles with a day and night cycles.  If they combined the best things about Joint Ops with the best things about BF2, you would have the best modern warfare game ever.
"you got it". the badges and crap just inspire tardism. in terms of stats the only things i'm interested in are k/d ratios and the tracking of support actions (heal, resupply, etc), steaks and so on.

long battles with day night cycles would be so freaking immersive...
2006-08-20 22:19:53
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7233

oberst_enzian wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

To be honest, I preferred the way Joint Ops was set up.  None of this fake badge crap, just real long battles with a day and night cycles.  If they combined the best things about Joint Ops with the best things about BF2, you would have the best modern warfare game ever.
"you got it". the badges and crap just inspire tardism. in terms of stats the only things i'm interested in are k/d ratios and the tracking of support actions (heal, resupply, etc), steaks and so on.

long battles with day night cycles would be so freaking immersive...
I have no idea why people who make games do not understand this?  A game like that would make so much money.
2006-08-20 22:20:12
EVIL_STYX
TANK WHORE
+62|7154|FIVE RIVERS OF HELL
I like it the way it is, I did not play BFV or 1942, but I really like BF2! I can tell you it only takes hearing that drum roll once and your hooked! Atleast for me anyways!

EVIL_STYX OUT!!!
2006-08-20 22:23:02
Kamikaze17
Over the line!
+70|7220|Mark it zero.
the medals and ranks are pretty cool i think, but i hate what it does to the game. plus you cant play any custom maps which are always the bext. if they just let you get the ranks and medals and didnt try to control every little damn thing then it would be nice.
2006-08-20 22:28:41
Marinejuana
local
+415|7056|Seattle
I like lots about the ranking/stats/rewards system but here are my qualms:

total points and time played shouldnt be part of many ranks or rewards at all. Maybe a couple, but no more. These two figures are very closely correlated and noboby thinks it takes much skill to have a lot of hours. I think that kill to death ratios and scores per minute with different kits, weapons and items should be the basis for  ranking up and getting rewards. There could still be stat padders but at least a large number of the high ranks/most decorated players would simply be the most skilled. As opposed to now where they are mostly the people who have the most hours with some skilled people mixed in.

I think I know why EA didnt do this though. The current system encourages us to play as many hours as possible, whereas if we were rewarded for quality of play, then it would almost be better to play less, and only play when we are going to play our very best. As it is, a person that has put in their hours could never lose their high rank. But if the ranks were quality based, then a slump could cause you to lose the status you previously earned.

EA should be nice and give us quality-based ranking. They should know we will play hundreds of hours anyway. And on that note, does anybody know how bf2 compares to other fps games in per capita hours played? Does the average bf2 player play many more hours because of the ranking system (or is it just me?)?
2006-08-20 22:31:18
oberst_enzian
Member
+234|7214|melb.au

usmarine2005 wrote:

I have no idea why people who make games do not understand this?  A game like that would make so much money.
tell me about it! and when you combine that fact with the way that the patches and whatnot have been botched, it just makes the whole thing a mystery of bermuda triangle proportions. all that lost potential... its an awesome game as it is, but when you think about the stupid things about it, it's like watching a champion sprinter being made to run with their legs tied up.

Kamikaze17 wrote:

plus you cant play any custom maps which are always the best.
yep, another good point. the ranking system means that they have to excercise a level of control that just handicaps the potential for adding great content even more.

Last edited by oberst_enzian (2006-08-20 22:32:45)

2006-08-20 23:54:26
JdeFalconr
Lex Luthor, King of Australia
+72|7013|Sammamish, WA
I don't think I would still be playing this game it weren't for the advancement system. Just being able to go after achievements and ranks has given this game so much more life to me.
2006-08-21 00:03:17
Kamikaze17
Over the line!
+70|7220|Mark it zero.

JdeFalconr wrote:

I don't think I would still be playing this game it weren't for the advancement system. Just being able to go after achievements and ranks has given this game so much more life to me.
its the same way for most people. thats why the medals and points are a good idea. they just need to stop being control freaks and let us do more and not worry about what we do.
2006-08-21 00:15:06
LivelyToaster
Member
+60|7191|Sacto, CA
All the stat system does is encourage people to play like tards. The majority of pubbers are more worried about their shiny gold badge then they are about their team. No medals and ranks = Teamwork. Personally I think the stats should just have things like k|d, etc. People would quite playing for a pixelated image and start playing for fun and for their team.
2006-08-21 01:34:20
tool03
Member
+5|6998|Japan Owki
What they need to do is have:
easy awards (time & kills/score)
med awards (K/D & T-Score)
expt awards (K/D, T-Score, other ratios)

Another cool thing to do would be to make it so that on certain maps (or a game mode) if the enemy caps a base, a certain number of times (5?) that base is gone (un-capable). Maybe to make it extra interesting if your team caps a flag and holds it for 15 consecutive minutes (the flag MUST be captured to do this) then the base is turned into un-capable, and anyone who either helped cap the flag or is defending the flag gets an automatic 10 points. 

