There’s nothing wrong with having a bunch of battles, but equipment that needs to be acquired over and over again, each of which is not interlinked, not even with the level of each battle, doesn’t make the game live long, don’t you understand
There are too many existing problems that make this not a very good idea. Much of the time when I spawn into a game I hear something like “the enemy has planted the bomb!” before I even am in. 90% of the time I immediately desert that. Others would like to filter out by game mode or map - and should be able to. I’d rather stay a private than spend my time spawning into battles that are massively disadvantaged and/or in a game mode I’m not interested to play.
3 Likes
Please make server congestion visible before developing such a system, or create an environment where people can comfortably play games no matter when or from which server they start.
Just because people get weird when you rank them. Like I said initially, I think this COULD be toxic enough to be annoying, but generally I am looking forward to it.
That’s what it looks like. Particularly if you get awards like best assaulter or best tanker.
Hi Keofox, I’m understand meaning of new Ranking system. It´s only about to motivate players to stay in battle. But Tell me, dont you thing that The problem is somewhere else than in players? Do you realy thing that is fair or funny to play 8vs2? Others members are bots… Players will leave anyway or will be pised of every time they will have to stay in unbalance match because of rank. Please Focus on map Desing, Pathfiding and MM first. Players will not have reason to leave match anymore.
8 Likes
just had game where 8 ppl from my team left match vs enemy full team. and my incentive to stay in match for 20 more minutes getting pounded by enemy are 0.
A buffer of some kind is needed to allow for some quitting of rounds such as X amount in so many completed rounds or time played etc…as your coding is far from perfect on many fronts. Such as still spawning in scenery, your lemmings being 100m+ away doing some random shit instead of following you, the distinct lack of balance in match making to name just a few.
1 Like
This whole Military Rank thing tries to incentivize people to stay in bad matches instead of fixing the reasons for bad matches.
The main reason why bad matches happen is because the game creates a new lobby every 60 seconds or less in each campaign. If there are only 1-2 human players on each side in the queue, the game adds bots to the lobby.
But it’s just physically impossible for every player in the world to be put in a fresh lobby every 60 seconds in 5 different campaigns and 10 different queues.
That means that during your average 20-minute fight the game has created at least 20 lobbies in this campaign and 100 lobbies across all campaigns.
Is it reaistic to assume that all 100 simulataneous lobbies can be populated with real players?
I don’t think so.
Solutions:
-
Permanent servers with a browser instead of disbanding single-match lobbies.
For references, look at BF4/1/V: you have servers with map rotations. The first match you join there might be ongoing, but the second match will start right after the first one ends, and henceforth you will start each match from the beginning.
This would also ensure that more human players would be grouped together in this onging server rather than splitting them across numerous new lobbies.
Additionally, not disbanding the lobby after each game would keep the players together and allow you to keep playing with the people you like, or switch server if needed. Obviously, you’d be able to leave at any point just as well.
Such servers may be single-campaign servers or [Mixed] where maps from all campaigns would be chosen randomly, however the factions would be relevant to such maps.
This is the primary solution I see. Though if it’s impossible due to game code restrictions: -
“Join any campaign, any faction” matchmaking option with XP boost.
Self explanatory, has been suggested numerous times. Select all or several campaigns. Would allow players who prefer playing against real humans in random campaign over bot farming in their preferred campaigns to join together.
Again, preferrably without lobby disbanding, just keep the maps rolling. -
“I agree to wait as long as it takes for a full human lobby” matchmaking option.
Personally, I would remove bot-controlled squads from the game entirely, since in their current state they contribute nothing and are only an annoyance.
But if all abovementioned fails, at least I would like to see an option to avoid playing with/against bot squads and give those who are ready to wait 2,5,7 minutes instead of under 60 seconds a chance to have a competitive human lobby. -
Preferred gamemode/map options.
For those who leave because of ‘bad’ gamemode or map, just allow them to be placed in such matches less frequently - not never because we still need the playerbase even for such matches.
3 Likes
just add simple system. 4-5 games in a row won means rank up… 4-5 games lose (include abaddon) in a row means derank. is it hard?
I suppose matches will have a HARD time limit then, invasion matches can last for 124 minutes
30-40k with premium and a win.
This is a terrible idea. Too many bots, and too much teamwork required.
This is an interesting idea, BUT it can also lead to unpleasant consequences, unwanted by its Creators, if not implemented wisely.
I mean this : after the coming of this new Military Rank System, in order to avoid Players madly rushing on enemies like a “Swarm of ants on sugar” (aka “I need Rank Points at ALL COSTS : no matter if i die 1000 times !”) , thus creating an ARCADE-like gameplay (=LOW Quality 
) where Players just don’t care of the number of Soldiers lost, MUCH CARE should also be invested in the creation of a NEW Algorithm to smartly evaluate the performance of the Player 
Killing 100 enemy soldiers but losing 10 teams imo should be rewarded LESS than killing 20-30 enemies while losing just 0-1-2 teams.
→ So, let’s also create a smart Evaluation Algorithm of Player’s results during the Battle, to avoid a “TOTAL ARCADE” behavior of Players during battles (because that “Arcade-behavior” would weaken Realism and Credibility).
Section M
So how do you suggest quitting a game should impact rank?
“So how do you suggest quitting a game should impact rank ?”
Here I agree with the Devs : quitting(=“DESERTING” : as quitting is literally defined ingame) should be “somehow penalised”.
After all, in real world, DESERTION of a soldier is very heavily penalised.
1 Like
You mean camp with snipers or radiomen or with tanks and planes? Is that what you mean?
Go play in custom matches with friendly fire on if you want that. I know we have the “Like” option on a post but can we get a “hate” option for dumb ideas like this one?
2 Likes
rrrriiight.
so, i have to be punished for basically carrying a game while trying to slow the opponents down because my team don’t or can’t do what i do ?
mhhhhh…:
no.
2 Likes
“Killing 100 enemy soldiers but losing 10 teams imo should be rewarded LESS than killing 20-30 enemies while losing just 0-1-2 teams”
Hi All 
,
by that sentence I mean that we should try to increase Realism, not mere “camping”, although i understand someone’s fears. But here I will give my point on this avoidable risk.
My mean Goal is just to reduce plain rushing of many Players towards enemies positions, without considering losses, UNLIKE in Real Life Combat.
Because Losses, in Real World, are very very important, while evaluating the Battle results.
So i think that also the number of losses suffered by the Player in battle should be taken into account while evaluating the Player’s Overall Performance.
**Currently, the number of losses is merely mentioned in the final table, but it doesn’t matter at all. **
**I criticize this as lack of Realism, I do not intend to promote “camping” per se, but to promote instead a bit more of Stealthness and Skill in using weapons. **
I also add that, especially by the soon coming binoculars, “passive camping” can be countered easily.
→ So we can find a smart compromise , where also the Number of Losses suffered by the Player will somehow count in the Final Evaluation. Like in Real Life combat…
Section M