Guild Wars 2

Is it just me or are the titles of each rank bracket a bit underwhelming. It just seems to me that Colonel and General hold a lot more prestige due to being actual ranks of high prestige in the Military.

The titles “Veteran”, “Champion” (especially Champion) and “Legend” are grossly overused in MMOs and as such don’t feel like they have any real have any real meaning or significance anymore.

Does anyone else feel this way or is it just me?

Champion and Legend are fine. The fact that you promote from Legend to Bronze Invader is the problem.

Aphix.9846:

The fact that you promote from Legend to Bronze Invader is the problem.

I see this problem as well. A more appropriate approach would have been:

…Mithril Invader → Diamond Invader → Assaulter → Bronze Assaulter

I thought some of the earlier ones were more underwhelming. I feel like Id rather be called an assualter, raider or soldier rather than a squire. Yet squire is higher than these. The same with footman.

its like they printed out a big list of the rank names they came up with, taped it onto a wall, and then put on blindfolds and threw darts at it to determine the order they are achieved

sostronk.8167:

I thought some of the earlier ones were more underwhelming. I feel like Id rather be called an assualter, raider or soldier rather than a squire. Yet squire is higher than these. The same with footman.

I noticed this as well. The thing about the Squire title is that you can sort of understand its placement since a lot of games use Squire as a precursor to a Knight. Footman definitely was place too high though.

meep.2601:

its like they printed out a big list of the rank names they came up with, taped it onto a wall, and then put on blindfolds and threw darts at it to determine the order they are achieved

Exactly this. The first and final 3 titles especially just felt like they were randomly chosen from the Stereotypical MMO Handbook.

So after reading a bunch of forums posts, and talking to people in WvW, its obvious that the ranking system needs to be fixed/adjusted. I took the liberty to create a document that showcases how, personally, I feel the ranks should be changed up.

Major Change:
- Ranks I arranged in a way where type, means less then the actual title. Getting to the rank of Legend, only to be bumped town to a Bronze Invader, seems like a downgrade. I feel like once you earn the rank of, say a Soldier, you should only move up from there, not back down in rank.

Some of the minor changes:
- Recruit is the newbie rank (as it probably should be)
- Squire I put after as I feel squires are seen as an “apprentice” title
- Most can agree that Footman should be MUCH lower in rank
- Scout I feel would be a lower rank then someone who is trusted to Invade a different land?
- I moved Veteran down as I feel like its definitely a lower rank then Major, but higher then a Soldier.

Feedback would be amazing! =)

Malloway.7382:

So after reading a bunch of forums posts, and talking to people in WvW, its obvious that the ranking system needs to be fixed/adjusted. I took the liberty to create a document that showcases how, personally, I feel the ranks should be changed up.

Major Change:
- Ranks I arranged in a way where type, means less then the actual title. Getting to the rank of Legend, only to be bumped town to a Bronze Invader, seems like a downgrade. I feel like once you earn the rank of, say a Soldier, you should only move up from there, not back down in rank.

Some of the minor changes:
- Recruit is the newbie rank (as it probably should be)
- Squire I put after as I feel squires are seen as an “apprentice” title
- Most can agree that Footman should be MUCH lower in rank
- Scout I feel would be a lower rank then someone who is trusted to Invade a different land?
- I moved Veteran down as I feel like its definitely a lower rank then Major, but higher then a Soldier.

Feedback would be amazing! =)

As I stated earlier in response to Aphix’s post, I complete agree. Going from Legend to Bronze Invader is unquestionably a downgrade.

With regards to your placement; I like it personally. A lot actually. The only thing I would change personally is I would move Champion back so it would be the promotion that precedes Knight. By definition a Champion really is just a glorified Knight. The only difference between the two is that a Knight is more of an actual rank whereas “Champion” is more of a formality.

Other than that, I’d say it’s perfect. To say the least; it’s significantly more appropriate than what is in place at the moment which, as meep so elegantly put it, seems to have been put in order by randomly throwing darts.

