Adding a progressive element to individuals 'gameplay'

[bigmoose332]

Edited post to be more to the point...

I think you should only be able to be a SL or Commander based up the amount of time you have played and the amount of 'TEAM POINTS' you have(note.. nothing to do with kills.. simply points from capping flags, working as a team etc etc).

This is by no means a suggestion to deter new people, or make the lives of 'vets' easier. It's merely a suggestion for a more realistic perception of progression within an arcade environment.

I think PR would benefit from taking advantage of the statistics engine on the game. It's by no means a 'run and gun' game. And I can envision people getting a higher rank as a result of their success would really inspire people to improve.

I dont mean 'get 100 headshots and you get a rocket launcher' or 'get nukes for winning 100 matches'. This is nothing to do with points = unlocks.

For example.. you can only lead a squad after playing for 'x' hours.. you can only command after being a SL for 'x' hours..

PR has definitely been around now for a long enough so that there are already, im sure, 100s of 'active SLs' who wouldn't be damaged by such rules.

This will force those who are actually leading the gameplay to more realistically portray how the game was intended to be played.

What ya'll think?

Bigmoose

edit:

This idea was never related to physical unlocks. I'm not saying people with different stats should get different weapons.

This is purely related to the roles people play (i.e. commanders and SL)

It's nothing to do with stopping 'noobs' from using sniper rifles.

[Su34]

This would be useful especially for special kits like sniper or pilot to prevent unexperienced ppl. from destroying worthful assets.
Maybe you can geht the Pilot-Permission-Batch only on training-server...

[arjan]

I think you need to use the search function

[killonsight95]

even if its a re-suggestion I really think it should be reconsidered, for the reasons in second post xD

[maarit]

yeah something like that would be nice.pr needs some bigger goal what keeps you interested without that devs work theirs ass off every 6 months.
but its ok to me that devs make patches everytime when first thread"is pr loosing interest?" comes to the forums.
im just thinking about devs.

[rampo]

Originally Posted by maarit

needs some bigger goal what keeps you interested without that devs work theirs ass off every 6 months.

Though they worked all the time

But i don't support ranks in PR since it may bring up alot of grievers and padders

[Tofurkeymeister]

<agonized cry> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! </agonized cry>

The idea isn't horrible, its just that PR is not designed around the persistence concept. One of the main reasons I play PR is that I can play at any time, with everyone being just as good as me. No one is better because they have a higher rank, everyone is truly equal. Because of this, PR is friendly to new players and veterans alike.

The persistence concept is not horrible, but some people hate it (Me included, COD4/BF2142 FTL). I just don't think PR is the right game for it, even if it is only used for leadership positions.

[BogusBoo]

I totally agree with the idea of progression through experience and acheivement.

i mean, you would have experienced players as squad leaders (hopefully) and people who want to take the game seriously!

very good idea even if it has been re-suggested.

[arjan]

Still, this has been disscused plenty of times.

[Tit4Tat]

leading or being in the 'best squad' after each round does me fine rank? nah..