Carreers, Ranks and how they could improve overall gameplay

[sparow]

<Salute> Gentlemen,

Firstly, I did search. But after reading some posts - quite old - I tought that this concept was a bit different and deserved some "brainstorming".

We all recognise that, in some way, overall gameplay in AH main arenas tends to be a bit caothic. Nothing wrong about that. Also, AH is a very difficult MMOG to master, with a steep learning curve - several steep learning curves, actually - what may be quite frustrating to our newer members. Also, due to this mixed bag of experiences, many aspects of Aces High end up not beeing enjoyed both by experienced and inexperienced players.

What I suggest is well known and, IMHO, could have very positive effects in the community, in terms of organization, behaviour, evolution and - also important - early abbandonement by sheer frustration. My proposal is the creation of a Player Carreer and his evolution by way of Rank.

Before turning the flamethrowers on, please think with me: this would be something that would give some players some command and organization powers but would not force anyone to use them or abide to them; this would reward merit and seniority instead of pure performance; this would allow the gathering of the youngest around the most experienced, improving evolution and quality of gameplay. And I could go on and on.

Basically, we could define a formula, completely public, for carreer advancement and promotion through ranks, based on different factors like: number of years in AH of the handle, numbers of hours logged in the game, number of total sorties vs sorties landed.

To make it better, you could choose a Carreer in any of the armed forces currently represented in game, in each branch, with it's appropriate ranks. Rank would give progressive control over determined aspects of the game: one would allow you to create missions within your branch; other would allow you to control fleets; other would give you access to a sector or country board (order of battle) applet that would allow you to visualize all side players by branch, rank, squadron/squad and organize it.

At any point would any player be obliged to direct or be directed by means of ranking. Players abandoning a handle would lose his rank and carreer. Players not playing for a long time but with an active account and handle would not lose any rank, only keep the one they have.

What do you think about this?

Cheers,

[Chalenge]

The only benefit I can see from this would be to keep shades out... but 'command and organization powers'... I vote no. We have enough of that already. The downside is more people would experience the ego-crushing affects of teaching someone only to have 'grasshopper' join the dark side... again... no.

[guncrasher]

this would be better accomplished at the squad level.  U want a career, have your squad assign ranks, just like most squads did in AW.  Our squad went from 2nd Lt. to colonel or something like that and you would advance in ranks as u accomplished several tasks and your skill got better.  some people were section leaders,  CO, XO, you get my point.  each was assigned a task, which was pretty cool.  U want something like this, talk about it with your squad.  Or form a squad and follow your own rules.  the game currently allows for the squads to organize themselves as they see fit.

but I dont think it would be a good idea to follow your suggestions at the country level,  I mean what if people switched, would your career follow you as you joined the enemy ranks? In my opinion you would get shot, or at least made fun of in effigy  .       

good idea but not at this time and at the level you suggested 

semp

[Martyn]

This could have its uses - maybe an enhancement to the perks system. Only senior officers can take control of CVs. Lowest ranks can't create missions, etc.

[waystin2]

I understand your idea Sparow.  I must give it a no from me though sir.

[RaptorL]

I think the idea for organization of the countries could have a possitive effect to game play. Able to split forces in a joint cordination, of land sea, and air would be a good addition to the game.

[Lusche]

I think the idea for organization of the countries could have a possitive effect to game play.

And the positive effect would be what?

[APDrone]

If the rank structure limits, in any way, the type and/or availability of any aircraft, vehicle, ship, field availability, or mission building capability, then my answer is a resounding, definitive,  NO WAY.

WW2OL had something like that in place and I found it to be the most aggravating gaming experience in my entire life.  A perfect example of how NOT to do something. 

[Enker]

So, if I joined the digital USMC, I would be limited to flying only Marine aircraft, thus removing my ability to fly the P-40, P-39, Ki-61, Boston III, and Yak-9? I don't think I would like being limited to flying only F4Us, F6Fs, and F4Fs when I decide that I want to up from a base with an incoming NOE mission. Besides, think about the fellows who joined the Finnish Air Force; limited to Brewsters, Hurricanes, 109 G-2/6s, I-16s, and Ju-88s. Pretty limited in terms of choices.

[Spikes]

I like being able to fly what I want...

[guncrasher]

I like being able to fly what I want...

he never mentioned limiting the planes.

semp

[sparow]

<S> Gentlemen,

Thank you for your input. Let me defend my idea a little better.

In fact, rank would not limit you in nothing. Perks will, not rank. Rank would be something that only would give you some - rare - capabilities. Control a CV if your rank is high enough and you're doing a Navy carreer. Or creating missions if you were following an Air Forces or Army carreer. At a higher level you would be able to access a higher level of country oversight, beeing able to communicate with lower ranking players in order to create organized actions. That's all. This Carreer would not stop you from changing branches at will, they just not add advancement in that specific carreer. Also, you would carry your rank from a chess piece to another.

Rank would not give nothing more than the ability of putting your experience to good use without beeing imposed to you or other players.

What this would avoid would be bad fleet manouevers, bad planned and executed missions, un-coordinated defenses and attacks. If used. What would never, ever, could be seen as mandatory. Like the ability to jump from aircraft to ship or vehicle. That would never should be limited. For perked aircrafts or vehicles, perk system would be as it is, with his good and not so good limitations.

What I would like to see was more coordination, better planning, good execution. More quality and less gamey features. Experience over points.

I also found the rank system in WW2Online really annoying. But found other things worse.

The fear of teaching some tricks to a newby and watch him go away should not stop us from passing our experience to them.

I understand that the benefits may seem marginal, another burocratic non-sense. But maybe it worked in the long run. Maybe.

Thank you chaps.

Cheers,

[Chalenge]

I hate to say it but I will anyway.

I have all that now with the squelch command and 'bounce noobs off the cv' command. 

[Enker]

How would this work in say, the MidWar or Early War arenas? Would someone be able to control a CV even though they don't have a high enough rank, but there is no one online in that arena with a high enough rank either? Would the ability be defaulted to the next highest rank? Or would pilots in the Navy career be forced to attempt to capture a base without bringing the CV fleet within 8" range?

[Simba]

Wonder if it would take as long to make USAAF Captain as it did in Warbirds?

Good idea, Sparow, but I prefer the simple 'Noob'/'Non-Noob' ranking that's the present AH way.