Suggestion for a new rank.

[Cross]

As guildmaster I find it hard to trust people with an officer rank, as I believe some members deserve more
than just a recruiter rank which is why I was thinking of a rank in between.

My idea:
- Member
- Recruiter
- General
- Officer
- GM

Idea's for the power a general could have:
- Power to remove max. 1 member/recruiter a day
- Power to change MOTD once a day


What do you guys think?

[Iplo]

That's a good idea in my opinion. +1 for this!

[mesalin]

Nice. What about to
If general want remove player, then officer or master need confirm?

<Forgiveness>

[Dalmony]

Guild could definitely use ranks with more variety of permissions. Guild masters and officers currently have to resort to ridiculous systems of constant promoting / demoting as a means of keeping track of which players are still active, which players are more experienced/capable and so forth. New ranks would allow guilds to run far more smoothly and improve quality of life in far more ways than I can even go into in one post.

I would say that the most needed addition to the ranks would be:

1. Senior Officer: Can promote / demote / kick / change motd

2. Officer: Can Kick / change motd (no change to this role)

3. Junior Officer: Can change MOTD / Can see officer chat

[Cross]

Nice. What about to
If general want remove player, then officer or master need confirm?

<Forgiveness>

Sounds like an idea, but it takes too much time to "confirm", why not do it immidiately yourself as Officer or GM.

[Ceuidear]

I agree with all the suggested ideas.

Plus i would like to see guilds having logos to make the game more attractive.
Awaiting for ur opinions....

[noahgoulin]

I'm cool with the senior and junior member stuff.
We could also do:
Member (can't do anything)
Recruter (can recrut ppl)
General or whatever (can remove only member and talk in officier chat)
Officier he can set motdt kick recruters and members and talk in officier chat
And master who can do everything he wants...

[Eski]

General is a higher rank than officer

[Cross]

General is a higher rank than officer

This is not about which rank is higher.. In all the games I've played officer was a higher rank than general.
Having a rank in between would help a lot with giving members a rank they deserve.

[Serancha]

You guys are talking like rank is a reward system. That's really not how it is designed to be.

Recruiters and officers are there to help run the guild. Guilds who promote as a reward are guilds who end up with 150 officers and have people come along and boot their member lists. People who think rank = reward / popularity / status, are those who are most likely to abuse the power. Hell, most of my members refuse promotion because they know rank = more work, not more awesomeness.

Needing confirmation from officers or GMs in order to do things completely defeats the purpose of giving someone permissions.

[Cross]

You guys are talking like rank is a reward system. That's really not how it is designed to be.

Recruiters and officers are there to help run the guild. Guilds who promote as a reward are guilds who end up with 150 officers and have people come along and boot their member lists. People who think rank = reward / popularity / status, are those who are most likely to abuse the power. Hell, most of my members refuse promotion because they know rank = more work, not more awesomeness.

Needing confirmation from officers or GMs in order to do things completely defeats the purpose of giving someone permissions.

It should not be a ''reward'', but lets say you got 10 people where 2 of them work hard and try to make it the best they can, for those I wish
I can give them a rank they deserve because they work hard.
Now, trust is hard to earn (in my case) and to give some one the power to kick members is a huge thing to me.

[Dalmony]

It should not be a ''reward'', but lets say you got 10 people where 2 of them work hard and try to make it the best they can, for those I wish
I can give them a rank they deserve because they work hard.
Now, trust is hard to earn (in my case) and to give some one the power to kick members is a huge thing to me.

Agreed... it's not about dangling ranks like carrots. Having a senior officer would be a similar idea to having an official "co-master" rank, and would make it far easier to keep track of promoting people from member to recruiter as they reach the requirements (a lot of guilds have a requirement where you have to gain a certain title, or certain stats, to be promoted to recruiter. Having a larger group of people able to promote/demote would ease the task of the GM in keeping track of this.)

Having a rookie officer type rank would be a nice way for some guilds to ease new officers into the officer role and see how it works out, how they gel with the group. Many discussions that I've seen over who should or shouldn't be promoted to officer would have easily been solved if there had been a position such as "rookie officer" or "junior officer" to promote people to and allow them into the officer chat before promoting them to fully fledged officers.

For a guild of 400ish members, the numbers would probably look something like:

1 Guild Master
3-4 Senior Officers (This rank would be more of a fixed position, like gm, likely to be made up of founding officers who are essentially co-masters.)
15 Officers
3-4 Rookie/Junior officers (This wouldn't necessarily be a permanent rank. People would spend some time as rookie officers getting involved with the running of the guild before eventually being promoted to officer.)
100 Recruiters
250 members

Previously this same group would have had 1 GM, and 21 officers. It is more just a way of sub dividing the group to give more definition to certain peoples roles.