Rank Up Requirements

[rath]

Hypothesis:

- The point quotia to rank up increases every real life day. (Possibly at the same time your Campaign Ops tag refreshes.)
- Higher ranks see an increase in the amount the quotia increases daily. This could be compared to how Campaign Ops increase their EXP/AN rewards depending on the Tier you complete.
- Campaign Ops (of the highest tier available) if completed daily, counteract the daily quotia increase.
- Severs differentiate between the initial quotia and the daily increase. (Initial Quotia + Increases)
- Evaluations are based on your Initial Rank Up Quotia progress only. If all you're doing is earning points in attempt to break even on your daily losses, you will always be demoted until you have enough points earned to counter the daily increases and still earn enough points to start going to your Rank Up Quotia.

Lets say the initial quotia to rank up is 1000. It increases by 50 every day. Your daily ops of the highest tier available grants 50 points. If you do Ops and no Campaign Battles for 29 days, you'll have earned 1450 points. However, your quotia will still be 1000 to rank up, as you've only counteracted your daily increases.

Getting an evaluation right now would demote you as the servers check your two point totals (Rank up Quotia + Daily Increases). It shows you done 1450 points, which meets the Daily Increase. However, this 1450 was not enough to dent the initial 1000 rank up quotia. Demotion. 0/1000 & 1450/1450

Now, lets say you did those same 29 Ops (1450 points) and 5 Campaign Battles (500 points). Giving you 1950 points total. You would reach your 1450 points from the daily increases and then put 500 points against your rank up quotia. An evaluation would allow you to keep your rank. 500/1000 & 1450/1450

Now, lets do those 29 Ops (1450) and 10 Campaign Battles (1000), giving you 2450 points. You will reach your daily increases and also meet your initial rank up requirement. Rank up. 1000/1000 & 1450/1450

This hypothesis would explain why people who don't log into the game for 20 days take so long to rank up. They "lost" 13 days worth of Ops Tags which would have been used to off set the daily increases.

Basically, the game gives you a 7 day grace period to not log in before rank ups become harder and harder. Losing an Ops would mean you have to make that up loss in Battle. Completing a lower tier Ops when you have access to higher tier Ops would also mean you arent fully counteracting the daily increase.

Additionally, this system would make EXP and AN earned through Battles and Ops equal in value. Failing a Tier III Ops would mean you now have to make up that EXP/AN in battle. Perhaps, failing an Ops would additionally penalize you by increasing the amount of points needed in the daily increase, or even create a third point total for the Servers to check (Initial + Daily + Failure Penalty)

This system does not clarify what is used for "points" for Rank up. Although, it suggests it to be AN.

Example Evaluation:

Game: Hmmm, I see here you've failed 2 Ops. However, you've been active enough on the battlefield to prove yourself. In addition, you've been active enough to meet your daily requirements as a soldier. Finally, it appears you've gone above and beyond the expected duties of a soldier. Congratulations, you have earned yourself a new rank!

Server: Penalty Check (Pass) - Daily Check (Pass) - Rank Quotia Check (Pass) - Rank up!

Example 2:

Server: Penalty Check (Pass) - Daily Check (Fail) - Rank Quotia Check (Fail) - Demotion

Example 3:

Server: Penalty Check (Pass) - Daily Check (Pass) - Rank Quotia (Fail - <50%) - Demotion

Example 4:

Server: Penalty Check (Pass) - Daily Check (Pass) - Rank Quotia (Fail - >50% <100%) - Maintain

So if I am able to rank up, and I go fail 7 OPs, I should not be able to rank up any more. I will do this later on.

[Vuitton]

Hypothesis:

- The point quotia to rank up increases every real life day. (Possibly at the same time your Campaign Ops tag refreshes.)
- Higher ranks see an increase in the amount the quotia increases daily. This could be compared to how Campaign Ops increase their EXP/AN rewards depending on the Tier you complete.
- Campaign Ops (of the highest tier available) if completed daily, counteract the daily quotia increase.
- Severs differentiate between the initial quotia and the daily increase. (Initial Quotia + Increases)
- Evaluations are based on your Initial Rank Up Quotia progress only. If all you're doing is earning points in attempt to break even on your daily losses, you will always be demoted until you have enough points earned to counter the daily increases and still earn enough points to start going to your Rank Up Quotia.

Lets say the initial quotia to rank up is 1000. It increases by 50 every day. Your daily ops of the highest tier available grants 50 points. If you do Ops and no Campaign Battles for 29 days, you'll have earned 1450 points. However, your quotia will still be 1000 to rank up, as you've only counteracted your daily increases.

