Just a thought and wondered what people would think about this. Personally, I think it would be better if they did away with the ranking system, but keep the experience building the same. I say this because if not for trying to continue to climb in ranking, I would solely play with countries I want to play with, other then having to play with say the Germans because that is the only way I can become a Marshall. I only played with the allies and until about 6 months ago was basically winning as much as losing, but managed to grind my way to ranking of 227. Then shit changed and I immediately lost (er shall I say got my ass kicked) 20 straight matches to drop me to 207. So, I was either forced to keep declining in ranking, or start squads with other countries, and since the Germans were kicking my ass I jumped on board. So, I took no time at all to climb to Marshall. So, why not get rid of the ranking system so people can play who they want and not have to just figure out which country is trending now. They can still get silver coins and get their troops experience points. Just a thought and am interested in hearing your thoughts, good or bad. I know the makers would hate this idea because it would cause people to spend less money. Case in point, I only had US squads which I never spent a dollar to build, but did not want to have to spend a year grinding with the Germans so after several hundred bucks, they were up to par. So, Gaijin would lose money, at least from me. 
What is your point of climb in ranking? If you are for the sake of the rank, just ignore it. If you are for the reward of the rank, remove the ranking system will have no reward at all.
Military rank?
I thought that I only needed enough badges to get enough points to continue climbing up in a losing streak.
ranking now is mostly for show. It contribute nothing to the gameplay. It’s there to “reward” regular players so in general, a pretty but useless badge
I think it needs revising, that’s for sure. From what I’m seeing is people chase the rank (and the silver). The higher rank gives silver (upon attaining it), so that’s some incentive right there.
Incentivizing games (in general) is important for a game’s success. I agree with you insofar as the ranking system seems an odd way of doing it. I think it’s helpful in some ways just to get an idea of the skill level of the players and how long they’ve been playing. (It’s no guarantee, obviously, as I’ve seen matches where you’d think people who’d played the game for a year would do obviously intelligent things - and they don’t.)
Just like getting a high score in a match does not necessarily mean the player was working as a teammate and helping to get a win.
I definitely think that the Devs should think about basing silver distribution, primarily, as a level of the match being played. It would incentivize playing in the higher tier matches. Instead, if one of the primary ways of getting silver is simply based on how many kills, or how many head shots, etc - they are incentivizing higher skilled players (those with “gold” ranks) to bottomfeed.
The veteran and regular players that are on top of the score board and have the most impact on the battle usually get that 300 points easily under the 90 and potentially more days so it’s not really ranks they care about, some no life tryhards get Marshall in a week after new BP.
The real issue is the juicy 50% victory bonus that is cumulative with battle hero, booster and premium bonus. Veterans don’t really care, but regulars often become victory farmers because that is the quickest way to grind a TT.
One faction doing better than the other starts a snowball that can last months which isn’t really fun for anyone.
IMO the easiest solution is reworking the bonuses or outright removing victory bonus.
nah… dont remove them… just also add them for losing side.
Yeah, I find that on many matches at least half the other’s team members are not trying to meet the objectives and are out roaming the countryside merely looking for kills. Example, and I have used this before but when guarding your target so the enemy will not blow it up, and 2/3 of the time it seems like I am THE ONLY one anywhere near protecting the objective. So, if there is no rank incentive, and no additional silver incentive from obtaining higher rank then maybe (and that is a big maybe) others will actually be motivated to achieve the objective, which theoretically would make the matches more competitive.
yeah, change it to a game completion bonus rather than a win bonus. The win bonus incentivizes nation stacking.
As for the rank system, i wouldnt be opposed of getting rid of it … replace with a BP challenges that reset for the rewards instead. Would make it more interesting, depending on the challenges provided.
Yes, good point. I’ve done the same thing. For instance, on A-B-C matches (three objectives that change hands based on capture) there’s usually an objective nearer to each side.
There’s zero incentive (except winning the match) to hold an objective. You get points for re-capping it, and you don’t get points for protecting it.
There have been a few times, when I just want to finally win a match, that I’ll go ahead and defend a capture point. In other games [E.g. not Enlisted], they reward defending and it was common to strategize on the concept.
The A-B-C matches are also good as they don’t have the common “oh, another defending match, UGH” preconception. You can attack and defend.