LogFAQs > #910611139

PhazonReborn posted...

Is the ranking system as frustrating as the first in that rank is based purely on speed, and not on Strategy?

Every single chapter in the game is ranked by how many turns you take to complete it except one, which has a set turn count and is based on something else.

However, the game has an alternative ranking system where about a third of the maps grants you royal weapons based on certain conditions being met.

You get a weapon for each of these conditions met:

- A rank or better
- kill all infantry leaders
- kill all enemy tanks
- have no ally KO'd
- have no ally killed

Um be careful what you wish for I guess, because now you have to be fast AND clear key enemies if you want to collect everything.

I don't understand the "I want to use strategy" argument when criticizing rankings based on speed.
What does that mean exactly? Camping takes no strategy at all. You could literally camp all day and have the enemies come to you and die to crossfire. How is does that involve strategic gameplay at all?

Even if they factored in deaths for the letter ranking, what does that change? The rush strategy doesn't incentivize players to let their characters fall at all. If anyone dies, it slows down the rush.

I personally find the tank requirement to be extremely annoying. Because now to get the weapons, you have to wipe tanks in completely obtuse places that wouldn't have been an obstacle for you normally.

There are missions that are "kill all ____" and they still rank you based on how fast you kill them all. I don't really know how else they WOULD rank them.

In other games like Fire Emblem 7, rankings are decided by turns, funds, experience, survival, and win-ratio.

Unlike Fire Emblem, VC4 can be reloaded and doesn't save losses after reset. So win-ratio is thrown out the window.

Unlike Fire Emblem, experience and funds can be farmed indefinitely in VC4. So throw funds and experience ratings out of the window.

That leaves turns and survival. Currently it is based on turns. Maybe they should auto-lower your score if someone falls or dies, but the main decider would still be turn count - 1 rank for everyone who falls. So speed would still be the determinant, now with no margin of error.

It could be turn count - 1 rank for fallen, auto F is someone dies, and then like +.1 rank for every enemy killed or something like that. So if a character falls, you could offset it by killing a certain amount of enemies. Or possibly have turns only factor up to B rank, then you need X kills to get the A.

But it seems completely idiotic to hunt some of the guys who are not in your way. There are so many snipers and other dumb fucks in far away areas that it seems excessive to clear them out on big maps. With rushing, you end up taking out all the enemies you need to anyway.

Idk, maybe they should just have more mission objective types that have set turns.
More tower defense style gameplay and you have to hold your camps. Every camp lost is a letter grade dropped in Rank. That could be cool.