• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      New Forum Lead!   11/17/2019

      It's with great pleasure to announce B2K as the new Forum Lead.   I am very confident he will be good for the forums, he has great ideas and direction for the future of the forums.
      Good luck sir and GOD speed.
ZEBBEEE

Rank & scoring audit

27 posts in this topic

Starting point is the fact that ranking (=levelling) is the only reward for the time spent by players ingame, and that is *seems* most veterans are already at max rank C-1 colonel (level 14), aside HC-reserved ranks.

https://wiki.wwiionline.com/view/Ranks

Our scoring is currently based on points received when killing enemies, capturing flags, destroying FB/bridge/AI, ressuplying, FMS spawning... and a % is lost if you do not RTB.

 

I would like to start a brainstorming regarding:

1. How could the rank grid be changed to give new objectives to veterans.

2. what else could ranks mean aside unit access?

3. What new logic could the scoring be based on regarding ingame achievements and penalties?

 

Please throw your ideas!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would re-think 'ranking'.

Levels in WWIIOl is not good, because it's not an RPG.

Instead, I would create a 'point system'.

 

Here is my way of thinking, example:

Hurr 1 - 0 points

Spit 1 -  15 points

Spit 5 - 50 points

spit 9 - 100 points

For playing, instead of gaining points for rank - you would gain points to unlock everything.

Have all vehicles unlocked right from the start - the only limiting factor would be 'points' that player acquire from the start of campaign.

 

Further example:

A player achieved 15 points, he can unlock spit 1 now - give the player a certain numbers of uses. The lower the tier plane, the more uses, so player can progress to higher tier

Hurr 1 - unlimited uses (limited ofcourse by availability by side, players would have a 2nd limiter - personal)

Spit 1 - 15 uses

spit 5 - 8 uses

spit 9 - 4 uses

This would maintain in players the 'fear of death' because every death - would remove the personal uses, so if someone would die in spit 9, 4 times, he would have go back to spit 5 if he has any remaining uses, if not - he goes back to spit 1.

For example:

You are on spit 5 currently, got 5 uses left, but you acquired 100 points, purchase spit 9, you died 4 times on spit 9, so you move back to spit 5 and your 5 uses (but the points you acquired in the mean time on spit 9, remain, so you need less points to purchase spit 9 again ).

So the points would remain on 'every tier' of vehicle/plane, you would lose only planes when you die (and points when you purchase the higher tier again)

 

This way there would be no way that players would achieve 'highest rank' with which they cannot do anything, but they would be constantly playing - and dying - to unlock the higher tier armament.

 

 

 

Edited by nugitxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nugitxx said:

 

 

 

1 hour ago, nugitxx said:

Here is my way of thinking, example:

Hurr 1 - 0 points

Spit 1 -  15 points

Spit 5 - 50 points

spit 9 - 100 points

For playing, instead of gaining points for rank - you would gain points to unlock everything.

Have all vehicles unlocked right from the start - the only limiting factor would be 'points' that player acquire from the start of campaign.

 

Further example:

A player achieved 15 points, he can unlock spit 1 now - give the player a certain numbers of uses. The lower the tier plane, the more uses, so player can progress to higher tier

Hurr 1 - unlimited uses (limited ofcourse by availability by side, players would have a 2nd limiter - personal)

Spit 1 - 15 uses

spit 5 - 8 uses

spit 9 - 4 uses

This would maintain in players the 'fear of death' because every death - would remove the personal uses, so if someone would die in spit 9, 4 times, he would have go back to spit 5 if he has any remaining uses, if not - he goes back to spit 1.

For example:

You are on spit 5 currently, got 5 uses left, but you acquired 100 points, purchase spit 9, you died 4 times on spit 9, so you move back to spit 5 and your 5 uses (but the points you acquired in the mean time on spit 9, remain, so you need less points to purchase spit 9 again ).

So the points would remain on 'every tier' of vehicle/plane, you would lose only planes when you die (and points when you purchase the higher tier again)

 

This way there would be no way that players would achieve 'highest rank' with which they cannot do anything, but they would be constantly playing - and dying - to unlock the higher tier armament.

 

 

 

Oh no, please.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I would really like to increase the motivation for players not to loose their equipment I would still advise not to lock new players out of premium equipment when they pay to play it. I think the most clear example for this is fighter planes:

I think it's understandable you need some game time to unlock the more "expensive" stuff so that you allready know how to fly and compete in a fighter before you are allowed to lift the most advanced one. But forbidding the access to a good fighter if you were not able to score kills with it will lead to frustration and decreasing player numbers. How am I supposed to do well in the low tier fighter if I was not able to do well in the top notch plane? Pilots who struggle would become nothing more than cannon fodder for the aces who can keep their spit with ease, while the learning player gets shot down over and over again in his hurri. Look at the top fighter list at the end of campaigns, it won't list more than about 40 pilots with a positive k/d ratio.

Concerning the motivation of vets: How about adding a campaign rank to the "total rank" we got allready? This is how f.e. rocket league is motivating yout to take part in a new season. They got "experience level" and "season rank". To adopt this, you could add ranked medals that are not achieved by HC recommendation but the points earned in one campaign. Something like:

500 points = campaign "Sturmabzeichen" (ground), campaign "Frontspange" (air/naval), campaign star or campaign ribbon

1000 points = same in silver

2500 points = same in gold

5000 points = same in platin, with swords, brilliants, gladioli and candy bars

Edit: I think a lot of people would love to take a look at their own campaign history and see how much they contributed to every campaign in form of a nice little decoration.

Could be a good idea to put different goals for different branches as I think it is a lot harder to reach as many points in the navy f.e.

Edited by vanapo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I would still advise not to lock new players out of premium equipment when they pay to play it.

That's the problem of WWIIOL, it does a lot of things right, but also a lot of things wrong.

 

Quote

How am I supposed to do well in the low tier fighter if I was not able to do well in the top notch plane? Pilots who struggle would become nothing more than cannon fodder for the aces who can keep their spit with ease, while the learning player gets shot down over and over again in his hurri. Look at the top fighter list at the end of campaigns, it won't list more than about 40 pilots with a positive k/d ratio.

Think about what would this mechanic implicate to gameplay, most players would be flying/driving in  low-mid tier planes/vehicles because the top planes would be reserved for the dedicated or skilled players. (which would be a reward for their dedication)

So you in your low tier fighter, would be meeting 60% other low tier fighters, 30% mid tier fighters and 10 % top tier fighters. - i say that it is perfectly ok  if an ace will shot you down once every 2 hours in his 'top plane', because the next 4 hours you will be fighting other low tier fighters.

Think about what this imply also for an ace - the fear of loosing the plane, might actualy hamper his ability to dogfight like the lower tier pilot that has nothing to loose - because an ace would loose a lot, and a newbie in low tier fighter - nothing.

So a low tier fighter, might have actualy an advantage over a top plane with this mechanic. - for the overall war effort, aces do not win the war alone.

Edited by nugitxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of a linear progression like is currently, this would add a non-linear progression and new element to the game - mind games,  top fighter/vehicle drivers would have to think very much, do they want to engage this newbie.

And newbies in low-tier you bet your hell they would be chasing after others - because thats what they always do and then WHAMO - ace looses his plane.

FUN !

Edited by nugitxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, nugitxx said:

So you in your low tier fighter, would be meeting 60% other low tier fighters, 30% mid tier fighters and 10 % top tier fighters. - i say that it is perfectly ok  if an ace will shot you down once every 2 hours in his 'top plane', because the next 4 hours you will be fighting other low tier fighters.

I doubt this calculation is right. The trend is always to the average and players constantly doing bad in a game will tend to leave it after a while. So if you are still learning the game, you will be one of the very few low skilled players (10-20%) flying a low tier plane.  And a lot of people would have access at least to the middle tier planes. As there is no match-making whatsoever in this game, you will run into higher tier players all the time. As low tier planes tend to need more time to score a kill and tend to get shot down faster, the effect stacks. As aces tend to spend more time in game as the average or worse pilot, the effect stacks even more. The aces will fly around allmost uncontested while scoring kill after kill, dictating every engagement at will - with the average or learning player being on the defense every time.

You really think it's gonna be "motivating" for a learning player to be outclassed not only by skill but in every regard all the time? I don't think so. I don't think I would still play this game if I had to learn it that way. And we desperately need new pilots. People will drop out if they recognize they are probably not part of the 10% that are allowed to fly the best planes while paying the same sum as those guys and been put ino disadvantage against those guys all the time.

31 minutes ago, nugitxx said:

Think about what this imply also for an ace - the fear of loosing the plane, might actualy hamper his ability to dogfight like the lower tier pilot that has nothing to loose - because an ace would loose a lot, and a newbie in low tier fighter - nothing.

I'd say it's the other way around: Everybody else is allready hampered against the ace. So he will stack the kills with ease. You are not only punishing bad players, you are also rewarding good players. So they got a doubled bonus on their chances to stay on top. This is imbalance exemplified. What you should do is motivating the loosing player to keep trying so we can have a game, not punishing him for trying. And again: If a player doesn't get the higher tier planes just because he isn't that good, I would still ask the question why I pay this sum each month only to get put into disadvantage against som nerds who spent way to much time getting really good with this.

Edited by vanapo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

o if you are still learning the game, you will be one of the very few low skilled players (10-20%) flying a low tier plane.  And a lot of people would have access at least to the middle tier planes

You are forgetting that mid tier planes are also killing other mid tier planes (which would relegate other players to low tier planes).

I think that 60% low tier,  30% mid tier and 10% top tier would be pretty accurate.

 

Quote

As aces tend to spend more time in game as the average or worse pilot, the effect stacks even more.

Dont forget that aces will fight also against other aces...... just like mid tier vs other mid tier

It's not just 'aces + mid tier + top tier vs newbies in low tier'

 

Quote

You really think it's gonna be "motivating" for a learning player to be outclassed not only by skill but in every regard all the time? I don't think so.

That's how I learned to play every multiplayer game - at first you are always outclassed in skill by others.

A newbie in 'top plane' wouldn't do any better.

 

Quote

People will drop out if they recognize they are probably not part of the 10% that are allowed to fly the best planes while paying the same sum as those guys and been put ino disadvantage against those guys all the time.

You are talking about the '10 %' but you are forgetting about the rest of  90 %.

No one ever at start is the '10 %'.

 

Quote

Everybody else is allready hampered against the ace

This is not true, ask any plane player, a tier 1 plane can kill any top plane without a problem, it all depends on the situation and if the player knows what he is doing.

 

Quote

Would you should do is motivating the loosing player to keep trying so we can have a game, not punishing him for trying.

The one getting punished is the ace.

The newbie does not loose ANYTHING - he only gets more points to get to higher tier !

 

Edited by nugitxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this actualy helpes newbies

 

Because if 60% of players will be in low tier, newbies in majority will be fighting vs other low tier planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"points" should not unlock anything........your sub type should.

"points" could however be tied to ribbons or awards issued by the game.........not HC

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bmw said:

"points" should not unlock anything........your sub type should.

Pay to win?

 

Sorry guys but a proper game does not work this way.

You pay for the ability to play the game - not for having access to 'top planes'.

Access to 'top stuff' is earned by playing.

Otherwise it's just some pay to win balooney.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, nugitxx said:

This is not true, ask any plane player, a tier 1 plane can kill any top plane without a problem, it all depends on the situation and if the player knows what he is doing.

This is quite a romantic view which is plain true only if we talk about the general possibility. Yes, every plane with a weapon on board can kill any other plane. Is the skill of a pilot more important than the ride he is flying? Yes. Is the ability of the pilot the only factor influencing the average outcome of such an engagement? No. Can a skilled Blenheim pilot kill a FW190? Sure. Will he kill him in every engagement? No. Will the average pilot on the FW190 score more kills in less time than an ace in his Blenheim? Most definitely - because the plane is of importance after all. Skill is the most important factor because it will make you use your plane to its limits. If the advantage of the opposing plane is out of limits, it will tell you not to engage at all. But your example is even the other way around: Can the ace in the Blenheim shoot down the noob in the 190? Probably. Can the noob in the Blenheim shoot down the

ace in the 190 never ever. So don't restrict the worse player to the worse plane for life.

And what exactly is your answer to people who said, like I did: “I don’t want to fly a worse plane if I am paying full price just because my k/d ratio is negative”.

Is your answer to that really: “Well but he can lose his better plane - you don’t have anything to lose – so he is the punished one in this equation!”? Striking logic after which being poor is better than having a 1.000.000$ - who knows, you may lose it some day!

