November 26, 2009

Alliance ranks

Filed under: Alliances, Social — tsousa @ 10:54 am

We received a suggestion from Danceman, to upgrade the alliance ranks because they are only few. So the ranks suggested were: Admiral, commander, first mate, captain, sargent and officer.

Beyond this a new concept were suggested too, the concept of mission/role. The admirals could assign a role to each member of the alliance, like: trainers, raiders, group leader, first line, relic defender, resource explorer, tactics officer, watcher…

Any more suggestions or changes to this?

7 Comments »

1. all players that aren’t in a alliance are “privateers”, when they join the become “officers”, what do you think guys? My language isn’t native english, so please correct me, i think privateers are spacers that in the the private sector, they work for themselfs

   Comment by Danceman — November 26, 2009 @ 2:31 pm

2. ranks should be admiral, general, commander, captain, lieutenant, makes more sense. first mate should be higher then the captain nor sargent higher then officer. in terms of military ranks =)

   Comment by reborned — November 26, 2009 @ 4:22 pm

3. i was checking some wikis about this, check the right side table (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_military_ranks), and its not easy, every country has some variations and navy, armies and air force have different ranks. I even found star trek ranks (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Starfleet_ranks). In some audio cience fiction books they use the navy ranks and in others the air force but mostly navy.

   I’m try to find a common ground, i do agree that if your not in a alliance, you are a privateer. If in a alliance your a officer. I would suggest a first rank which has no share, “officer cadet”. Next rank would be “2nd Lieutenant” or “Junior Lieutenant” or “Sub-Lieutenant”. Than a “Lieutenant”. Next in the navy its “Lieutenant Commander”. Than a “Commander”. Up next is a Captain. Than a “Commodore”, than a “Rear Admiral” and than a “Vice Admiral” and than “Admiral” (in spain its “Almirante general”), and finally a “Fleet Admiral” in portuguese its “Almirante da Armada”) is the top rank, in Spain they call it “Capitán general” which is a bit different. So “general” is normally used in the ground army, never in the navy and air force just in spanish, who knows why.

   About the other feature mission/role is to help give roles in the alliance so other members know what they do. Also the rank should be something we should feel proud of and of course give us a bigger share, so i would suggest that the rank be always by your nick (or even a badge like int links above), so i would be “Fleet Admiral Danceman” LOL

   Comment by Danceman — November 26, 2009 @ 7:12 pm

4. What are the benefits of the ranks?

   Comment by Wolf — November 27, 2009 @ 4:00 am

5. I since of objective in the alliance. A way to divide the alliance relic share, giving more to does that contribute more to the alliance. A way to difine whos the ones that have the last say. In a alliance like the Death Squadron there are so many members, there has to be some order. Also the relic share is why i suggest Officer Cadet without share, for members that are starting out, or a way to pinish, etc… This is just my opinion, whould love to hear others. By the the why right now the admiral has some functions that only he can do, its he who also gives out the deposit share. Its he who dicides whos in or out (vice-admirals also do that)

   Comment by Danceman — November 27, 2009 @ 9:28 am

6. yes privates or grunts or whatever you want to call them shouldn’t get relic resources =)

   Comment by reborned — November 27, 2009 @ 1:11 pm

7. I’m not completely sure that I would exclude all resource shares from the lowest members of the alliance. As an example, in the American militaries, even the lowest ranking “grunts” get paid. When first entering the army, the member is classified as a “private.” After basic training and a little time, he becomes “private first class.” This is still a very low rank, but it still comes with a paycheck.

   When I first joined the Squadron, it was a nice surprise to find extra resources being distributed to all of us each day. I suggest, rather than completely eliminating the resource share for these new members, put them on a stipend of some sort. Perhaps 50 or 100 units of a resource until a promotion, nothing spectacular. Without that, I’m concerned that the new members may find no reason to join an alliance in the first place. If they do and there is no resource sharing for them, what would be their incentive to stay and fight for the alliance?

   Good idea on the rank changes/increases, by the way. I particularly like the idea of roles being assigned to the members. I believe this will add a little more structure to the environment. However, I would also suggest a reward program of some sort for those than are completing their missions and successfully performing their roles. This can be done internally, of course, with an extra resource from the storehouse or something of that nature. Additionally, it can be done on a system level with a score increase when an Admiral recognizes the completion of a task. Any other thoughts on that?

   Comment by Redwulfe — November 27, 2009 @ 7:49 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment