Additional 'rank(s)' in Fellowships

[CanDaMan]

I think that an additional rank (or two) in fellowships would be helpful. I was thinking 'Knight' or 'Ultra Mage', Knight would be below the mage, 'Ultra Mage' above it. I also think that if this is established, the rank below 'Archmage' should be limited to three players (trusted advisors).

 

[Alram]

I support additional rankings but why would you want to limit any of them? I think "how many" of anything should be at the AM's discretion. This allows for multiple leadership styles.

 

[ajqtrz]

@Alram I agree. Perhaps a ranking system would be most advisable. The AM could just rank players in authority and have some kind of check box for each giving them rights and responsibilities. The four levels, at this point, are only useful if you want to restrict players more than anything. During FA's I have to reduce everybody to "fellow" or "ambassador" just to keep the flag from being pulled.

In any case, the system is pretty low quality and could use a whole new approach. But, then, that would take a lot of coding and I'd rather see that coding time spent on other things.

AJ

 

[Mykan]

I have seen a game with about 5 "fellowship" levels and the second highest was limited. However they had more game features that were unlocked at the different ranks so it made sense. I don't see elvenar needing to limit ranks other than as the AM decides. More ranks or some custom ones could be cool, simpler to just provide another couple names though.

 

[CanDaMan]

OK, limiting the number in a rank was an afterthought anyway, but I think that is basically how I would do it, so obviously that would be the correct way, lol! Being promoted builds more excitement for the game, and a longer lasting fellowship, I think.

 

[Nerwa]

I'd like to see a "Knight" (or similar term) one step down from "Ambassador". Set it so that neither Knights nor Fellows can pull the flag in FAs. That'd give each FS an option for acknowledging active/long-term players ("knight") as opposed to new/semi-active players ("fellow") while still limiting who is able to do what.

 

[Mykan]

I think a novice, initiate or something before member rank could be handy. Have seen plenty of fellowships treat the member rank like this and use the first promotion to ambassador like a normal member level. Might be worth listing in the OP the suggested ranks and any permissions that would be expected with that rank

 

[Talaedraiia]

@Alram I agree. Perhaps a ranking system would be most advisable. The AM could just rank players in authority and have some kind of check box for each giving them rights and responsibilities. The four levels, at this point, are only useful if you want to restrict players more than anything. During FA's I have to reduce everybody to "fellow" or "ambassador" just to keep the flag from being pulled.

In any case, the system is pretty low quality and could use a whole new approach. But, then, that would take a lot of coding and I'd rather see that coding time spent on other things.

AJ

Be careful as ambassadors can also pull flags

 

[CanDaMan]

Mykan, I argree, and maybe a lower level is also needed, good idea, bujt I think the Ultra Mage is a mind blower Bkewsssssst!

 

[Illyrea Estariel]

Oh my gosh yes. I've been thinking about just this for a while now! As for the names, considering the ranks are all mage related so far, maybe something like this would work:

• Archmage
• Vicemage
• Mage
• Ambassador
• Journeyman
• Fellow

(New ranks in green) That feels pretty cohesive, name-wise (although I also really like the title Knight, for obvious glorious and honorable reasons haha.) As for restrictions, I agree it should be at the Archmage's discretion-- with the possible exception of the Vicemage rank, which could be more like a Vice President type deal? In which case you probably wouldn't need more than 1 or 2.

 

[CanDaMan]

Maybe insert Knight, instead of Vicemage, break up the mage string in the top tier.