I don’t think we have to talk about this any further. You can ask the playerbase if they would actually like denying worse players the good equipment. I wouldn’t like shooting down struggling players in their worse planes. It’s just no challenge. And it would make engagements way easier to predict. He’s in a spitIX? I have to be carefull. He is in a Hurricane – poor fella, I would feel pity after bringing him down, so why bother at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, nugitxx said:

Pay to win?

 

Sorry guys but a proper game does not work this way.

You pay for the ability to play the game - not for having access to 'top planes'.

Access to 'top stuff' is earned by playing.

Otherwise it's just some pay to win balooney.

Everybody paying the same price and getting the same equipment is not "pay to win", it's equality.

What you are proposing is catering the 10% who are doing good with better equipment while 90% of the players have to pay the same and being locked out of the good equipment.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, nugitxx said:

 

 

The one getting punished is the ace.

The newbie does not loose ANYTHING - he only gets more points to get to higher tier !

 

I'm sorry but I'm unable to see good things in your continuous suggestions..... Personally, I dont care too much about "newbies" in the way  "let's make the game easy for them".

We all here were a noob once and we improved our skills dying a lot and, about all, playing a lot. There are plenty of games for casual moments or casual players.

If one player wants to be competitive in this game a lot of work and consistency is needed.

This game is not MAINSTREAM BS, KEEP THE GAME HARD AND REWARDING PLEASE.

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, vanapo said:

Everybody paying the same price and getting the same equipment is not "pay to win", it's equality.

What you are proposing is catering the 10% who are doing good with better equipment while 90% of the players have to pay the same and being locked out of the good equipment.

Totally.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can the noob in the Blenheim shoot down the

ace in the 190 never ever. So don't restrict the worse player to the worse plane for life.

60% of low tiers + 30% mid tiers would be meeting only around 10% of top tiers.

On 100 players, that is only 10 players out of 90. If you are in the 90 of players, the chance you will die by one of the 10 players is is very minimal (like I said, if you will die by an ace once every 2 hours i don't see nothing wrong with it)

 

I don’t want to fly a worse plane if I am paying full price just because my k/d ratio is negative

My answer is :

You are playing a real game where you have to earn stuff and not pay to win balooney.

 

You can ask the playerbase if they would actually like denying worse players the good equipment

No one is denied of anything, even worse players could buy better rides if they would not spend points all the time.

 

He is in a Hurricane – poor fella, I would feel pity after bringing him down, so why bother at all?

Plot twist: In hurricane is actualy an ace who is hunting for guys like you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, kase250 said:

 Personally, I dont care too much about "newbies" in the way  "let's make the game easy for them".

 

Interesting you say that, because Vanapo says the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vanapo said:

Everybody paying the same price and getting the same equipment is not "pay to win", it's equality.

What you are proposing is catering the 10% who are doing good with better equipment while 90% of the players have to pay the same and being locked out of the good equipment.

 

Nope, everyone has the option to buy everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, nugitxx said:
16 minutes ago, vanapo said:

Everybody paying the same price and getting the same equipment is not "pay to win", it's equality.

What you are proposing is catering the 10% who are doing good with better equipment while 90% of the players have to pay the same and being locked out of the good equipment.

 

Nope, everyone has the option to buy everything.

No. The 10% top guns out there will allways have the best equipment because, like you said, they have no problem earning it with whatever plane to begin with. The 90% of the rest is locked out of this and they have to grind for it to loose it quickly after they achieved it for a while. This is no option, it's just a "time tax" you have to grind trough. Again:

Everybody paying the same price and getting the same equipment is not "pay to win", it's equality.

What you are proposing is catering the 10% who are doing good with better equipment while 90% of the players have to pay the same and being locked out of the good equipment - most of the time, grinding for it with the worse equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No. The 10% top guns out there will allways have the best equipment because

Because they dedicated more time to play the game

 

Quote

Everybody paying the same price and getting the same equipment is not "pay to win", it's equality.

It's bad game design, in World of Warcraft everyone pays the same - but people do not get the same equipment, you have to earn equipment by playing

 

What you are proposing

What I'm proposing is a proper game mechanic.

 

You Vanapo just want to pay for the equipment without playing.

Edited by nugitxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, nugitxx said:

What I'm proposing is a proper game mechanic.