Getting an evaluation right now would demote you as the servers check your two point totals (Rank up Quotia + Daily Increases). It shows you done 1450 points, which meets the Daily Increase. However, this 1450 was not enough to dent the initial 1000 rank up quotia. Demotion. 0/1000 & 1450/1450

Now, lets say you did those same 29 Ops (1450 points) and 5 Campaign Battles (500 points). Giving you 1950 points total. You would reach your 1450 points from the daily increases and then put 500 points against your rank up quotia. An evaluation would allow you to keep your rank. 500/1000 & 1450/1450

Now, lets do those 29 Ops (1450) and 10 Campaign Battles (1000), giving you 2450 points. You will reach your daily increases and also meet your initial rank up requirement. Rank up. 1000/1000 & 1450/1450

This hypothesis would explain why people who don't log into the game for 20 days take so long to rank up. They "lost" 13 days worth of Ops Tags which would have been used to off set the daily increases.

Basically, the game gives you a 7 day grace period to not log in before rank ups become harder and harder. Losing an Ops would mean you have to make that up loss in Battle. Completing a lower tier Ops when you have access to higher tier Ops would also mean you arent fully counteracting the daily increase.

Additionally, this system would make EXP and AN earned through Battles and Ops equal in value. Failing a Tier III Ops would mean you now have to make up that EXP/AN in battle. Perhaps, failing an Ops would additionally penalize you by increasing the amount of points needed in the daily increase, or even create a third point total for the Servers to check (Initial + Daily + Failure Penalty)

This system does not clarify what is used for "points" for Rank up. Although, it suggests it to be AN.

Example Evaluation:

Game: Hmmm, I see here you've failed 2 Ops. However, you've been active enough on the battlefield to prove yourself. In addition, you've been active enough to meet your daily requirements as a soldier. Finally, it appears you've gone above and beyond the expected duties of a soldier. Congratulations, you have earned yourself a new rank!

Server: Penalty Check (Pass) - Daily Check (Pass) - Rank Quotia Check (Pass) - Rank up!

Example 2:

Server: Penalty Check (Pass) - Daily Check (Fail) - Rank Quotia Check (Fail) - Demotion

Example 3:

Server: Penalty Check (Pass) - Daily Check (Pass) - Rank Quotia (Fail - <50%) - Demotion

Example 4:

Server: Penalty Check (Pass) - Daily Check (Pass) - Rank Quotia (Fail - >50% <100%) - Maintain

So if I am able to rank up, and I go fail 7 OPs, I should not be able to rank up any more. I will do this later on.

That would determine if there is a penalty for failing Ops. If there isnt, then just remove the penalty check from my hypothesis. I only included it to give room for people who had to get insane amounts of AN to rank up. I think not doing Ops (or failing them and losing the reward) is what is causing people to have to get insane amounts.

In hindsight, I think a penalty is unlikely. Your test results will clarify it.

[midguardian]

It seems unlikely that AN are involved in determing rank promotions. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.

[Vuitton]

It seems unlikely that AN are involved in determing rank promotions. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.

This is a very vague statement that provides no explanation. Why do you think AN has nothing to do with promotions? Its either AN, EXP, or an unknown. If it is not AN please provide a reason for think it is not. If you think it is EXP please explain why. I am curious to know.

I think AN is a possibility due to the fact that Ops give you such a large amount. By failing an Ops or missing one, you make it harder to rank up. If it was based on EXP, then it would be very easy to make up the loss. If the loss of missing/failing Ops is easy, then it wouldn't explain why people have such a hard time ranking up after taking an extended break from the Campaign System.

My entire hypothesis has an explanation for everything people are experiencing. It may not cover the exact amounts used to rank up, but it is very accurate in determining how the system is evaluating your participation in the system.

I stand by my hypothesis that the game is keeping seperate track of the point total needed to rank up and the point total that increases daily. It prioritizes the points you earn by allocating them into the pool that increases daily. When this point pool is filled, the points spill over into your rank up pool. If you stop participating and your daily point pool continues to increase, the points that were allocated to Ranking Up spill back over.

This also explains why the Evaluation NPC appears to offer you Demotion more often than Maintain and Rank Up.

[Lucavi]

So with me not playing for all of 3 weeks after my last rank up, it should be fun to get the next one. Woo!

[Ryushii]

So with me not playing for all of 3 weeks after my last rank up, it should be fun to get the next one. Woo!

Could you document exactly what you do to rank up? If you end up needing 20k worth of xp or something, then we will know tha the requirement rises each day. However, if you require about as much as everyone else, then we will know that only the points themselves deteriorate (which is my personal theory).

