The present command rank system...

[Dr Nick]

...pisses me off no end. To make my point, I will use two examples-

1. The way I (try to) play : I choose my squad carefully, with every position filled, or as near as I can get. I do not follow the zerg, instead i go to the continents where there are 1 or 2 hotspots and the pop lock is at 100+. I use tactics, try to flank the enemy, use the backdoor etc, and perhaps most importantly, I make my squad stick together.

2. The way my 11 year old brother plays : FOLLOW THE ZERG FOLLOW THE ZERG FOLLOW THE ZERG PICK ANYONE STICK A WP LET MY SQUAD GET ON WITH IT DON'T CARE IF THEY START FIGHTING FOR DIFFERENT BASES.

Now whick of these two styles do you think should be rewarded most? Sadly at the moment the latter is vastly superior in terms of XP. Im always finding myself in a squad with a dumbass commander. That, I don't mind so much, i just quit after a while, but what does annoy me is that when i ask him what CR he is, and he says "CR3"

So here is my proposed solution - make the CPs for a base cap proportional to the number of deaths in the squad in the SOI, in the same time slices as for the normal XP system (i.e. the 25 minutes before the cap. Only about 20 - 30% of the XP would be affected, and it would obviously require a load of fine tuning. But I think it would work. It would encourage tactics, support classes and discourage mindless zerging. However the only real problem as I see it is that anyone below around BR 6 would find it difficult to get a squad.

What do you guys think?

[1024]

Sounds like it would work, althougth the devs would have to try it 10 other ways before going to a perfectly good one.

[ghost018]

I always liked the system they had in beta with the unique kills, but that lead to squads entering a sphere of influence with two minutes left on the hack but still receiving all of the experience. You can still use tactics within the larger battles though, that is, if you work with other squadleaders. But now that I think of it, the Command Channel never really was used for anything but the occasional "ANT's coming, right?" line before I hit CR5.

ghost

[Hertston]

Originally posted by Dr Nick
...pisses me off no end.

What do you guys think?



Changing the current awful XP system will help, but at the end of the day PS is a shooter with go-faster stripes and very little more. What needs doing on a strategic level is very obvious, and if people choose not to do it because they'd rather do their own thing, that's unlikely to change. It isn't WW2OL, the strategic depth isn't there, .... and any real leadership ability will be most useful at squad (or hopefully platoon) level. Above that it's a waste of time IMHO, except maybe for communication and organising transport.

I just don't believe, without gameplay revisions that would almost constitute a complete re-write, that PS really has the potential to generate and encourage any "real" leaders or command structure above the squad/platoon. CR3/4/5 depends now just on how much time you have in the hot-seat, and I can't see that ever really changing to recognise "ability" - it's the wrong game.

[Twiggy]

Actually I find there are some good commanders out there, on Markov, we the TR have Major Essex, is a great guy and great leader too, theo nly thing we really need for this game is an incentive for command, sure we can have a bunch of CR5's just fighting and hanging around, but there will always be a few in that bunch who'll take real command in a situation, and props to Essex for his great command on Cyssor a few days back.

[HawkEye]

i think xp system is fine.

[Tryndamere]

Well, if you recognize that you get more xp with the zerg, maybe bite the bullet for a month, get a bunch of 5k xp caps to raise your CR lvl, and THEN, you'll have the tools to really effectively implement your plans.

I've had to struggle with the same.

I consistently take my squads to strategically important bases, where there is little XP, but it goes a long way in determining which team wins at the end of the day.

[Tieom]

I always thought that CR should be a heirarchy.
For every 3 CR0s there should be a CR1.
For every 3 CR1s there should be a CR2.
For every 3 CR2s there should be a CR3.
Etc.
So for every 243 CR0s there is 1 CR5.
My invisioned system would work like this: Every (time period) there would be a vote. Each person gets 1 vote for every 100 CEP they've earned. Those who have earned less than 100 CEP get no votes. An individual can pile their votes on one person, or split them any number of ways. All the votes are then tallied, and the people with the most votes get the CR5 positions, then once those are filled the CR4 positions, once those are filled the CR3 positions, and so on.
This means the commanders choose who is going to command for the next (time period). Those who have popular support, or who have a large amount of CEP (assuming they vote for themselves), get high command ranks.
Commanders could abdicate - they choose someone from the next rank down to fill their place and drop down a rank.
There would be, of course, a "Same as last time" button, which would keep the splits in the same percentages among the same people. I imagine most people would contribute a percentage towards their outfit leaders.

[Hertston]

Originally posted by HawkEye
i think xp system is fine.

Huh ? It's totally killing the game.

The best way to accumulate XP fast is to solo (yup.. with anything but a pure support character anyway ), pick up the Zerg and follow it. You'll get 5k at each base without having to actually do or even shoot at anything - just get the timing right.

That CANNOT be right.... it should be based on what you do (a much higher emphasis on kills - and hacks/reps/medical too and much less emphasis on caps), and what your squaddies do. That includes some sort of reward for defense, which is currently badly lacking.

Real skill at the game should be rewarded, not just being in the right place at the right time.

[Cirkusphreak]

That CANNOT be right.... it should be based on what you do (a much higher emphasis on kills - and hacks/reps/medical too and much less emphasis on caps), and what your squaddies do.


I agree and disagree at the same time. I too feel that BP should be awarded more for merit and goals accomplished. Why should someone who runs around a base spamming 'fantastic' thru a battle, be entitled to the same bp's that other folks, whom are knee-deep in whoop-ass, are actually earning? I think that if your squad contributes to a base cap, then you all earn a slice of the cap pie. How much or how little you contribute, (support, defense, offense etc) determines your BP amount. The flip side of this though, is the lesser combat and/or support roles. If they're not allowed to get xp for squad members kills, then the xp they do get for their said jobs should be somewhat evened out. I mean, someone who's HA certed, slaughtering people left and right is going to rack up some xp, more or less. Someone who's a medic, or like me a dedicated sniper, aren't going to get the same amount of kills. So should we suffer penalties because we're not in the thick of it? Even though we are contributing to the cause, but in different yet necessary means. At the current status of things, the support classes kind of depend on the grunts for the majority of battle xp. Not all xp, because i've seen support classes liberally distribute ordinance as well. The hardest thing to determine are the thankless jobs people assume. How do you award xp for guarding an ams? or repairing turrets? Should these things be considered into what has been proposed by others as well as myself? If something was implemented to promote more activeness within a squad, I feel it would prevent those who 'don't carry their load' as much as others. Defending a base should take more involvement than waiting for the hack and having knife duels with your squaddies too.


:usa: