I think that adding in additional ranks/levels into the game would greatly increase it's longevity. If any of you have played Halo/CoD/Battlefield you know what I'm talking about. For example, here is a look at the ranks for Halo 3:

[img]http://forcedisconnect.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/800px-All_Halo_3_Ranks_Remade.jpg[/img]

The amount of time I put into this game to rank up was ridiculous. It continually gave me the incentive to try harder and get better. Seeing my rank increase always provided a sense of accomplishment that kept me coming back for more.

Currently, there is a cap of 20 in Brink. I know that their purpose was to encourage the creation of multiple characters and experience every class, but once you put in a fair amount of time into that character, do you really want to start back from the beginning? I agree with not being able to gain enough points so you can buy every ability. However, we should be able to redistribute points without penalizing us one point per redistribution. This would allow us to have time playing each class without having to start over.

So, my proposal is to keep the amount of points we get at 20, but add in additional ranks for aesthetic purposes.

What do you think? Discuss :talk:

Edit: I feel this post should be added to the OP:

I agree that netcode, lobby system, and other things like that deserve priority. This can be added in once the wrinkles are ironed out. If it's worth nothing and provides no advantage in terms of game play, then does it really matter to those who are voting no? It can simply be ignored. This would satisfy a certain demographic without affecting others.

You mean how people forget about the game every year because they're forced to buy the newest one?

Counter Strike. Ever hear of that game? In case you haven't, it's the world most played PC game, and more than likely the world's most played game period. it NEVER had levels. NEVER had character progressiong. Up until recently, NEVER had K/D stats, NEVER had achievements. You just played. All of your stats were gone after a round. There wasn't anything to brag about except the pure experience and fun, and it's been alive for TWELVE YEARS.

And you're asking us to take a page out of Call of Duty, where its gams only live two years at the maximum? No. Just no.

I like it the way it is.

How would more ranks/levels increase the longevity of the game? This isn't WOW, its a shooter, you play to play.

you never have a cap on xp earned, just sayn, thats pretty much the same things as infinite ranks

For the record, I am not a Call of Duty fan, I just used it as an example because many have played it. I too hate how a new one is released every year. I hope that Brink is able to break that trend. Adding in ranks that take a long time to reach would help the cause. The game play is great, which should come first in a FPS. As far as Counter Strike, I have never played it but I hear it is really good so I can't really talk about that. I do know it has been out a long time. I see no reason why we should not be able to see the fruits of our labor in terms of ranks and other stats.

Yes, I agree that game play comes first and video games should be played for fun, but it gives people something to work for while providing positive reinforcement for their time spent on the game.

Perhaps, but just seeing a plain number that barely changes visibly over time is kinda dull.

But.. doesn't winning or doing well provide positive reinforcement? I never needed levels or whatever long ago playing Tribes or TFC or whatever.

Levels and unlocks and achievements, I understand the extra psychological boost they provide, but I mean... winning should theoretically provide the same.

Maybe once people can check their online stats and can compare e-wangs people will have something to strive for.

If not additional ranks/levels atleast show us how much exp we earned! I got to level 20 recently and after a match i just see the leveling arrow with 0 EXP on both sides...

Of course winning is a very big feel good factor in games, but adding in additional ranks can't do any harm right?

Who would vote no? "I don't want more content, content is a bad thing. Give me one gun and I'm good. Screw unlocking things I can't keep up to 20 levels" who would not want more?

Exactly. This game has soooo much potential. I'm looking forward to the DLC and title update. Ranks would make great additional content.

That's a very generalist view of it. People who vote no aren't saying that, they are saying that ranks mean next to nothing. In most games the only point ranks have is to unlock things and mild bragging rights, but after a certain time everyone is max rank anyway. I MUCH preferred the way they did the unlocking system via challenges. I'd like more of them to be honest for colours of weapons or whatever.

Also, this game is pretty much Wolfenstein : Enemy Territory. If you've never played it, that game was nearly completely catered for competitive and clan play. Certain parts of certain levels just couldn't be completed without a good team working together. This game is much the same, it's about teams (I'd like to see more in terms of clan support, but I imagine for the first few weeks it's fine without it) and not about endless grinding for a pointless level.

Yes, achieving something does make a 'feelgood' vibe, but at the same time it's cheap and worth nothing. Especially if there is no content to unlock after lvl 20. It's just the added waste of time really when they could focus on things that matter.

I agree that netcode, lobby system, and other things like that deserve priority. This can be added in once the wrinkles are ironed out. If it's worth nothing and provides no advantage in terms of game play, then does it really matter to those who are voting no? It can simply be ignored. This would satisfy a certain demographic without affecting others.

Sure, as long as they are just arbitrary numbers.

B 2the ump.

I think that more ranks would be great, and have symbols like halo. BUT, after level 20, you no longer gain ability points. I have engineer and operative maxed out, and I feel it would be slightly unfair if an entire team could just switch to epic soldiers or epic operatives or epic engineers. Think about 8 caltrops grenades thrown right in front of the exit of your base. Not cool. How about 16 mines, and 8 gatling turrets? Also not cool. Flying molotovs, nade launchers, lobsters, e-z-nades, flashbangs, and satchel charges all at once?

No.

No more ability points. More ranks. No more numbers. More symbols.

And, team chat in standard matches. But anyways.

NO. MORE. ABILITY POINTS.

Yes, I agree. I have that in the OP.

Another thought: The truth is, many people only buff each other to get XP. Once they reach top rank many of them will no longer put in the effort to buff their teammates. Yes, I know it is as simple as pressing a button, but that is just too much work for some people.

Yeah, just something that will reflect our time on the game.

There aren't 20 "ranks" - there are 20 "levels" - there are only 5 "ranks."

What I want, personally, is something which tracks your average XP per session. Another idea would be to use a similar setup to the Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood "Templar Grade" system. With that, your top 3 scores are added together each week, then added to a running total that has a 25% decay each week. It's broken down by mode in ACB, but that wouldn't be as necessary in Brink, because of how the game works. It effectively tracks a running approximation of your best 12 scores of the month, with the odd high-scoring spike or low-scoring week having a lasting impact (but one which gradually decreases over time).

It's a much better idea than just making players level and rank keep increasing without rewards, because it encourages people to keep playing long-term, and because it measures player skill far better - rank and level in games like this are more about how long you're playing the game for than about how good you are. I'd rather they track something meaningful and tell us about it.

Also, I voted "no" - I would have voted "Other suggestion" if it had been an option.

If I'm reading this correctly, it is similar to The Arena system in Halo Reach where it calculates your best scores in a certain number of matches then assigns you a rank, or "division." I personally am all for a system that displays skill level, along with an overall rank. Like I said in the OP, I put in my time on Halo 3, and I can say it was mainly the 1-50 Trueskill system, in conjunction with overall rank, that challenged me to become a better player.

But the thing is your 1-50 skill level dictated your overall rank. I would not mind either way if they were dependent or independent of each other.

To sum up: I like the idea of adding in a skill system, a lot actually, and also add in more ranks, whether or not skill level dictates those ranks. It would keep players coming back, as you said.

Bumpity bump...

With the number of people asking about the online stats site, I think the same people would like to have more ranks.