Rank Structure and New APL Games

[campsawyer]

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

Interesting, but I guess I am feeling that I have become more interested in the different ways of playing rather than the accumulation plays. For instance, as of my last few games I have been more interested in the river crossings. All the good, bad and ugly of them. Also I am liking the campaigns,despite the time that it takes to play. The accumulation of plays for ranking, bounty and ribbons has fallen to a secondary concern.

[Poor Yorek]

Interesting, but I guess I am feeling that I have become more interested in the different ways of playing rather than the accumulation plays. For instance, as of my last few games I have been more interested in the river crossings. All the good, bad and ugly of them. Also I am liking the campaigns,despite the time that it takes to play. The accumulation of plays for ranking, bounty and ribbons has fallen to a secondary concern.

There are twenty-three (23) "Battle Types" identified at PGHQ including river crossing. Of course, most scenarios involve or have descriptors of more than one type, but perhaps one might devise a system of "combat badges" that fit these already defined types. Perhaps there might be a "river crossing badge" in bronze; silver; gold for playing 10; 25; 50 of that type. Ditto for the others (or, perhaps, require larger targets for more common types (e.g. urban assault)).

If tangible "gamification" devices are useful for motivation, perhaps something like this might serve whilst utilizing site infrastructure that already exists?

[Shad]

PY, you're heading down the same path I have in mind.

[vince hughes]

For instance, as of my last few games I have been more interested in the river crossings. All the good, bad and ugly of them.

A scar left by Slovak forces no doubt

[vince hughes]

Going on from what PY and Alan have mentioned, I guess my involvement with Brett in the C&C2 book helps me to understand their points more.

Using that book as an example, it would be something of a huge challenge just to get the medal ribbon for it. There are only 18 'scenarios' but they are divided as thus:

1 = 9 scenario campaign game using VP's to decide win losing and draw
2 = 8 scenario campaign in the same way as above
3 = 1 scenario huge campaign game that will involve numerous games on the BN map as well as tracking of losses and replacements etc.

To ever get that medal would seem quite a commitment when another for example could be obtained for a 10 scenario package (which is the only type and single one I have ever earned due to flitting from package to package).

On my own note, I am not too worried about the chrome. I like it, but it is packaging and not too much to worry about. My honest held drive would be a mission to get far more players on board whether solo or otherwise and also to expand actual live opponent play in the series so that there was a bustling 'play' community.

[Poor Yorek]

PY, you're heading down the same path I have in mind.

D**n, I've been spotted! Get this bloody marker off me!

[Poor Yorek]

it would be something of a huge challenge just to get the medal ribbon for it.

Vince,

Beyond Normandy and Desert Rats likewise have some "bottleneck" issues: scenarios that require two sets of counters to play, for example (and/or which are simply two other scenarios side-by-side as in BN). I don't know what would be involved with, say, coding in an exception such that: ribbon award is flagged when all scenarios except #n1 and #n2 are completed.

:hrugs::

[campsawyer]

For instance, as of my last few games I have been more interested in the river crossings. All the good, bad and ugly of them.

A scar left by Slovak forces no doubt

A start, but there have been others. I have develop a bit of a fascination with the river crossings, much like your West Wall desire.

As for the different, ribbons there just needs to be something interesting to see and follow. This morning I looked at the stats page and bounty for the first time in 3-4 months. No surprise, nothing had changed all about the same, so there is no real interest in following, same with the ranks. As Matt pointed out he his aspired to heights that probably most will not see, this is a great feat for him, but that's it. He can continue but as he says as it gets higher the longer it takes. Same thing for the ribbons. Still don't have the idea to change, but all of what PY has are good mechanics for a system and Vince has the good direction, of getting more people playing, but something more is needed. Possibly more tournament style stats or something else. More thought/ideas is needed.

[Poor Yorek]

At the risk of simply supplying more system mechanics (ah, alliteration), I would like to suggest or propose a revival of tSotM (The Scenario of the Month) with the following, er, modification to its structure:

1. The scenario chosen should be a popular and no more than moderate sized one (however that is defined). tSotM should derive its meaning for the Site from the pleasure its play (or replay) and subsequent discussion yield rather than being a mechanism for encouraging play of an arcane scenario. Perhaps they might be themed, so, for example, "river crossing," or "bridge holding" or "meeting engagement" or "winter weather" or what have you for any given month.

2. Play (and submission of an AAR) of tSotM should: (a) count as a "unique" play regardless of whether it has been played previously; (b) bounty points awarded equally to all who submit a play (and AAR).

3. Revival of the pip-art idea for designating veterans of SotM plays (that thread/idea died a rather quiet death, previously).

4. Hosting a "place" here (well, at PGHQ) with a list of tSotM's played as well as the current one. tSotM should be a Site feature, not just an MB thread.

5. To save Shad even more oversight labor, appoint a tSotM tsar (I will volunteer if no one else is interested) or a triumvirate to select, publish, and coordinate as needed tSotM. Presumably, the code/site management would still be his to effect.

I haven't passed this by Shad in advance, so I am simply floating a possibility here, not presuming to make policy.

PY

[armyduck95]

"A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of coloured ribbon." - Napoleon I

1. I have no problem with the system the way it is, I appreciate anything that adds to the satisfaction of personal accomplishment in playing the game - ribbons, awards and rank structures are a fun incentive to be part of the community, in a virtual or real world - they help form a shared community and recognition of someone's time in the hobby.

2. Since we are thinking "out of the box" here are some random brain storming ideas.
a. Rank structure linked both to #plays and bountys - more value for unique plays, but someone who replays the same game gather experience an perspective that warrants rank recognition
b. Link high ranks to being a greater part of the community (with authority comes responsibility) - someone who writes articles, posts in forums, etc. might be given credit in the rank structure because they demonstrate a commitment to the community as a whole, worthy of a being an officer/NCO. This may or may not be weighted as much as "fighting on the line/AARs"
c. To earn ranks COL/ General Officer perhaps requires having actually played a campaign game (BN, Cassino, Mega games of 100+ turns, etc.) These are the discriminators that a Senior Field Grade officer or General Officer would be expected to understand - not just the low tactical level of fire and maneuver, but understanding the operational art.
d. You could, of course link receiving a General Officer rank just like it is in the U.S. - requiring a Congressional Approval... i.e. nominations are provided based on meeting prerequisites, but they need the confirmation by a majority of seniors, "peers" or other community members. This of course is probably more "political" and subjective system that is not the intent of the website, but just thinking.