Anyone Else Not Liking The Current Rank Titles?

As part of the recent updates, Blizzard has introduced ranks for the the different races, depending on the number of kills said unit has. While this is purely a superficial feature and so low in priority, I think it should still be up for criticism anyway. Personally, I don't like many of the ranks given.

Starting with the Protoss, it feels weird that it's entirely possible for the Protoss to have multiple Executors on the same battlefield when previous representation of the title conveyed the feel that there was only one (or at least, very few of them) at a given time and s/he heads the entire Protoss fleet. Otherwise, what makes Selendis so notable a figure in Protoss society? For Terrans, while the term 'Commander' can be applied to those in charge of batallions, regiments, etc., it has too much of an attachment to Commander-In-Chief, which leads to the same problem as the Protoss' Executor. Lastly, there's the Zerg, which just sounds somewhat out of place for a swarm-like race. And what on Earth is a metamorph? Sounds like some kind of shapeshifter to me.

The following is my revised idea for the ranks:

Terrans:
0 - 4: Recruit
5 - 9: Corporal
10 - 14: Sergeant
15 - 19: Lieutenant
>20: Captain


Zerg:
0 - 4: Whelp
5 - 9: Predator
10 - 14: Warrior
15 - 19: Butcher
>20: Champion


Protoss:
0 - 4: Apprentice
5 - 9: Master
10 - 14: Guardian
15 - 19: Prelate
>20: Praetor

Prelate and Praetor are titles previously used by the Protoss leaders (as is Steward but I didn't know where that fit in since Fenix was both, a Praetor and a Steward). Rather than using unfitting, unimpressive terms like 'Mentor' and 'Instructor', make use of them instead!

Yeah that's way better in my opinion. I completely agree with you that some of the titles were out of place. A metamorph is a shapeshift so it really doesn't make any sense to be the zerg highest titles. Though champion is ok, I'd prefer something like Alpha.

yes your listing here is better only one more thing is that the lowest rank for terran should be private instead of recruit.

your only really a recruit during your training period at the recruit school or during basic combat training wich i belive is not out there in the field with the Protoss and the Zerg roaming around.

I like the adition of this new titles,it's a nice touch , but i would make them different , and not based on kills , but rather on the enemies it killes ( since basing them on kills is not realy fair to all units)


If i would be the designer i would make these new ranks based on the enemy units being killed by your unit. I would looks at the cost of each unit.


Example:
When a zealot kills units equal to 100% of it's cost (2 marines) it would get promoted one rank, when it kills units 300% of it's cost (12 zerglings) it would get promoted 3 ranks. And i would make gas count twice as much minerals, so that a marauder would have to kill units 150 worth of resources to get one rank up.


And i would go even one step forward with the rank system and make units actualy stronger when they are higher rank ( i know this is tabu for a lot of people :p) , but it could work.:)

Everytime a units get's promoted it would get one extra armor and weapon upgrade.






Now that i think about it, i would make it like this , with just 4 ranks ( one basic , and 3 higher ranks) :


When a unit kills enemies worth 200% of it's cost it would get one rank up and get one armor upgrade and one damage upgrade.

When a unit kills enemies worth 400% of it's cost it would get one rank up and get another armor and damage upgrade, basicly equal to having tier 2 armor and damage upgraded.

When a unit kills enemies worth 600% of it's cost it would get get one rank up and yet an another armor and damage upgrade, basicly the same as if the unit would have both level 3 upgrades.



Basing off this a basic reaper would have to kills units worth about 900 ( how many times does that happen;)) resources to go 3 ranks up (if you go with 1 gas equals 2 minerals). And it return it would get 3 extra armor upgrades and 3 damage upgrades.


If you look at it, this would hardly be op:o, or actualy have any noticable afect on gameplay, but it would be a realy nice touch. But it would something that a lot f people would enjoy and help them make an emotional conection to their units, and like the game even more.:o


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_B2_kKBtvIX...0/RE_ranks.jpg
What do you think?

nice stuff there but i am afraid it would be very much unnecessary mathematics and stuff for the computer to think off.

when in the end its only for looks and feel and not to give bonuses like in the c&c games.

and if u added the bonus system i think it would be very hard to balance.

but if blizzard manage to do your rank system without bonuses and it not taking up to much computing power im in for it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by infernal

nice stuff there but i am afraid it would be very much unnecessary mathematics and stuff for the computer to think off.

