{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:False Gods
7/18/2014 8:13:53 AM
6
Rising Clan
[quote]Here's my idea for the ranking system. Btw we should probably get more people talking about this.
We have three admins right now for a group of 30 people, so I think the 27 other people in the clan should be assessed or monitored by the admins in their forum activity, and then leadership and skill in combat.
Let's say all 27 of us are known as "Recruits." Let's also say the three Admins are known as "Generals." Of the 27 Recruits, I think 14 should be chosen to be promoted to a "Promising Use" or "Corporal" ranking. Of those 14 Corporals, I think 7 should be promoted to a "Admin Level" or "Sergeant" ranking.
To achieve Corporal ranking, I think someone should have to show admirable and expert combat on the battlefield, be somewhat active in the forums, and take leadership when necessary BUT respect the chain of command and be courteous to a higher ranking officer's decision.
To achieve Sergeant ranking after some time in the Corporal ranking, I think someone should have to show highly admirable, adaptive, and expert skill in any form of combat situation, be very active in the group forums, and prove the ability to assume command and provide orders to a larger body of clan members in the battlefield.
I think we should also one day consider expanding the max clan member count from 30 to something else as we want to make room for more promoting more people. When we bring someone new in, we would have to clearly explain how are clan system works and how the rankings work.
Also, after some significant time in the Sergeant ranking and we've started expanding our population, Generals can choose which Sergeants to promote to the General ranking at their own time and discretion.
We'd be able to expand our numbers because we will definitely have a significant number of authoritative figures to take command of such a large number.
I'll leave this to the admins to talk about, and if they choose to use it, they may change it and add their own details as much as they like![/quote]
Thanks to Itsy Bitsy Cat, we have the framing of our ranking system. The admins are discussing using this so if anyone has an issue, speak up now.
-
I think the ranking structure with a top down promotion plan would work (meaning the high ranks decide on the promotion) to off set that maybe the lower rank people can get together and nominate there fellow rank member to be considered for a promotion as well. Also I do like the plan Itsy Bitsy Cat put forth.
-
Edited by Jaxs: 7/20/2014 4:24:31 AMI also think your personal involvement in the can should be a big factor In how u r ranked.
-
We should have 9 generals and they will be leaders of fireteams. ( just a suggestion. Not trying to be rude or anything).
-
1 ReplyAnything following this statement is merely an opinion, please do not think I plan on defying the laws of the False God Ideology. I think that the levels you can achieve are good. I also think that how well combat is on the battlefield is alright-- To an extent. This should not be the main basis on who is selected. This can be used to see who "outranks" the other of the same rank level. Say there are three corporals talking about something, they should refer to the "head corporal" or the one who may have more prowess among them. You could also designate a specific heavy hitting squad because of this, but I think that a more democratic approach to who gets ranks should be used. I think it should be up to the people of the alliance to pick the members from their ranks who show outstanding characteristics and is a good sport about the game. This person should be part of the forums, but should also be able to connect to the characters and work with them in what they need. Players could put themselves forward in wanting a position, and could "run" for it. This would just need the other members to watch and pay attention to this person to see if you would want him leading you. Also, as you get higher in promotions, it should be the promotion level under the upper one to vote for them. In other words, members would vote for the corporals and corporals would vote for sergeants and so forth. The number of leaders may also need re-worked because I think with that many leaders with only 27 recruits there will be a lot of... confusion in command among equals? I don't know how to put it, but say someone above you tells you to do something and someone else of the same upper ranking tells you to do something else, which do you follow? *Just my ideas! Sorry and thanks for reading!*
-
I think the ranking system has good structure I also agree that in time we should add more people. Also will we be ranking during the beta?
-
1 ReplyEdited by PsycoMetal64: 7/18/2014 10:24:03 AMThis is a really good idea. But first, is there any point in getting ranked up? Will there be any benefits, or is it only for show? And about ranking up, I think maybe just instead of only skill, there should be like a "medal of honor" factor, meaning that a guardian isn't afraid of taking on new challenges (such as higher level strikes and possibly raids). It will probably be a definite rank up if the challenge is completed, but as long as the guardian is confident about battle and doesn't die [i]too[/i] much, should also play a somewhat smaller role, too. Oh, and also maybe how much the guardian improves over time maybe could also play a role.
