Pages: 1

 

2005-10-18 14:26:01
Dizazter
Crazy has a mind of its own
+0|7085
Have a Global Officer Score and a Global Enlisted Score.

Global Officer Score = (2 x Commander Points + 2 x Teamwork points + .5 x Combat Points)
Global Enlisted Score = (Teamwork Points + 2 x Combat Points)

Now, you would get the higher of whichever rank you qualify for. So lets say you qualify for the 4th enlisted rank, but the 2nd officer rank, you would get the enlisted one. Additionally the officer ranks would have badge requirements.

So basically you could get yourself demoted to an enlisted rank if you start focusing on combat points over team work and commander points. Naturally all officers would out rank all enlisted for the purposes of getting the commander position.

Therefor those who focused on being a commander, teamwork score, and getting badges would more likely become officers.
Those who focused on being very effective in combat would become high ranking enlisted personel.

What do you guys think?
2005-10-18 14:35:08
]305[ Charlton
Member
+0|7031
i have no idea wth u r saying can u explain? im not trying to be rude
2005-10-19 05:05:38
Rosse_modest
Member
+76|7041|Antwerp, Flanders
I think it's a horrible idea
2005-10-19 05:16:11
beeng
Get C4, here!
+66|7051

Well I've already (almost) reached the highest enlisted rank... and theres no way in hell I'm spending the rest of my bf2 career commanding idiots... so I don't think your idea will fly with most players
2005-10-19 05:19:25
LT_W.J.Kamikaza
Eat C4 SUCKAH!
+0|7051|Netherlands
Don't get a word of it, sorry
2005-10-19 05:26:31
The Soup Nazi
Member
+18|7052|North Lauderdale, FL
it makes sense in theory.  this is how the game should've been crafted from the get-go.  give extra points to people who exhibit good teamwork.  unfortunately the majority of bf2 players don't follow orders or stick with squad leaders.  as a squad leader, i've only had a couple rounds where my squad stuck together and we actually played as a unit.

as it is now, about the only good thing about squads is that you can spawn on the squad leader, use voip with the rest of your squad and, if you're playing as the squad leader, you can send requests directly to the commander.
2005-10-19 06:38:54
Dizazter
Crazy has a mind of its own
+0|7085

]305[ Charlton wrote:

i have no idea wth u r saying can u explain? im not trying to be rude
Not sure how to rephrase it.
But basically, you have an officer score and an enlisted score. Whichever is higher makes you an officer, or an enlisted personel.

The point of it, would be to have separater ranks for different types of players, and encourage more team work, by have a special benefit for being good at commanding and leading a squad.
2005-10-19 10:13:26
Dizazter
Crazy has a mind of its own
+0|7085

beeng wrote:

Well I've already (almost) reached the highest enlisted rank... and theres no way in hell I'm spending the rest of my bf2 career commanding idiots... so I don't think your idea will fly with most players
Right, well they would have to do a complete overhaul of the ranks, which I'm sure would piss people off.
But the whole point of rank is to have a better chance of being the commander, right? Well if you dont like the commander role in this game, what do you care about being an officer?

Probably, like most people, you just want the title. But my whole point here is that officer ranks should be a reflection of your play style, not just a massive amount of points you accumulated from endless hours of gaming.

So really people are going to see you as a more "experienced" player having a high enlisted rank instead of a low officer rank. But the lower officers will have priority over you for commander position because that is their play style.

I think you, and others might see this as a punishment, but as in the real world, experienced enlisted personel get a lot more respect than inexperienced officers. (not that I'm striving for ultra realism in this idea)

Last edited by Dizazter (2005-10-19 10:15:55)

2005-10-19 12:59:53
dsb
Member
+0|7042
I think it's a decent idea but i don't see it getting implemented just because it's a bit complicated and would require a re-overhauling of a ranking system that was just overhauled.

Personally I'm not sure which I'd go for.
2005-10-19 13:21:13
Rosse_modest
Member
+76|7041|Antwerp, Flanders
Some kits derive a significant amount of team points through healing, reviving, resupplying, repairing and blowing up commander assets whereas other kits do not posess any of these built-in team point scoring advantages and are in themselves more combat oriented.
Wouldn't the system you're proposing put players who spend most their time as combat oriented kits at a disadvantage when it comes to applying for the commander seat if the ranks acquired with these kits are considered to be inferior?
2005-10-19 13:44:43
Dizazter
Crazy has a mind of its own
+0|7085

Rosse_modest wrote:

Some kits derive a significant amount of team points through healing, reviving, resupplying, repairing and blowing up commander assets whereas other kits do not posess any of these built-in team point scoring advantages and are in themselves more combat oriented.
Wouldn't the system you're proposing put players who spend most their time as combat oriented kits at a disadvantage when it comes to applying for the commander seat if the ranks acquired with these kits are considered to be inferior?
This ties into what I just posted.
Players that are combat oriented would rise up the enlisted ranks.