---

Are you saying this is somehow going to make the game perform worse?

yeah that was my thought on it but i might very well be wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by infernal

nice stuff there but i am afraid it would be very much unnecessary mathematics and stuff for the computer to think off.

when in the end its only for looks and feel and not to give bonuses like in the c&c games.

and if u added the bonus system i think it would be very hard to balance.

but if blizzard manage to do your rank system without bonuses and it not taking up to much computing power im in for it

---

Well i don't think it would that much hard to balance, since compared to C&C games where units damage and hp increases by 200% when they are generals, my sugestions would give them only one damage and armor upgrade.

It only depends how hard would this be to implement.

The originals aren't good rank titles, but these aren't any better. If you're going to use military ranks, you should follow real-life protocol.

For instance, marine corporals command a fireteam of three other people. Their primary job is to communicate orders and make rapid combat decisions. You don't get promoted to corporal just through experience or being a "natural born killer" with a high kill score.

Getting promoted from enlisted to officer isn't that common, and generally requires a lot of training. Furthermore, going from staff sergeant to lieutenant is more likely than sergeant to lieutenant, since the staff sergeant has essentially the same responsibilities in the Marine Corps. (Soldiers who do go from enlisted to officer have to be really good leaders to be selected. They're called "mustangs".)

Officers fly aircraft/spacecraft. You're not going to get sergeants flying Banshees, and there's no way a battlecruiser gets commanded by even a low-ranking officer.

And in case anyone is wondering, the rank structure in StarCraft lore generally follows real life. (I think medics are the only real outlier there.) In Heaven's Devils, they followed the rank structure so closely it's probably exactly the same as the real-life United States Marine Corps.

Mr Peasant - some of the Protoss suggestions you made sound good, except that a couple of the progressions don't sound necessarily 'better' than the last. Most noticeably, I would have put 'Guardian' below 'Master'.

Also, 'Whelp' sounds a little harsh for a starting Zerg :p. They're literally born to fight, so I think that starting off with 'Predator' is fine ^_^.

I agree with Sandwich Bird that 'Alpha' is a badass final rank for Zerg :). I also think that some of the 'special' Zerg names from BW might be cool.

Maybe something like:
Minion -> Favoured -> Hunter-Killer -> Devouring One -> Alpha

I hate to blow my own horn, but I really like this progression, because I love the vibe that 'minion' gives, and it doesn't make the unit sound weak. It just feels so Zergy to treat your warriors as mere Minions, but those that commit particularly sadistic acts of violence and slaughter start to get noticed by Kerrigan, or whoever's in charge of that particular brood.


I think that the idea with 'Metamorph' was that the Zerg in question (whoever has 20+ kills) becomes designated by whoever's in charge of Zerg evolution as a 'superior' individual among its kind, and becomes the basis of all further Zerg of that type.

'Assassin' just sounds plain weird on Zerg :p. The image which is conjured up when I hear 'assassin' is slinking about in shadows and dispatching foes with precision and stealth. Zerg generally go: "RARARAAAAAWR!" while shooting stuff until it explodes. If an Ultralisk tramples over a Terran army, I wouldn't exactly call that an assassination :p.

'Executor' is really weird, too. As mentioned, it's a very unique rank. But also, the unit most likely to get the rank of Executor is the Colossus - a machine :p. It just seems really weird.

"Executor! What should our next course of action be?"
"Beep beep wurp wurp."



.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr. peasant

Prelate and Praetor are titles previously used by the Protoss leaders (as is Steward but I didn't know where that fit in since Fenix was both, a Praetor and a Steward). Rather than using unfitting, unimpressive terms like 'Mentor' and 'Instructor', make use of them instead!