For some more incentive to play those kinds of maps (or mode) it should be made so that players can get more points on them; say defend flag point=4, flag capture & neutralize=6 (3 each).

Then over all I think ground troops who are on a roll (5 kills in a row) should then get 4 points per kill after the 5 kills in a row but if they get killed (even if you get revived
) it returns back to normal. However, grenade, ATmine, Claymore, and C4 kills don’t count and for sniper rifles it has to be 8 kills in a row.

Kill points with specific weapons for vehicles should be dropped, so if you bomb someone in a jet it should only count for one point per kill, if you use the secondary weapon of a tank it's also only 1 point per kill. That way a lot of the serious point whoring can or will die down somewhat. Because in the case of the jets bombing they will have more incentive to attack air targets instead of just bomb rapeage and in the case of the tanks many tankers will probably try to aim for more points thus using the main cannon instead of the secondary gun thus giving AT’ers a better chance. Healing points should be just "slightly" harder to get and should be worth 2, revives should be worth 1, repair points should just be easier to get or upped to 2, supply points made a little harder to get.

Past all that though, good admins, smart players, and a little good will can go a long way even with the way the game is now.
2006-08-21 03:33:27
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7161|Tampa Bay Florida
I think it was a good idea, but poorly executed.  Too many Sergeants and above, too many stat padders, not enough variables.  You just earn points, earn ranks, and get unlocks.  Nothing really interesting or fun about it after 6 months, let alone a year.  As it is now, the awards are just way to easy to earn and so are the ranks. 

2142 looks much better.  More awards, customizable kits, etc.

Last edited by Spearhead (2006-08-21 03:39:50)

2006-08-21 09:56:44
Drexel
Member
+43|6947|Philadelphia
The way I see it, the point system is a great way for EA to get people playing for a long time.  I have to admit that I was hooked at one point trying to be the highest rank possible and getting all the awards that I can get.  Now I'm not that way. 
     
     Granted, I do a bunch of things that people might see as point grabbing, like sitting at a cappable flag and killing people as they spawn, but the only times that I do that is when I know my team is in there and taking that flag.  If the point system would reward teamwork more than combat, this game would be everything that EA designed it to be. 

     But because every award, and every rank has to do primarally to Combat instead of Teamwork, the average player would rather be one of thoes Karkand 24/7, medic, armor people than what I try to be, an overall rounded player that can play every map, kit, and vehicle better than the average player.

     Check out my stats, I've tried to be the most rounded player I could be.   The only reason why Karkand is the highest map in my game is because EVERY SERVER PLAYS IT TOO MUCH.  It's the favorite map of most people because you can easially get 100 points without breaking a sweat.  My kits and vehicles are unballanced because I was trying for the silver awards before they cut all the time it took to get all these ranks. (WHICH I THINK WAS A TERRIBLE MISTAKE, I'd rather be a staff seargent now with hundreds of other people than First sargent with the same amount)

***Note, I think the stat that is on BF2s that shoud be the most important is the Cost per Base.  If you check out the average player, it's between 1-3 cents, which is if you got $50 each time you captured a base, how much you get per min.   Now, I believe that the most important thing in BF2 is capping and holding bases, forcing the enemy into a smaller and smaller zone.  This is why my Cost per Base is over 13 cents.***

Last edited by Drexel (2006-08-21 10:04:49)

2006-08-21 10:05:47
Gentlesouljah.e
Member
+14|6933|United States
It not only adds alot to the game, but its a big reason why alot of people are playing still. I love my stats and when ever I play, I always play to achieve a specific goal I set in my stats. Like getting a specific badge or medal, or achieving a specific KDR with a kit or vehicle. As far as people abuseing the stats system goes, well there already being handled accordingly. IndianScout is a good guy and is only looking to help promote a clean and fun gameing enviroment. I know EA could find better ways to wipe stats, other then sending a generic email, which they send to everyone, maybe include screenshots or some sort of proof in the email. I know guys like kontrolcrimson did nothing wrong and I do not have the wildest idea how EA found the grounds for wipeing his stats. But they must have had some reason whether its a good one or not. While we may not like them, there a professional corporation and I dont think they'd go around wipeing players stats for no good reason.

I really hope the stats system in 2142 are even more in-depth with more rewards, unlocks etc....Theres only one small thing EA needs to change, and thats how they find and handle cheaters.

