Kay Wolf, on 05 April 2012 - 06:45 AM, said:
The problem with that is this is a video game, as you put it a simulator, not a shooter, and so it's not real-life. As a real-life commanding officer I would have the ability to see all of the foibles, I would have a file on each individual under my command, any information I could glean from their former life packed up inside, attached to one side of the folder, while having their training, medical, and active duty pages attached on the other side of the folder. Their CV might be on top of the history, but their history, including how many tons and/or what types of 'Mechs, vehicles, aerospace fighters, etc. they've killed, what battles they've fought in, what records they have for insubordination and commendation.
I pay attention to every bit of that information, and every other CO out there is going to pay attention to, and collect, their own levels of information. A lot of units out there have an interview process, while I put everything about how my unit operates in a few pages on the front of our web site and expect whomever comes to the unit to read them before making a decision whether or not to join. My figuring is this... if they read the pages, and like what they read, and decide to join us, they're informed and have made a decision to join us, anyway, hehe. If they didn't read and just decided to join up, that's on them if they find they don't like what they see; and then I will have had their services for a while and it's all good. If they didn't read because they were lazy, or for whatever other reason, and decided to not join up, then they likely weren't a good fit for us, anyway.
You can send me your resume, a cover letter, and jump through all my hoops if I'm one of those guys that believes in selecting only the best, only those who tell me they are King Kong on steroids when it comes to MW4: Mercs (bleh!), except for two things, especially with regard to the fact this is going to be a game, whether a sim or straight shooter: 1) you can tell me absolutely anything you believe I want to hear, you can pump up your skills so much it's stupid and then, come play time, you are an ***-hat, a liar, and I can't stand to have you in my unit, and 2) I can't get to know you, as a person, become friends with you and build a team we can have fun together with, by words on paper.
These things being said, one of the ways I use to gauge promotion points and the ability of someone to move up, is in their ability to knock 'Mechs down, whether that comes in the form of points or Kill Ratio, though they are also gauged on their battlefield conduct, loyalty, dedication, and service within AU. I believe Kills/Points, Tonnage, Battle Value, whatever system of statistics PGI has decided to use on a MechWarrior's Service Record, will be an absolutely necessary part of how I gauge a MechWarrior's ability to move up in rank, and will assist me in placement in my ranks, as well. However, this must, in my opinion, be used in conjunction with other aspects and attributes of an individual MechWarrior's service, not as the sole informer on how they will gain rank, position, MechWarrior Quality, or where to place them.
I believe you and I are looking at the same problem from different directions. The problem: how to get an accurate view of those you want to hire.
I don't know if I didn't make this clear, but you're not getting this info strait from them. All they get to do is write the bio... you know, so you can weed out those who are obviously morons. All other info I believe should come in the form of previous employment history, with notes from previous commanders or lance mates. Remember... you're not looking to promote them to general right away. You're just looking to see if you can hire them.
The way I see it, battle statistics do two detrimental things:
A. It focuses too much on what a person's numbers are. A guy might have an incredibly high kill-to-death ratio, but it might
not tell you that "Timmy has a tendency to run away from the battles until his teammates have almost killed the mech, then run back and get that final shot in. He never actually does anything of major importance, just skirts around the map kill-stealing. He's a decent shot, but a horrible pilot who gets ripped to shreds whenever he engages in any type of combat where the odds aren't stacked overwhelmingly in his favor."
B. It causes commanders to set up a sort of false desirable standard. "Oh, you want to be a merc? Come back when you average more than 25 exp a match and have at least a 5-to-1 kill/death ratio." Never mind that I may not be getting that much exp because I may be one of four scouts in my company, nor that I won't have an especially high kill ratio because I'm a scout that isn't going to be killing things anyway.
That being said, I can see your point, and believe we can come to a pretty favorable compromise. I (begrudginly) wouldn't mind putting in a mechwarrior's service record... provided that it's not the first thing you see. "You want to see those pretty stats of yours? Be prepared to scroll through a couple pages of references and employment history first."
2