[midguardian]

It seems unlikely that AN are involved in determing rank promotions. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.

This is a very vague statement that provides no explanation. Why do you think AN has nothing to do with promotions? Its either AN, EXP, or an unknown. If it is not AN please provide a reason for think it is not. If you think it is EXP please explain why. I am curious to know.

Reports on this board seem to show that Campaign Battles have more of an impact on your evaluation progress than Campaign OPs. Nothing conclusive, but that's the impression I've gotten. This points to an XP requirement over an AN requirement. (Battles yield about 2xp:1an while OPs yield about 1xp:3an or more, depending on your rank).

I think AN is a possibility due to the fact that Ops give you such a large amount.

If you think that Campaign OPs carry great weight in the evaluation process, I'd love to see some evidence of that.

I stand by my hypothesis that the game is keeping seperate track of the point total needed to rank up and the point total that increases daily. It prioritizes the points you earn by allocating them into the pool that increases daily. When this point pool is filled, the points spill over into your rank up pool. If you stop participating and your daily point pool continues to increase, the points that were allocated to Ranking Up spill back over.

This seems needlessly complicated. Or maybe I don't understand what you're saying. How about:

Rank Requirement (Campaign XP or AN) = A + B * N

Where A and B are constants that might depend on your current rank or classification (ribbons, stars, emblems) and N is the number of days since your last evaluation.

It might not be this simple, but why wouldn't it be? And why not try a simple theory first?

[Ryushii]

A thought: could anyone check some JP forums for info on this formula, or even for similar tests to what we have in the other thread?

[Vuitton]

Rank Requirement (Campaign XP or AN) = A + B * N

Where A and B are constants that might depend on your current rank or classification (ribbons, stars, emblems) and N is the number of days since your last evaluation.

It might not be this simple, but why wouldn't it be? And why not try a simple theory first?

I am at work so I can't touch on your entire post right now. I think this is another interesting hypothesis, although I can't say it is much simpler. (I think I just fail at articulating myself wherein I make things sound more complicated then they are.)

You're proposing that Ranks and Classifications are assigned values that are added together and then multiplied against the number of days since your last evaluation to come up with the amount needed to rank up?

Example)

A:

Ribbons = 100
Stars = 200
Emblems = 300
Wings = 400
Medals = 500

B:

? = 100
? ? = 200
? ? ? = 300
? ? ? ? = 400

N:

Any number between 5 and 30. Where N represents the amount of days since you were last evaluated.

Star ? ? ? ? = (200+400)*10 = 6000

I think you have a good hypothesis. However, I still don't believe Campaign Ops are insignificant. A 300 EXP reward would still be 5% towards your rank up if 6000 is needed to rank. I think this hits the nail on the head though. A few people mentioned that to rank up from Star ???? to Emblem ? took anywhere from 5000-7000 EXP.

The values can't be what I used above, as ranking up to Emblem ??would be easier than ranking up to Emblem ?.

[EagleCeres]

Here's my 2 Gil:

Being as enthusiastic as the next fellow vana'dielen in times of the war (read as: loving the relatively easy exp), I've been doing mostly Campaign Battle and some Campaign Ops (when available). While being more diligent than expected, I've been getting my promitions as soon as they are available, in average (which i have not scientifically nor mathematically proved nor disproved) I've needed the aformentioned 5000-7000 EXP/AN.

While there have been moments where I've passed that margin, I've not worried enough about the exact values... but again, these values would mean the approximate base needed to be promoted as soon as the evaluation is available (aka: 5th day after last successful evaluation/promotion). Usually I shoot for at least 5000 AN to be accrued (on top of whatever my current tally is) by the time said Evaluation becomes available... it hasnt failed me yet.

Hope it was of some use.

[AzazaelFenrir]

Man I am a little emo after reading this last page. I am the third rank (or fourth maybe, but not past that) and have 13 days left before in the evaluation. From what I read it is going to suck to rank up (I have done 0 during this time, unless leveling in WotG areas counts, which I know it doesn't)

Orz

[BRP]

which I know it doesn't

I wouldn't be so hasty, has anyone ever tested it?

[AzazaelFenrir]

well if you give me some way of testing I can, I will be xping in the past tonight tomorrow and this weekend most likely.

also going to try to do campaigns on sunady.

I know that my AN didn't go up while xping there.

[Gaea]

I think the formula for this might be more complicated than a flat rate. I think it might be proportional to the amount of time remaining on your current medal. The more days that go by the more points they expect you to have toward ranking up. I also think it's just allied notes, and completely unrelated to XP.

I let 23 days go by on my medal and I literally had to campaign for 2 days, burning 9 op credits in the process and getting a ridiculous number of XP and Allied notes to rank up. After that I campaign a few times in a couple of hours came back and got another rank up. Unless somethign carried over, having an evaluation after 5 days seemed to me that it required fewer allied notes to rank up. On top of that I did zero campaign ops. Just the few campaign battles to finish out a merit when i ranked up, Golden Star §§§§, I did a few more battles to finish a merit and then got an evaluation 5 days later and got another rank up. I put like a fourth of the work in for that rank as i did the prior rank and you would think a rank up would require more points not fewer. Because this paragraph may seem confusing I'll illustrate.

• Ranked up to Mythril Star §§§ and quit campaigning for a while
  Came back with 7 days remaining on medal to rank up again
  Campaigned for two days and burned 9 op credits in the process to finally get enough points to rank up Golden Star §§§§
  Went back to campaigning a couple more hours to finish out a merit.
  Came back 5 days later and it let me rank right up to Copper Emblem §

Either the rank up from golden star to copper emblem doesn't require a lot of work, or having the evaluation sooner rather than later has an impact on the process.


There's a mithra in on of my linkshells who had a similar experience of requiring what felt "more than usual" number of campaigns to rank up because they were so close to expiring.

Because regular monsters yield XP and because campaign ops yield so little xp, I think it only focuses on the AN you accumulated since your last rank up that decays over time requiring you to consistently participate in events that reward allied notes to maintain your rank.

It could just be a couple of weird flukes in a new system that will be fixed in an update, but if anyone out there has had similar experiences when waiting to rank up close to the expiration of their current medal, I think that requires some looking into. And its either a glitch, or SE wants you to stay on the ball at maintaining your rank and not just come visit WotG areas once a month.

[Ryushii]

Because regular monsters yield XP and because campaign ops yield so little xp, I think it only focuses on the AN you accumulated since your last rank up that decays over time requiring you to consistently participate in events that reward allied notes to maintain your rank.

Your logic doesn't quite work out. No one has claimed that your rank has anything to do with regular monster xp, so I don't know why you are bringing that in your reasoning. The main reason most people think the rank up requirements are either XP dependent or based on another unknown factor is because campaign battles produce rather minimal AN in general, whereas campaign ops produce quite a bit. However, most people have noticed that ops seem to have a rather small effect on ranking up.

Aside from speculation, there is little we can conclude without some concrete testing, most easily done by either someone's mule or on a character with Holyknight rank. Those of us trying to test on the medium/high ranks have trouble standardizing the variables, and also finding contrasting tests.

However, the rest of your post seems to point to the theory that the rank requirement increases every day, and not that the points deteriorate. Again, we need testing to prove anything.

[Gaea]

It could just be a couple of weird flukes in a new system that will be fixed in an update, but if anyone out there has had similar experiences when waiting to rank up close to the expiration of their current medal, I think that requires some looking into. And its either a glitch, or SE wants you to stay on the ball at maintaining your rank and not just come visit WotG areas once a month.

And I didn't say Xp doesn't have anything to do with ranking up I just have doubts that its a factor and that people might want to LOOK INTO that when doing their testing. I think that its the one thing you can get anywhere regardless if you have Sigil on and I think SE did that for a reason. They don't want people using XP parties to rank up. They want people to do campaign battles and ops. I also don't think SE is elaborate enough to make a system that combines both the total XP and the total AN you've accumulated in a campaign battle or op to determine rank. It would make sense that only one of these numbers is needed to address your progress to the next rank, and that number being AN makes the most sense. Unlike Sanction or Signet, you don't get any AN at all unless its a campaign op or campaign battle or a wotg quest (assuming there's any that reward AN).

I just think if proper testing is to be done people should try to do things that maximize AN and minimize XP and vice versa to see which one is playing a bigger role in the rank up process. One way to do this is to try to rank up only on campaign ops which yield very little xp and then try to gain the next rank with just campaign battles and see if a similar value of AN had to be accumulated or if the process was much quicker because of the combination of AN and XP.

I haven't had time to do any of my own testing, but regardless of that, I think it should be something tested by multiple people and not just myself so I was suggesting this as a possibility. It would be much easier to test the requirements to achieve rank if we could isolate the factors that actually impact it. If XP isn't a factor, it should be ruled out as soon as possible. If it is a factor, it should be positively clarified as a factor so people can adjust their own experiements to quantify it.

[Ryushii]

It could just be a couple of weird flukes in a new system that will be fixed in an update, but if anyone out there has had similar experiences when waiting to rank up close to the expiration of their current medal, I think that requires some looking into. And its either a glitch, or SE wants you to stay on the ball at maintaining your rank and not just come visit WotG areas once a month.

And I didn't say Xp doesn't have anything to do with ranking up I just have doubts that its a factor and that people might want to LOOK INTO that when doing their testing. I think that its the one thing you can get anywhere regardless if you have Sigil on and I think SE did that for a reason. They don't want people using XP parties to rank up. They want people to do campaign battles and ops. I also don't think SE is elaborate enough to make a system that combines both the total XP and the total AN you've accumulated in a campaign battle or op to determine rank. It would make sense that only one of these numbers is needed to address your progress to the next rank, and that number being AN makes the most sense. Unlike Sanction or Signet, you don't get any AN at all unless its a campaign op or campaign battle or a wotg quest (assuming there's any that reward AN).

I just think if proper testing is to be done people should try to do things that maximize AN and minimize XP and vice versa to see which one is playing a bigger role in the rank up process. One way to do this is to try to rank up only on campaign ops which yield very little xp and then try to gain the next rank with just campaign battles and see if a similar value of AN had to be accumulated or if the process was much quicker because of the combination of AN and XP.

Your entire first paragraph makes no sense; whether XP is a factor or not, it has nothing to do with getting XP in parties in WoTG zones. It makes no sense why it would, so why you even bring it up in your argument confuses the heck outta me. The idea is that the xp gained from ops and campaign battles is the factor or a measure of the factor, not that all xp gained anywhere is. And yes, I already pointed out the need for testing

[midguardian]

Just for the record, I have partied extensively in WotG zones and the XP earned there contributes nothing to your rank evaluation.

XP vs AN: Here is a way to test which of these contributes to your rank evaluation. Get to a point where you are on the cusp of a change in evaluation. For example, say you have have been threatened with demotion and then after a campaign battle, you finally are allowed to keep your current rank. Now let a day go by (possibly more) without participating in Campaign and your evaluation will change to a recommendation for demotion. At this point, do a Campaign OP. When you complete the OP, you will get an XP reward only. Check in with the evalution NPC, see if your evaluation changes. If it does, then you know that XP is probably the only factor. If not, then talk to the OPs NPC to get your AN reward. Now check in with the evaluation NPC again. If your evaluation changes, then AN is likely the only factor. If not, repeat with another Campaign OP.

[Ryushii]

Just for the record, I have partied extensively in WotG zones and the XP earned there contributes nothing to your rank evaluation.

XP vs AN: Here is a way to test which of these contributes to your rank evaluation. Get to a point where you are on the cusp of a change in evaluation. For example, say you have have been threatened with demotion and then after a campaign battle, you finally are allowed to keep your current rank. Now let a day go by (possibly more) without participating in Campaign and your evaluation will change to a recommendation for demotion. At this point, do a Campaign OP. When you complete the OP, you will get an XP reward only. Check in with the evalution NPC, see if your evaluation changes. If it does, then you know that XP is probably the only factor. If not, then talk to the OPs NPC to get your AN reward. Now check in with the evaluation NPC again. If your evaluation changes, then AN is likely the only factor. If not, repeat with another Campaign OP.

I think a less easily refutable test would be to do the first half of what you are saying, but then just do campaign to check it. If you do the barspell trick, then you get twice as much XP as AN, but if you perform some other actions, you can break that cap and get more AN. Doing this two days in a row, one with increments of 160XP/80AN, and another with something considerably larger, such as 160XP/120AN, would produce the same results if XP is the only factor, but would produce different results if it were a nonfactor or only one of several factors. My main worry is that the xp results of an op are not factored in at all until you report to the ops npc. I will do this test sometime soon, hopefully when I hit Holyknight and can start doing some standardized tests, instead of trying to make broad assumptions based on results from different ranks.

[Darte]

Hey guys, just wanted to give some input on this.

Been holyknight for a month or so and i've already refreshed once and have 13 days left on my tag.

Campaigned till i got "Pleased with work but not enough for promo" then stopped.

Just checked now after a few days, and got demotion message.


Did 1 streetsweeper III for 260 xp and 820 notes and checked again and i got "Pleased with work but not enough for promo".

Leads me to believe the promotion is highly determined by XP instead of notes since people keep saying "ops have no effect". If XP counted towards promo, it would make sense because your only getting so little per op to begin with but getting so many notes per op but not getting promo.

my 2 s