End of rant...
2006-08-21 10:17:39
VeNg3nCe^
¦Tactics Øver Principles¦
+314|7177|Antarctica
Rankings need to play a much smaller role than they do now.
2006-08-21 10:23:02
Snake
Missing, Presumed Dead
+1,046|7037|England

The whole rank and awards system make this game worth playing. At least it gives you something to "go after" - like you did in games like Goldeneye, and even more so in Perfect Dark. Unlocking weapons, maps and cheats made PD last as long as it did...which was about 10times longer than goldeneye ever did.

A lot of console games track your stats, but as soon as its on a PC game, everyone complains about it.

And at the end of the day, if they didnt have stats/ranks/awards - this website wouldnt exist and we wouldnt be on these forums every frigging day!

Last edited by Snake (2006-08-21 10:23:40)

2006-08-21 10:24:03
-=5TON3D
Member
+42|7006|u.k
i like checking my stats & mates stats but i dont care about what others have i aint interrested.
it'd better without the main global leaderboard & just keep it as personal stats.no need for the roe engagement rules shit,just leave it to sort hackers out.

i voted no,but would've voted other/change if there was an option.
2006-08-21 10:24:17
MrBrain
Member
+24|7162|Finland

Gentlesouljah.e wrote:

It not only adds alot to the game, but its a big reason why alot of people are playing still. I love my stats and when ever I play, I always play to achieve a specific goal I set in my stats. Like getting a specific badge or medal, or achieving a specific KDR with a kit or vehicle.
So true, it's actually more fun to have a goal when you play. Even if you reach it or not. I like it alot, even though I might get mad if I don't get near my goal. But the rankings and stats sure keep alot of players in the game for a very long time yet I guess.
2006-08-21 10:25:19
sgt.sonner
the electric eel has got me by the brain banana
+146|7004|Denmizzark!!

EVIL_STYX wrote:

I like it the way it is, I did not play BFV or 1942, but I really like BF2! I can tell you it only takes hearing that drum roll once and your hooked! Atleast for me anyways!

Last edited by sgt.sonner (2006-08-21 10:25:36)

2006-08-21 11:22:25
cheshiremoe
Evil Geniuses for a sparsely populated tomorrow
+50|7180

Marinejuana wrote:

I like lots about the ranking/stats/rewards system but here are my qualms:

total points and time played shouldnt be part of many ranks or rewards at all. Maybe a couple, but no more. These two figures are very closely correlated and noboby thinks it takes much skill to have a lot of hours. I think that kill to death ratios and scores per minute with different kits, weapons and items should be the basis for  ranking up and getting rewards. There could still be stat padders but at least a large number of the high ranks/most decorated players would simply be the most skilled. As opposed to now where they are mostly the people who have the most hours with some skilled people mixed in.

I think I know why EA didnt do this though. The current system encourages us to play as many hours as possible, whereas if we were rewarded for quality of play, then it would almost be better to play less, and only play when we are going to play our very best. As it is, a person that has put in their hours could never lose their high rank. But if the ranks were quality based, then a slump could cause you to lose the status you previously earned.

EA should be nice and give us quality-based ranking. They should know we will play hundreds of hours anyway. And on that note, does anybody know how bf2 compares to other fps games in per capita hours played? Does the average bf2 player play many more hours because of the ranking system (or is it just me?)?
I dis-agree on one point:  For most people having quality play means having lots of practice/playing otherwise your skills become rusty and so you would still need to play a lot to be in the top ranks.   Quality-based ranking is a good idea and I think the ranks would change a lot more frequently, but it would not be too hard to maintain a good rank.  If you stoped playing your rank should slowly drop over time. 

Here is how I think the current system is flawed besides the global score being the all important stat:
1) Command(artillery)kills & vehical kills and time are linked to the kits stats. You should not get a kit combat badge while in a plane because there is a seperate badge for the plane.
2) Time should not be a requirement for badges( I would require something like or a combination of; minimum KDR, # of kills with the primary weapon, team pts like repair/revive/heal/driver ablility + the IAR reqs.)
3)More command stats should be tracked like WLR while commander and artillery kills.
4)There is no extra pts for doing what the commander of squad lead orders. 

I think that the unlocks should be linked to kit achivement and/or kit badges.
There should be a badge for leading a squad and other badges for squad members following orders( Attack and Defend orders linked to the capping or defending pts).
2006-08-21 11:28:07
Adonlude
Member
+2|7250
The stats are totally worth it. I like haveing something to work for. In my case I was really only working for ranks becuase they came with unlocks. Now that I finally have all the unlocks I may taper off.

I admit that the stats are somewhat pointless seeing as they are only visible on internet pages. If the stats could better be displayed on your ingame character then I would be far more enthusiastic about them.

If you truly dont care about stats then you really cant say you care about the padders. Seeing as I like stats I hate the stat padders.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard