Afterwind Ranks: An ignored aspect.

This is a good idea but heres the thing. It'll take at least a year to get to rank 12 (Unless your TopHats) so I really don't see a point in the whole thing restarting and doing it for another year.

Napisano przez Deray YG, 14.05.2012 at 20:10

This is a good idea but heres the thing. It'll take at least a year to get to rank 12 (Unless your TopHats) so I really don't see a point in the whole thing restarting and doing it for another year.

Cytuj:

With the Acquisition of each new rank and grade an SP bonus, upgrade, or something else is awarded. The creates incentive for the player, giving them a reason to continue playing.

(Lazy to make a quote):

To name each rank for better organization:

Rank 0 ~ n00b
Rank 1 ~ Private
Rank 2 ~ Corporal
Rank 3 ~ Sergeant
Rank 4 ~ Officer
Rank 5 ~ Ensign
Rank 6 ~ Lieutenant
Rank 7 ~ Commander
Rank 8 ~ Commodore
Rank 9 ~ Colonel
Rank 10 ~ Brigadier
Rank 11 ~ Admiral
Rank 12 ~ General

lol?

This idea is really stupid.
The rank dont means nothing.
I have seen players of level three playing very good.
And players of level eight dying like noobs.
Rank does not determine the quality of the player.

Rank = Time Played/Games Played.
No more.
You can have rank 12 and without games wons.

Rank = Time Played/Games Played.

nope, i have one of the best game to sp ratios out of everyone in afterwind.

i have averaged 1108sp per game if you include medals got, etc etc

There was a player who had about 90% of his SP just from friends... so how can the Rank show anything about his skill?

Its just for the "E-penis" nothing more, nothing less


Edit: Found it

Napisano przez Van Helsing, 09.05.2012 at 07:27

New afterwind sensation is ULAP member FARIN44 real friendly person he enjoy in this game and helping to became more popular
Invited users
368

If you are talking about Marcjr, he got 70k of his sp from referalls, but the rest of 400k from playing, and was probably one of the best beta players around.

You people look at the negative aspects of rank. If it really means nothing, than it should be removed immediately, as it's a cancer on the system according to the all-knowing raetahcodeupon. If you read my post THOROUGHLY, you would notice that the whole idea revolves around GIVING RANK A PURPOSE. There is absolutely no point to bring up your argument here as it is exactly why I made this thread; to give rank meaning, instead of representation of a person's playtime. Not to mention, give more incentive to actually play this game (More people play games for achievements/rankings/medals than people do to have fun, not to mention that "moving units back and forth" isn't exactly a "fun" aspect of this game). So please, cut it with the "Rank is just for people's e-pen0rs and will never have any meaning" bullshit. If rank really means nothing, than so does everyone's lives, as a persons gravestone is just a representation of what they did with their time, as our ranks show what we did with ours.

Updated the main post!

I like your idea Gardevoir, it gives the game a new light, kind of copying the Modern Warfare thing tho. However, you shouldn't mix the officer ranks and the enlisted ranks. Since we all command armies, I suggest we all get officer ranks.

I vote we base it off the US military ranking of the officers

Napisano przez Cthulhu, 16.05.2012 at 16:28

I like your idea Gardevoir, it gives the game a new light, kind of copying the Modern Warfare thing tho. However, you shouldn't mix the officer ranks and the enlisted ranks. Since we all command armies, I suggest we all get officer ranks.

I vote we base it off the US military ranking of the officers

Thank you for your input.

If we base it off US military ranks, it would be quite boring (and not stand out so much). The current ranks are based on mainly western army ranks. Copying Modern Warfare? I can see starting over being similar to prestige, but not much than that. What do you mean "Mix officer ranks with enlisted ranks"? Many games do this, and it makes more sense to use military terms in a correct order. If we all started out as Lieutenant, it wouldn't make much historical sense.

Honestly your idea is nice...
But useless.
I prefer to improvements in the battle system, in units, in things during a game.
New types of games, new options to custom scenarios.

And not in a shity upgrade of ranks, actually rank only discriminates players.

Napisano przez raetahcodeupon, 17.05.2012 at 05:07

Honestly your idea is nice...
But useless.
I prefer to improvements in the battle system, in units, in things during a game.
New types of games, new options to custom scenarios.

And not in a shity upgrade of ranks, actually rank only discriminates players.

It adds incentive. Incentive is what this game needs. I honestly never saw any reason to become "addicted" to this game for this reason, you get nothing out of it. Rank apparently means nothing, so then so does SP and upgrades in general, which makes it seem as though this game has no value to it. Giving players many things to do gets them hooked. Look at TES5: Skyrim or Minecraft, both have endless tasks and many things to do, and were the top two games from 2011. Giving rank incentive would get many people hooked. Ever play Call of Duty? They have similar ranking structures (Most FPSs, and games in general do nowadays) to the one I proposed. Ever play Final Fantasy or AdventureQuest? They are RPGs, but they also have this similar class and incentive system. SP in general is a waste of time at the moment. Sure, upgrades are nice, but the only thing I would advise to buy is anything related to Sky Menace, everything else being useless compared to it. We can no longer improve the battle system, we have twice. If we were in Beta, this would not be the case. But because of AW being fully-released, dramatically altering gameplay is a no-no. There are no more Base units that can be added, and rares will always be added when an idea comes up for one. "Things during the game"? Explain this more. "Rank only discriminates players"? No. Not at all. Only overly-obsessed, ego-maniac, high-ranks ever knock you for your rank. I've been a rank 8 for six or so months and never had a problem. Sure, I'd love to be rank 9, as the symbol is orgasmic, but as I've pointed out, I have no drive to get there; no incentive. I can see some newbies being pushed around for their rank, but if they stay in the Beg's lobby, everything should be hunky-dory.

I've wanted to make this post for a while and I finally got around to it. If you want to reply, read the whole post without omissions first or you won't get the message. And no, just reading the last few paragraphs won't cut it.

---

Why break them down into four categories? You can always limit who joins a game and 4 separate lobbies would mean no-one would ever get to play, not to mention it adds unneeded complexity for a person that just got introduced to the game (don't assume everyone was a hardcore gamer beforehand).

Wouldn't an SP bonus be irrelevant? The whole ranking system is based on SP anyway, so you might as well remove that extra 100 SP needed for the next rank instead of offering a bonus. For anyone that can look through this "incentive", the whole scheme would look really, really cheap and would probably lower their estimation of the game.
If you're thinking of just adding SP as disposable income (in the upgrades menu), I think that's a bad idea too. At this point, arbitrary numbers begin to define who is strong and who isn't. What does arbitrary mean? In layman's terms, it's setting yourself silly goals like having 100 children, only because the number sounds kind of cool.

I don't think upgrades should be unlocked. I do think though that having ranks for every strategy is a pretty good idea--though there should be a visual indication of rank for each strategy or the whole system would be useless. Puzzle Pirates does something similar with every "skill" and it works brilliantly.

I wouldn't much fancy adding some names to them. Especially ones you can't change. And "n00b" and even "Ensign" sound pathetic, I've always hated being given ranks. They effectively mean you're treated like dirt for most of your game time. Just my opinion though. I just don't think they add any flavour to the game except a bit of an excuse to troll.

I wouldn't like to have an ugly symbol like a + sign next to my name, or any symbol at all for that matter. Just look at the Stick Arena Ballistic display of each name in the lobby; your eye quickly starts to ignore the ranks by nature. They're a visual distraction and only seem to serve to take your attention away from the content at the end (that is, the text the player has written in the chat).
And why restart levels over? Because COD does it? Prestiges mean nothing; in fact, they're the very problem you spent so long arguing against--they're literally just about prestige, because the game offers no new content at that point. But anyway, read on to the end to see why these things are important (but not prestiges, they're silly).

Regarding TrueSkill:

Cytuj:

TrueSkill is patented, and the name is trademarked, so therefore it is limited to Microsoft projects and commercial projects that obtain a license to use the algorithm.

And ELO is fine anyway. TrueSkill adds a bit more depth, but for the most part ELO does its job and TrueSkill only changes the algorithm. The concept of player skill being measured by wins, losses and draws overrides both of them.

---

Anyway, I would disagree that rank means nothing. Rank is what earned zizou his legendary status. Rank indicates experience--not necessarily translating to ability to play the game, but indicating the fact they have been around for a while. Most of the high-rankers (9+) are well-known in the community, and rank reflects their status. That's why I spoke of visual indications above, or rank would be useless; rank exists solely to add to a player's prestige, and the meaning of the word is built around this idea. Don't confuse rank with skill.

And you know what? Recognition for your hard work is an important motivator in the workplace, just as it is just about anywhere else, even in an online game. You may not have incentive due to this reason, but most people are motivated by the status they gain, because people look at their rank and think "hey, this guy has such a high rank he can probably own everyone, I'd better ally him!". And so on.

In summary; there could be one or two more incentives for ranking up, but it really is fine as it is. You're missing the whole point of the ranking system: it is all about sucking your own dick, or others admiring it, then you sucking it harder due to your increased motivation. It doesn't reflect skill. Just ego.

@Victoria,

TopHats is deleted. The best player is deleted. Nooo qq

I remember when he destroyed TDFall (lvl 8 or 9 or 10), another lvl 7, a lvl 4, and a lvl 8 in one turn. oof that was horrible...

Support, i need this.

I like the idea, but it could be improved with unlockables with each rank, (no not SP unlockables) small bonuses for being a higher rank, like less money to buy one unit (get to select a unit, excluding air transport) but I don't like that it has to wipe the ranks to do so.