Rank Structure and New APL Games

[Poor Yorek]

Shad's recent appearance brought to mind something he wrote some time ago in the comments following a promotion announcement about the PGHQ rank structure and new PG games - that is, the number of available scenarios grows, but (so far) the rank structure has stayed fixed. TheDoctor and I were discussing how, in D&D, whilst the experience point differential grows as one increases in level, so too do the experience points awards (one is more powerful and thus overcoming more sophisticated and powerful monsters/obstacles): in effect, the same number of "encounters" leads to a level jump as one progresses. Here, a play is a play whilst the rank separations (plays to earn next rank) grow. NOTE: not a criticism, just thinking "out loud."

So we were talking about ways we might consider to accommodate this (if it were up to us) and thought, to the extent that anyone might care, to invite discussion.

1. Not broken, don't fix it: it will take a few ages of the universe for anyone to make it to 3-star or 4-star rank even as it is (Matt, Driddle, Beast and Nebelwurfer not withstanding!!). Get a real job, PY.

2. Expand the play-per-rank structure above currently held ranks ... that is, accommodate the anticipated scenarios from new/pipeline games into the plays required for LTC and up through the flag ranks.

3. Implement a newer, larger jump between bird colonel and brigadier general ... that is, keep the existing structure up through O-6, but make the promotion to brigadier general and within the general ranks very large jumps (least importunate to existing structure).

4. Shift the officer ranks (in terms of play requirements) by one by introducing the rank of Command Sergeant Major (like to Sergeant Major much as First Sergeant is to Master Sergeant) at the top of the enlisted ranks. This, of course, would be "problematic" insofar as a "demotion" would be involved ::ducks and covers:: That is, the plays required to be a 2LT now would make one a CSM, to be a 1LT would become a 2LT etc.

Right, well, I've finished my second cup of coffee and will go away.

[Matt W]

I can say, without any qualifications, that it will take an incredibly long time to reach the top end of the rank structure, therefore I have to say I support no change. While the universe of scenarios is expanding tremendously the pursuit of a rank increase remains very difficult, once in officer territory.

[Poor Yorek]

I can say, without any qualifications, that it will take an incredibly long time to reach the top end of the rank structure, therefore I have to say I support no change. While the universe of scenarios is expanding tremendously the pursuit of a rank increase remains very difficult, once in officer territory.

I should just clarify here that I am not advocating for a particular (or any) change: we were just following up on a thread of thought that Shad introduced a while ago.

It is daunting to think that I shall require roughly double my current plays to make 1LT and (roughly) treble them to make major. That should take me up to about retirement age, God willing I live that long.

I do think a CSM rank would have been cool, but ...

[Hugmenot]

I would prefer a point system that is based on the scenario size (number of units and length) but accept the system currently in place is very easy to understand and to maintain.

[waynebaumber]

I would like see points awarded for replaying the same scenario and of course any victory over Herr Hughes would mean double points.

[Michael Murphy]

I would like see points awarded for replaying the same scenario and of course any victory over Herr Hughes would mean double points.

I've played several hundred scenarios, including more than what I've recorded here. Of course I've encountered my share of scenarios I'd like to play again for one reason or another. I want to play them again but I don't. Why not, you may well ask. It's simple. Right now I need over 50 unique plays just to get to the next rank. Repeats don't count toward that goal.

Let me play my favorite scenario or that unsolved puzzle again, and gain points toward my next rank at the same time.

[Poor Yorek]

^, ^^

My guess is that: (1) the rank structure (for the site) was specifically intended to encourage play coverage vs. playing several smaller scenarios repeatedly (however interesting) and (2) the bounty system "rewards" repeated plays (albeit at a rate of diminishing return). The bounty system, of course, doesn't have much of a visual component to it like the rank or campaign ribbon schema.

Making the rank system coupled to the bounty point total would make "rank" tied not only to play in isolation, but contribution to the PGHQ community by means of the AARs. But, then, how does one rank (award points to) an AAR lest someone just enter a string of one-liner AARs to collect points?

I had to consider similar issues when, some years ago, now, I created and "ran" a fan-fiction site for devotee's of historical naval fiction set during the Napoleonic Wars (e.g. fans of the series by O'Brian; Forester; Pope; Kent and such). Of course, it was much more subjective rather than data driven as in PGHQ.

[campsawyer]

To be honest, the ranking system and the bounty system in PG has become quite boring. It does not change too much and I have not looked at it for about 3-4 months. No reason to, much like the sports standing until it gets close to playoffs.
The problem is there is no complying reason to follow it anymore. Just playing unique scenarios are not good enough. Mike Murphy pointed out about the replay issue, but there is also no credit for any campaigns as well. Need something to spice things up. What that is I don't have the answer to at the moment, but I just know the current systems are looking a bit old and tired and nothing to look forward to.

[Shad]

My guess is that: (1) the rank structure (for the site) was specifically intended to encourage play coverage vs. playing several smaller scenarios repeatedly (however interesting)

Precisely, since my long-stated ultimate goal is for every PG scenario to have a recorded play result, rating, and AAR for the benefit of future prospective players.

To be honest, the ranking system and the bounty system in PG has become quite boring ... Need something to spice things up. What that is I don't have the answer to at the moment, but I just know the current systems are looking a bit old and tired and nothing to look forward to.

Agree. This field is called Gamification. The primary goal, as always, is to encourage playing PG scenarios and recording the results here. I've some ideas for new gamification programs, but haven't written a line of code in almost 5 months due to real-life work responsibilities.

[Poor Yorek]

To be honest, the ranking system and the bounty system in PG has become quite boring. It does not change too much

A year or two ago, I suggested to Shad a modification to the campaign ribbon system to make it much more, well, "active." Folks would have earned a ribbon for five battles within any game/supplement and earned subsequent "repeat pips" in bronze, silver, or gold for further plays of 5, 25, 50. A gold Valor "V" would have represented completion of the game/supplement.

My thought was to provide much shorter-term rewards and a more visual representation of one's experience in the PG world. Two players might each have 50 plays, but one might have several ribbons (signifying play diversity), whereas the other only one, but with a gold repeat or Valor(completion) device (signifying play focus). Rank would still signify the totality of unique plays.

I gather this suggestion caused some debate amongst the Staff at the time and was dropped. Perhaps something like this could be reconsidered? My goal was to give new players something to show; to give veterans something to earn in the midst of the longer play separations of rank; and to have a visual "salad bar" that, at a glance, would suggest what the "Collection Status" does now.

PY