Page 1 of 1
Roll of honor
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:06 pm
I think that the system of rank in the roll of honor is not good. A commandant that have never receive gold cross but have survie to many mission and kill a lot of ennemy will not have a better rank then a commander that have make 3 mission, only one success and receive a gold cross for this only success, it's frustrating!
Also, all the death commender stats should be conservate, then we will be able to do our stat.
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 2:13 pm
I'm not quite sure I get what you're saying. Do you mean the sort order of commanders in the roll of honour should be different or are you saying something was actually not working?
Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:00 am
I mean that the sort order of commanders in the roll of honour should be different
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:05 pm
I'm not quite sure what the current order is even based on. Medals or total credits or anything more subtle? Maybe different sorting choices could be included in a future version, that doesn't sound too extravagant.
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:25 am
Actually, it's based on the number of medal, but I think it should be changed.
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:32 am
I think you play a very conservative game which means you don't get many medals, therefore you think you are being shortchanged. The way the game works is to deliberately encourage you to take risks and get medals. That is why a commander with a single gold cross and 3 missions will outrank a commander with 20 missions and no gold crosses.
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:54 am
Sometime, I take risk, and it not pay... I think the kill ratio is a better ranking
Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:20 pm
pay attention: did Romening have been really worst then Mesner? (more kill in less mission)
did Jokin have been really better then Zuller? and then Killer?
did Hsb have been better then Manel? he have kill less ennemies in more mission, and the both two have sucess all there mission.
I think that a rating like in firefigth will have more sense, but the number off kill, and the percentage of sucess have more sense then the number of medal.
Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:46 pm
did kalden have been better the Mesner?
defintivly no! But he have receive one Medal Of Outstanding Courage more then Gerdem.
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:18 pm
On the other hand one could argue that him being superiorly decorated means he in fact has been the better commander.
Serious note: if I remember correctly the in-game award comittee does take into account ship types used and killed among other factors to provide a bias for how difficult those kills actually were.
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:11 pm
or something like that...
Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 3:13 am
Players should definitely be ranked according to medals.
It encourages you to take risks and fly cheaper ships, which is important since you can build a virtually indestructible ship for about 150 credits (see below).
Without the medal-based system, you could quite easily just avoid enemy fighters altogether, and focus on attacking civilian ships - you'd survive many missions and get loads of kills. I don't think players should be rewarded for that kind of play though.
However - I think maybe it should use a points system.
MoH = 1pt
MoCH = 2pts
MoOC = 5pts
GC = 10pts
It's difficult though. Consider these two:
The top player got more GCs than all the other medal types put together.
The bottom player survived twice as many missions, killed loads more enemy ships, and got loads of medals.
Who's the better pilot?
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:12 am
Yes I have think about point system, it have more sense then the actual system.
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:56 pm
I thought the current system was sort of working that way, just not sure about the point distribution.