Scout > Invader

Scouts need to be trusted to provide information, and do so correctly, and be able to take care of themselves.
Invaders are people who go into a land uninvited, and not welcome, and then refuse to leave… Don’t need anything special for that :p

I’d put scout right before raider actually.

Genev.2450:

Scout > Invader

Scouts need to be trusted to provide information, and do so correctly, and be able to take care of themselves.
Invaders are people who go into a land uninvited, and not welcome, and then refuse to leave… Don’t need anything special for that :p

I’d put scout right before raider actually.

That’s actually a pretty good point. Invaders, Assaulters and Raiders could pretty much be anyone so I suppose they do belong at the front.

But I don’t get why the first 3 titles are pretty much synonymous with each other. I mean; how is an Assaulter or Raider any more prestigious than an Invader?

Assaulters are a stop above Invaders because they don’t just invade, they’re active combatants, attacking people and settlements.
For example, settlers could be invaders, but they’re not going to be assaulters.

Raiders are beyond that even, they don’t jsut attack, they actively work towards resource sabotage, and since they’re generally mobile they’re harder to deal with than simple assaulters. They’re a pretty nasty drain.
To me, raiders imply more effectiveness and harder to work against.

Genev.2450:

Assaulters are a stop above Invaders because they don’t just invade, they’re active combatants, attacking people and settlements.
For example, settlers could be invaders, but they’re not going to be assaulters.

Raiders are beyond that even, they don’t jsut attack, they actively work towards resource sabotage, and since they’re generally mobile they’re harder to deal with than simple assaulters. They’re a pretty nasty drain.
To me, raiders imply more effectiveness and harder to work against.

While I do see your point it just seems to me like these really are just technical differences. That is to say even if a Raider is technically more dangerous than an Invader, when it gets right down to it, they’re all just peon brutes. Whereas there is a very clear dividing line in authority between a Colonel and a Major for example.

Changed it up a little bit given everyone’s feedback (and keep the feedback coming! the more Anet see’s this, the more likely they are to change it)

- Moved Champion down in the rankings, as Achilles sated, they truly are just glorified Knights haha.

- Moved Scout up in the rankings. Genev has a point. Scouts tend to report and communicate directly with the leaders of an army, and are responsible for intel that could make or break a battle. To me this is more important then all three Invader, Raider, or Assaulter. (you can always send in more men. Finding ones you trust, however, more difficult)

As for the Invader, Raider, Assaulter ranks. I think Anet just came up with those on the spot for filler and were pressed for time. Can any of you think of better names for some, if not all of those ranks?

Malloway.7382:

Changed it up a little bit given everyone’s feedback (and keep the feedback coming! the more Anet see’s this, the more likely they are to change it)

Excellent imo. Still, I’m interested to see what other posters think. To know if we’re just being a vocal minority.

That said I’m more than fairly certain most everyone can at least agree that your Invader → Bronze Invader system is a lot more appropriate than the current Legend → Bronze Invader setup.

I hope the majority can agree as well. I know me personally, when/if I ever hit the Legendary rank, I want it to be a HUGE deal, and I want to stay at a Legendary rank, not downgrade back to an Invader haha.

the problem with that system is that probably the majority of characters in wvw are below rank 40 and would never be anything other than a recruit.

taking forever to be anything other than a recruit would kinda suck

personally i would go with a slightly nonlinear system. Non-metallic and metallic ranks would have their own completely different title sets. Also we can do away entirely with chump names like Recruit.

0 Aspirant
5 Raider
10 Skirmisher
15 Invader
20 Footman
30 Warrior
40 Assaulter
50 Sergeant
60 Bronze Knight

etcetc

Bronze Champion

etcetc

Bronze Legend

Shoe.5821:

the problem with that system is that probably the majority of characters in wvw are below rank 40 and would never be anything other than a recruit.

taking forever to be anything other than a recruit would kinda suck

personally i would go with a slightly nonlinear system. Non-metallic and metallic ranks would have their own completely different title sets. Also we can do away entirely with chump names like Recruit.