You Vanapo just want to pay for the equipment without playing.

You getting quite funny now, right? I said clearly what I want: everybody to get the same and balanced equipment after paying the same price so that only skill decides what happens afterwards with this equipment. That's how a ww2ol campaign works. Same price, same equipment for everybody. By no logic at all is this "pay to win" as you try to put it. Quite in the contrary. Everbody getting the same and paying the same is the OPPOSITE of pay to win. And what you are proposing actually is pay to win with the currency "game time".

51 minutes ago, nugitxx said:

in World of Warcraft everyone pays the same - but people do not get the same equipment, you have to earn equipment by playing

You know why that is? Because grinding for equipment is not the precondition of the actual game in WoW, grinding for equipment is the actual game in WoW - that's the core game mechanic the game is built around. I hope we don't end in a ww2ol where grinding is the core element.

And actually you are shifting focus all the time. First you said this would reward skilled/dedicated players that spend more time, then you said a skilled player will allways end on top anyways - so he will get the better equipment by default. No we are at "spending time to grind for equipment" for 90% of the players.

How does grinding for equipment work in a ww2 campaign setting? Well I could try to cap the point but I might lose my SMG while doing that. Better I camp somewhere to earn a lot of points killing trespassers. This is what you would emphasize to improve the gameplay?

Edited by vanapo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said clearly what I want: everybody to get the same and balanced equipment after paying the same price so that only skill decides what happens afterwards with this equipment.

So it's bad game design, if you will wonder why then no one plays the game, here is the answer.

 

Because grinding for equipment

You say like it's anything different to what is now - you grind points for rank.

 

I hope we don't end in a ww2ol where grinding is the core element.

lol, wake up call, you grind for rank all the time

 

How actually does grinding for equipment work in a ww2 campaign setting?

How do you play now? you would play the same (infantry is a different matter, i was talking about tanks/planes which are powerfull weapons compared to infantry).

There needs to be something else for infantry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, nugitxx said:

You say like it's anything different to what is now - you grind points for rank.

lol, wake up call, you grind for rank all the time

Much of the subscriber core...the long time vets...either are maxed out on rank, or don't care about rank. Very few of that player group play in the specific ways that would be efficient if they were grinding. Occasionally grinding behavior is seen in-game, always from a new player.

The subscriber core plays either for the enjoyment of battle (i.e. Type 1) or for side victory (i.e. Type 2).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Much of the subscriber core...the long time vets...either are maxed out on rank, or don't care about rank. Very few of that player group play in the specific ways that would be efficient if they were grinding. Occasionally grinding behavior is seen in-game, always from a new player.

The subscriber core plays either for the enjoyment of battle (i.e. Type 1) or for side victory (i.e. Type 2).

So remove rank

Rank only makes new players stay behind and makes them grind.

Edited by nugitxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nugitxx said:
1 hour ago, jwilly said:

The subscriber core plays either for the enjoyment of battle (i.e. Type 1) or for side victory (i.e. Type 2).

So remove rank

Rank only makes new players stay behind and makes them grind.

Obviously you don't take any argument serious if it's not your own argument.

We took some time to explain why your proposal might be a bad idea.  I explained to you in my first post how gaining basic game experience before you unlock the better units is ok, but permanent grinding is not. You still pretend there is no difference and now this.

I guess there is no need to discuss things all over again while you are putting your hands over your ears, shouting LALALALALALALALAMIRIGHT?!?!?!?!

Edited by vanapo
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

all over again while you are putting your hands over your ears

You are right, but you are the one shouting 'lalala' and putting hands on ears.

 

1) Rank = new players are left behind and have to grind(on what? other new players?), old vets cannot do anything anymore with rank and points are useless for them, they have everything unlocked all the time(which makes them club new players), basicaly rank is useless for old vets

2) no rank = everyone has everything the same without any grind right from the start

3) proposed point system = with every new campaign, everyone has equal chances to get the same equipment because everyone starts without anything, the only thing deciding how fast they get it, is their skill and how much they play - which is much more fair than point nr 1)

 

If you would realy mean that 'everyone should have equipment unlocked by paying because it's only fair' then you would be actualy advising for point 2 - removal of rank, if you do not advise point nr 2, it means you just want to be clubbing new players at point 1.

Edited by nugitxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.