There are several branches of combat in the game with pretty different skill sets, equipment and play styles: PvE (human), Thargoid, PvP and CQC/Arena. Only the latter has its own category in the ranks. Even if this is due to its technical separation from the rest of the game, from a gameplay point of view I imagine that players would take pride in showing their development in these different branches also where they are currently combined in only one ranking. Exploration has its two professional branches also for technical reasons since Exobio came with Odyssey, but for the player, they are mostly done together. In the same move, there is ship and on-foot combat since Odyssey but both contribute to the same rank.
Between human PvE and PvP communities there is even enough polarisation to suggest a good number of people would love to make abundantly clear which side they're on. Another aspect is that reaching the top in most ranks doesn't take very long. This is subjective of course and some like to argue it, but I know other games which are much more "grindy" than this one. For every one who thinks something is tedious there is another who wants more of it.
So, why not make separate combat rankings for PvP, PvE and AX, all divided into ship and on-foot game? Would this make sense to you, would you like to show off that you can either do well in all of them, or would you prefer to be a specialist?
A difficulty with this would be the design of a transition function for those with existing ranks. I don't assume the company keeps the history of every shot fired at an NPC, a Thargoid or another player. Even if this data existed, it would be an effort to process all of it which, as a developer, I'd have my doubts if this is worth it. And as a player, I would much dislike having such a change forced upon me, whether I agree with it or not.
So, most reasonably there should be a choice to keep one's combined combat rank and continue to develop it if not yet finished, or start anew with the separate branches and have another choice whether or not to translate their existing rank into the different buckets by percentages. It could also be a "soft restart" of sorts for those who might consider a clean wipe of their avatar. We may decide whether or not to trust players with a self-assessment and let them adjust the percentages with sliders, keeping in mind that they are aware overestimation would lead to a harder game ahead. But in the same way, deliberate underestimation could enable exploits. The client-side journals could deliver the detailed data for determining this, even offering the possibility for third-party developers to solve the detail separation. But without server-side mirroring (which again I doubt exists) there is no way of ensuring it isn't manipulated. Or some may have chosen to delete older records.
I don't know at this point how important the mentioned caveats are or should be, but provided this could be solved without too much of a strain on the company's part, I'm curious what you people think. Is this complete garbage, or would it be interesting? My own vantage point is that of someone who hasn't done much combat at all, almost a blank slate. But with such options as described, I would choose AX over the rest (while hopeful its on-foot side is in the plans for future expansion.) I can put myself in the shoes of others even where we disagree, but let those with higher stakes in this speak for themselves.
Between human PvE and PvP communities there is even enough polarisation to suggest a good number of people would love to make abundantly clear which side they're on. Another aspect is that reaching the top in most ranks doesn't take very long. This is subjective of course and some like to argue it, but I know other games which are much more "grindy" than this one. For every one who thinks something is tedious there is another who wants more of it.
So, why not make separate combat rankings for PvP, PvE and AX, all divided into ship and on-foot game? Would this make sense to you, would you like to show off that you can either do well in all of them, or would you prefer to be a specialist?
A difficulty with this would be the design of a transition function for those with existing ranks. I don't assume the company keeps the history of every shot fired at an NPC, a Thargoid or another player. Even if this data existed, it would be an effort to process all of it which, as a developer, I'd have my doubts if this is worth it. And as a player, I would much dislike having such a change forced upon me, whether I agree with it or not.
So, most reasonably there should be a choice to keep one's combined combat rank and continue to develop it if not yet finished, or start anew with the separate branches and have another choice whether or not to translate their existing rank into the different buckets by percentages. It could also be a "soft restart" of sorts for those who might consider a clean wipe of their avatar. We may decide whether or not to trust players with a self-assessment and let them adjust the percentages with sliders, keeping in mind that they are aware overestimation would lead to a harder game ahead. But in the same way, deliberate underestimation could enable exploits. The client-side journals could deliver the detailed data for determining this, even offering the possibility for third-party developers to solve the detail separation. But without server-side mirroring (which again I doubt exists) there is no way of ensuring it isn't manipulated. Or some may have chosen to delete older records.
I don't know at this point how important the mentioned caveats are or should be, but provided this could be solved without too much of a strain on the company's part, I'm curious what you people think. Is this complete garbage, or would it be interesting? My own vantage point is that of someone who hasn't done much combat at all, almost a blank slate. But with such options as described, I would choose AX over the rest (while hopeful its on-foot side is in the plans for future expansion.) I can put myself in the shoes of others even where we disagree, but let those with higher stakes in this speak for themselves.