0 Aspirant
5 Raider
10 Skirmisher
15 Invader
20 Footman
30 Warrior
40 Assaulter
50 Sergeant
60 Bronze Knight

etcetc

Bronze Champion

etcetc

Bronze Legend

This is a really interesting approach. The one problem I see is that even in the current system we have more than a few menial or meaningless titles just seemingly tacked on.

Which I think is really one of the biggest problem with the current ranks. When you see a title like Sergeant, Corporal, Colonel or even a lower ranked Private you know it means something, it holds weight. Ranks such as Raider, Veteran, Champion just seem like stereotypical MMO words tacked on that don’t have actual meaning or weight.

I really like Malloway.7382’s approach.

I must add that having a /wrank would be nice too, because we like to show off, but showing off to our friends not our ennemies ><

> world ranks should grant titles

Which I think is really one of the biggest problem with the current ranks. When you see a title like Sergeant, Corporal, Colonel or even a lower ranked Private you know it means something, it holds weight. Ranks such as Raider, Veteran, Champion just seem like stereotypical MMO words tacked on that don’t have actual meaning or weight.

well, i wasn’t suggesting specific names so much as the approach.

I was purposefuly trying to keep an ‘enlisted vs officer’ feel for low ranks vs metallic ranks while trying to keep feudal/fantasy rather than military. But that comes down to taste.

‘raider’ ‘veteran’ ‘champion’ actually have a lot of relevance to feudally themed armies imo. Or even renaissance themed.

Shoe.5821:

well, i wasn’t suggesting specific names so much as the approach.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. What I was getting is that your proposition would require a lot more unique titles than we currently have resulting in that much more menial or out of place ranks. Though I do understand you point about Feudal/Fantasy vs Military ranks. I suppose that much would simply be a difference of preference.

Elementalist Owner.7802:

Achilles.3128:

Ranks such as Raider, Veteran, Champion just seem like stereotypical MMO words tacked on that don’t have actual meaning or weight.

Stereotypical is not a bad thing. You seem to have a hipster approach to rankings, allow me to explain why being different is unimportant:

cham·pi·on [cham-pee-uhn] 1. a person who has defeated all opponents in a competition or series of competitions, so as to hold first place:

ser·geant [sahr-juhnt] 1. a noncommissioned army officer of a rank above that of corporal.

Champion is a fit title for somebody who WvW’s a lot, sergeant sounds more like a casual player.

I don’t see how I’m taking a hipster approach when this clearly has absolutely nothing to do with being different. It’s about carrying weight or meaning. Simply put Champion is a title that is so overused in MMOs it isn’t a word that holds weight or even carries meaning anymore. Sort of like when someone types lol. Everyone uses it even in situations where they don’t actually laugh out loud.

Whereas actual Military Ranks such as a General continue to hold weight because they hold weight IRL.

I love the argument over fine detail of whether rank ‘a’ is a better name than rank ‘b’ when it’s perfectly clear that whoever wrote out the list in the first place had zero interest in the matter.

It’s like those interminable arguments over the precise theological meaning of the image of Christ that someone found on a slice of toast.

I posted this working list a while back… IMO worth floating again for feedback and hopefully developer eyes:

Below is a suggested starting point. I think the community could modify it and create a fantastic list:

00 Initiate
05 Recruit
10 Cadet
20 Invader
30 Footman
40 Journeyman
50 Assaulter
60 Vanquisher
70 Raider
80 Scout
100 Guardsman
120 Soldier
140 Trooper
170 Crusader
200 Knight
250 Veteran
300 Commando
400 Sergeant
500 Master Sergeant
600 Captain
700 Major
800 Colonel
1000 Brigadier
1200 General
1400 Champion
1700 Grand Champion
2000 Legend

By stretching out the levels as a player progresses, a Legend title will likely be held by those that put in hundreds of hours of WvW play. This change would make the title far more meaningful.