---

I disagree. Those ranks might be the type held by only one or two people. Lets think of something else.

Also, I don't think steward is a rank. When they called Fenix the steward of the templar I think they were just referring to the fact that he basically runs their operations & stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GRUNT

Mr Peasant - some of the Protoss suggestions you made sound good, except that a couple of the progressions don't sound necessarily 'better' than the last. Most noticeably, I would have put 'Guardian' below 'Master'.

---

In my original idea, I had intended the Protoss to have 'Champion' instead of 'Guardian' but moved it over to the Zerg's top rank instead since I hadn't thought of Alpha. Reason I put Master below it is to create a Master-Apprentice aspect to Protoss training.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

I disagree. Those ranks might be the type held by only one or two people. Lets think of something else.

---

They're vague enough, convey the right attributes and definitely sound Protoss-esque. Besides, we know there have been several Protoss who've held the Praetor rank (all of whom led small Protoss groups) at the same time; namely Fenix, Artanis, Mojo and Taldarin.

I have to agree to a certain extent with Kimera757. I know this is all a bunch of speculation, but when it comes right down to it I'd section off the ranks. For instance, normal Infantry (Marines, Reapers, Marauders) would go Private->Lance Corporal->Corporal->Sergeant->Staff Sergeant. Ghosts, being specialists, would go from Specialist->Targeter->Sniper->Assassin->Spectre. The mech/air forces would go from Lieutenant->Captain->Major->Colonel->General, excepting the Battlecruiser, who would go from Commander->Ship Captain->Rear Admiral->Vice Admiral->Fleet Admiral.

For Protoss, I don't know enough lore, but I would give the mechanical units different ranks, and the high templar different ranks, and the Dark Templar units (stalkers, DTs, Void Rays) ranks of their own, but I wouldn't know the first thing about them.

For Zerg, I love Grunt's suggestion of Minion -> Favored -> Hunter-Killer -> Devouring One -> Alpha, except I'd put Predator instead of Devouring One. Just because Blizzard saw fit to put Predator on a lowly creature doesn't meant the term should be used lightly. After all, it is the Predators of movie lore who kick serious butt, and the term itself refers to creatures that are more than capable of surviving on their own, so Predator would be a high rank in my book.

Who dares speak of my beloved Corps?

Edit: Jesus Christ 23000+ people on right now for the US only. It was only around 2000 at max when I first got in.

This reminds me that maybe on your final score after game you should get a title like in Warcraft 2.

I dont know, maybe the same titles as the kills:

Private - Whelp - Apprentice
...
Commander - Cerebrate - Executor

And the always-nice title, Cheater (for the full game in single-player, maybe?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xyvik

I have to agree to a certain extent with Kimera757. I know this is all a bunch of speculation, but when it comes right down to it I'd section off the ranks. For instance, normal Infantry (Marines, Reapers, Marauders) would go Private->Lance Corporal->Corporal->Sergeant->Staff Sergeant. Ghosts, being specialists, would go from Specialist->Targeter->Sniper->Assassin->Spectre. The mech/air forces would go from Lieutenant->Captain->Major->Colonel->General, excepting the Battlecruiser, who would go from Commander->Ship Captain->Rear Admiral->Vice Admiral->Fleet Admiral.

For Protoss, I don't know enough lore, but I would give the mechanical units different ranks, and the high templar different ranks, and the Dark Templar units (stalkers, DTs, Void Rays) ranks of their own, but I wouldn't know the first thing about them.

For Zerg, I love Grunt's suggestion of Minion -> Favored -> Hunter-Killer -> Devouring One -> Alpha, except I'd put Predator instead of Devouring One. Just because Blizzard saw fit to put Predator on a lowly creature doesn't meant the term should be used lightly. After all, it is the Predators of movie lore who kick serious butt, and the term itself refers to creatures that are more than capable of surviving on their own, so Predator would be a high rank in my book.

---

I think that needlessly complicates an otherwise simple, aesthetic feature. Perhaps instead of using actual military ranks, they should use less formal terms? For instance, perhaps:

Rookie -> Senior -> Veteran

As for what Kimera mentioned, it is indeed true that in current military practice, it is highly unlikely for an enlisted soldier to be promoted to officer without time off for additional training. But that's generally because we live in relatively peaceful times and we can afford to send people away for training. In times of heavy conflict (e.g. WWII), where the military is strapped for qualified and capable leaders, there is something known as battlefield commissions such as when Audie Murphy being promoted from Staff Sergeant to Second Lieutenant.

Also, as a note about his comment that the jumps aren't stepwise, they were merely a simplified form (e.g. 'Corporal' instead of having 'Lance Corporal' AND 'Corporal', 'Sergeant' instead of the many different tiers of sergeants, Lieutenant instead of Firsts and Seconds, etc). That said, I can agree about the apparent nonsense of Recruits in charge of Battlecruisers.

Hence, my alternate idea now of Rookie -> Senior -> Veteran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr. peasant

As part of the recent updates, Blizzard has introduced ranks for the the different races, depending on the number of kills said unit has. While this is purely a superficial feature and so low in priority, I think it should still be up for criticism anyway. Personally, I don't like many of the ranks given.

Starting with the Protoss, it feels weird that it's entirely possible for the Protoss to have multiple Executors on the same battlefield when previous representation of the title conveyed the feel that there was only one (or at least, very few of them) at a given time and s/he heads the entire Protoss fleet. Otherwise, what makes Selendis so notable a figure in Protoss society? For Terrans, while the term 'Commander' can be applied to those in charge of batallions, regiments, etc., it has too much of an attachment to Commander-In-Chief, which leads to the same problem as the Protoss' Executor. Lastly, there's the Zerg, which just sounds somewhat out of place for a swarm-like race. And what on Earth is a metamorph? Sounds like some kind of shapeshifter to me.

The following is my revised idea for the ranks:

Terrans:
0 - 4: Recruit
5 - 9: Corporal
10 - 14: Sergeant
15 - 19: Lieutenant
>20: Captain


Zerg:
0 - 4: Whelp
5 - 9: Predator
10 - 14: Warrior
15 - 19: Butcher
>20: Champion


Protoss:
0 - 4: Apprentice
5 - 9: Master
10 - 14: Guardian
15 - 19: Prelate
>20: Praetor

Prelate and Praetor are titles previously used by the Protoss leaders (as is Steward but I didn't know where that fit in since Fenix was both, a Praetor and a Steward). Rather than using unfitting, unimpressive terms like 'Mentor' and 'Instructor', make use of them instead!

---

I'd add a different ranking system for robotic units, like the Colossi, Reavers, Probes, and so on.

0 - 4: Drudge
5 - 9: Legionnaire
10 - 14: Terminator
15 - 19: War Machine
>20: Annihilator


And for the original races:

Zerg:
0 - 4: Minion
5 - 9: Hunter-Killer
10 - 14: Champion
15 - 19: Predator
>20: Alpha Predator


Protoss:
0 - 4: Initiate
5 - 9: Disciple
10 - 14: Master
15 - 19: Prelate
>20: Praetor


Terrans:
0 - 4: Private
5 - 9: Corporal
10 - 14: Sergeant
15 - 19: Lieutenant
>20: Captain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr. peasant

I think that needlessly complicates an otherwise simple, aesthetic feature.

---

Welcome to the world of Xyvik, although I will counter with this: complication, yes. Needless? No. It would be dang cool to see my ghost make it to Assassin, let alone Spectre. It's only aesthetics, so it doesn't really matter how complicated it is as long as it doesn't take a ton of computing resources (which it wouldn't, a simple mathematical-calculation scheme that piggy-backs on the existing kill calculator.)

The Rookie-> Senior -> Veteran is too simple and follows CnC too closely.

Indeed, it feels very weird to have such high title, with so few kills.

I like Xyvik's suggestion. I don't see how anything could be too complicated for a simple aesthetic feature that doesn't affect gameplay in the slightest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex06

I'd add a different ranking system for robotic units, like the Colossi, Reavers, Probes, and so on.

0 - 4: Drudge
5 - 9: Legionnaire
10 - 14: Terminator
15 - 19: War Machine
>20: Annihilator

And for the original races:

Zerg:
0 - 4: Minion
5 - 9: Hunter-Killer
10 - 14: Champion
15 - 19: Predator
>20: Alpha Predator

---

I positively love those names. An interesting thing would also be a tracker that keeps the numbers of how many units a Baneling has killed, just so you can see your personal best. "I had a baneling one match that killed 20 units. No joke!"

I don't mind the current ones, im just glad we have them at all haha

Ehm, that post is missing the final rank, Commander, Exector, and metamorph. Dunno if anyone has pointed this out.

Definitely like those suggestions though, mainly Alex's. I would hardly imagine it would be that much of a stretch to code in.


Only thing I dislike is Alpha Predator. Devouring one>>>Alpha predator :P and Drudge also sounds thematically kind of off for Protoss. Rest are awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perfecttear

When a unit kills enemies worth 200% of it's cost it would get one rank up and get one armor upgrade and one damage upgrade.

When a unit kills enemies worth 400% of it's cost it would get one rank up and get another armor and damage upgrade, basicly equal to having tier 2 armor and damage upgraded.

When a unit kills enemies worth 600% of it's cost it would get get one rank up and yet an another armor and damage upgrade, basicly the same as if the unit would have both level 3 upgrades.



Basing off this a basic reaper would have to kills units worth about 900 ( how many times does that happen;)) resources to go 3 ranks up (if you go with 1 gas equals 2 minerals). And it return it would get 3 extra armor upgrades and 3 damage upgrades.


If you look at it, this would hardly be op:o, or actualy have any noticable afect on gameplay, but it would be a realy nice touch. But it would something that a lot f people would enjoy and help them make an emotional conection to their units, and like the game even more.:o


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_B2_kKBtvIX...0/RE_ranks.jpg
What do you think?

---

No offense but I think this is a terrible idea. This is basically hero units on an SC battlefield. The fact that the game is simple to understand yet difficult to master is what made it long-lasting. Complicating the game by boosting individual units would be difficult. It would be hard for your opponent to know which of yours to shoot down and you could never even be able to guess who would win in an engagement against units you don't know are which rank. I much prefer the simplistic way it is done now. Easy yet hard to master.

~LoA

Personally I hate the rank Executor. I mean, an executor is out of combat commanding his troops. And you would be commanding an executor as an executor. The other executor would be in harms way. It's just overall contradictory.

I have no problem with the ranking system but I would like to see higher tier units start off with higher ranks. Doesn't make much sense to give control of a Thor to a recruit imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maul

I have no problem with the ranking system but I would like to see higher tier units start off with higher ranks. Doesn't make much sense to give control of a Thor to a recruit imo.

---

Nice thing about recruits is they do whatever you say without hesitation because they are scared shitless. IMO it may help to have somebody without common sense in it. :D

how about these:

terran:
0-1 pissy boy
2-9 water boy
10-30 killer man

zerg:
0-1 wimp
2-9 firefly
10-30 sharp teeth

protoss:
0-1 punch bag
2-9 fist of cotton
10-30 spreader of pain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaZun

Nice thing about recruits is they do whatever you say without hesitation because they are scared shitless.

---

Not if they're in a Thor!

Despite being someone who complained about the abscence of ranks before I agree that the current ones are rather bland and unimaginative.

But then I think the whole idea of kill-based ranks is silly. They must be based in lore instead of gameplay and are there to add flavour rather than being a wonky arcade style flourish.

because it really effects the gameplay right?

also, for terran, >30 = commander

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eligor

Despite being someone who complained about the abscence of ranks before I agree that the current ones are rather bland and unimaginative.

But then I think the whole idea of kill-based ranks is silly. They must be based in lore instead of gameplay and are there to add flavour rather than being a wonky arcade style flourish.

---

they actually where based on lore in the first game and the kill counter dident affect the rank.

they will hope fully wind up at that again or make more seasonable ranks based on unit type and such.