Players that are team work, commander, and badge oriented would rise up the officer ranks.

Keep in mind when you play commander, your kills count toward commander points.
2005-10-19 13:49:32
Rosse_modest
Member
+76|7041|Antwerp, Flanders
And people who play these combat oriented kits are thus less deserving of the commander role?
2005-10-19 13:56:39
(EWC)Zenine
Zibst3rZ
+1|7034
nice idea for the next BF game. not so hot for BF2...
2005-10-19 14:08:57
Dizazter
Crazy has a mind of its own
+0|7085

Rosse_modest wrote:

And people who play these combat oriented kits are thus less deserving of the commander role?
Generally wouldnt you consider the commander role to be the least combat oriented?
2005-10-19 14:21:27
Rosse_modest
Member
+76|7041|Antwerp, Flanders
Yes but the commander role has absolutely nothing to do with how you play when you're not a commander
2005-10-19 19:52:12
dsb
Member
+0|7042

Rosse_modest wrote:

Yes but the commander role has absolutely nothing to do with how you play when you're not a commander
You're more or less proving the point...The "combat oriented" players - in Dizazter's theory - would not be too concerned with commanding anyway...So kits like AT, Spec Ops, Assault, and Sniper would be more likely to be "out there on the front" where commanding doesn't really happen.  It may sound like they are "less deserving" but Dizazter's theory is that they would be "less interested." So if they are lower on the list of eligible commander's they won't care.

Last edited by dsb (2005-10-19 19:53:18)

2005-10-19 20:18:42
IronGeek
One Shot, One Kill
+4|7059|Canberra, Australia
A lot of people are shit hot combatants and useless commanders, especuially the ones that fly around in planes or fly helicopters.... 

Other are not so good at direct combat, and fantastic commanders.... I like the idea, but don't think it will work in this version of the game due to the major overhaul it would require...

Still great idea  --  Choose you Path to Glory  Thats why Command Master Chief is just a respected as Officers because he has done the hard yards and is a master of what he does......
2005-10-20 01:55:55
Rosse_modest
Member
+76|7041|Antwerp, Flanders
A medic would have more interest in commanding than an anti-tank player?
What kind of BS is that?

And Irongeek: just as many combat players are excellent commanders and just as many teamwork players are sucky commanders

Last edited by Rosse_modest (2005-10-20 01:58:28)

2005-10-20 07:09:22
Dizazter
Crazy has a mind of its own
+0|7085

dsb wrote:

Rosse_modest wrote:

Yes but the commander role has absolutely nothing to do with how you play when you're not a commander
You're more or less proving the point...The "combat oriented" players - in Dizazter's theory - would not be too concerned with commanding anyway...So kits like AT, Spec Ops, Assault, and Sniper would be more likely to be "out there on the front" where commanding doesn't really happen.  It may sound like they are "less deserving" but Dizazter's theory is that they would be "less interested." So if they are lower on the list of eligible commander's they won't care.
Thank you for doing a better job than me at explaining this!
2005-10-20 07:14:06
Dizazter
Crazy has a mind of its own
+0|7085

Rosse_modest wrote:

A medic would have more interest in commanding than an anti-tank player?
What kind of BS is that?

And Irongeek: just as many combat players are excellent commanders and just as many teamwork players are sucky commanders
As a commander using a combat oriented kit, I would think one of the two would suffer. Either you're not going to get many kills because you're spending more time commanding than if you were not a commander. Or you're not paying much attention to your commander role, and just being a good killer. Or maybe something in between. Point is, something will get lost. I'm sure there are those that will disagree with this, but for the most part I believe it to be true.

Where as with teamwork related kits, you can passively heal, resupply, even repair, while issuing orders, calling Arty, dropping supplies etc.
2005-10-20 11:03:33
Rosse_modest
Member
+76|7041|Antwerp, Flanders
Exactly for that reason I always use a medic, engineer or support kit when commanding but when I'm not commanding I use mostly anti-tank...
I still think it's an absolutely horrible idea
2005-10-20 12:38:06
Dizazter
Crazy has a mind of its own
+0|7085

Rosse_modest wrote:

Exactly for that reason I always use a medic, engineer or support kit when commanding but when I'm not commanding I use mostly anti-tank...
I still think it's an absolutely horrible idea
To each his own....
2005-10-20 18:47:49
The_Time
Member
+-2|7056|California
I like the idea but there are so many little things that are going to need to be changed it would be very difficult to make it work the way you think.
Just my opinion

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard