John
Recruit
Posts: 17
|
Post by John on Jul 10, 2006 21:01:48 GMT -5
It was brought up recently during muster that our current rank system is a bit confusing and I have to agree. I have taken the liberty of writing up these new ranks and ask if you approve of them or not. If you decide that you like this new rank system, I also propose that the old rank quests be ressurected. These would be the only ranks. There would be no Gryphon, Melee, Mage, etc... Recruit(on the Training Stone. Not yet a full member) Private(Carries out the orders of his/her superiors to the best of their abilities.) Corporal Sergeant(Command a Squad. Set an example and the standard for Privates to look up to, and live up to.) Colour Sergeant(Commands a squad. Has one regular Sergeant under him.) First Sergeant(Instructs other SGTs, advises the Commander and helps train all enlisted Soldiers.) Second Lieutenant(Typically the entry-level rank for most Commissioned Officers.) Lieutenant(Often chosen as XO's to a company of troops.) Captain(Leads a company of men.) Major Lt. Colonel Colonel Militia Champion(The XO to the Grand Marshall.) Grand Marshall
EDIT: Took Poly's suggestion and got rid of the Bombardier and Lance Bombardier...They were replaced with Corporal.
|
|
|
Post by Polynikes on Jul 12, 2006 0:45:07 GMT -5
I like most of this but the bombadier needs to go *grins* and dont want "lance anything" *chuckles*
Seriously this is a great start and I agree that all new members go into academy and promotions should require completing rank quests as we once did.
|
|
|
Post by Kalan Galandar on Jul 12, 2006 16:16:36 GMT -5
I like the proposed changes to the rank structure. It has always been of my opinion that militaristic ranks should be incorporated in all military guilds, but past experiences have caused a lot of controversy on that issue, but I will not open that can of worms here. Many people who read this post probably won't care what I have to say, seeing as how I've been gone a long time. But now I'm back, and I wanna try and help, and I feel that some suggestions/constructive criticism will go a long way.
John: This structure is probably one of the better designs I've seen since I joined YM nearly two and a half years ago. Perhaps instead of "Bombardier" you could replace it with the rank of "Lance Corporal", or "Staff Corporal". Both are *actual* ranks used within the Royal Army ever since middle ages.
I also agree that the honorary titles such as "Gryphons", and "Mage", etc. should also be removed. I suspect some opposition to this action merely because these titles have been a long standing tradition within the YM. Be that as it may, these titles often cause confusion when trying to establish our chain of command. No one really knows who has authority over the other. I have often witnessed many pointless arguments (and have probably participated in a few myself) over who has "seniority" or whose title has higher authority i.e. A Gryphon Captain and just regular Captain. The Conflict: There's a PvP situation, and both captains are present on the field. Who takes command? The Gryphon Captain, because he/she has been in the guild longer, or the regular infantry Captain because that rank isn't specified to a particular region in the guild? No one's really to blame, but I return to my point of mass confusion, and hopefully by removing those titles, some of it will be resolved.
Leadership/Officers: This is a huge problem. Not because we have bad leaders, but because we have too many of them. From what I've witnessed a lot of our current officers (again not singling anybody out) all want to be top dog when it comes to command. I can't stress enough how this should cease. If everyone's competing for the top, everyone loses, and we get nowhere as a group. This is why we even have a rank structure, so we can determine who's in charge. Am I saying just because you're not an officer, you're not important? Absolutely not. Read the descriptions that John has provided next to each rank. Almost every rank describes some kind of leadership role, and to be honest it's a proven fact that Officers and Generals depend on their sergeants to make the unit work, the military depends on people like them.
Continuing on...
A lot of people outside, and within the guild perceive the YM as The Military itself, rather than a part of the military itself. I know the YM often seems like the dominant force of the alliance, but it's still just a part of the greater whole. I believe that the YM should be looked at as a "Battalion" or a "Regiment" of the BAF. And I think this would help imply on the leadership issue. I personally think that officer commissions should not necessarily be limited, but rather be harder to obtain. For this I cannot offer any immediate solution, but I believe one could be worked out. Once a character has earned a commission as an officer, it should start out from the lowest ranking, and work it's way up. I know not everyone wants to resign their commissions as officers, I probably wouldn't, at least right away, but I think people who roleplay their characters as career soldiers should at least be given the chance to work their way up the rank structure.
In closing...
I'd like to thank you at least reading my long, and drawn out post, and hope you give it at least a little bit of consideration. I believe that by reforming the rank structure, we can open ourselves up to a little more RP, and that can go a long way in rebuilding the RP community as a whole. These issues are important to me, and I encourage everyone else who reads the forums to post their thoughts as well. If you have feedback either to me or my post, you can post it in this thread or talk to me in game. As I stated several times throughout the post, I'm not trying to single anyone out. It is not my intentions to hurt anyones feelings, after all it is only a game. I am sure some people are going to be upset by this post, and that's ok, everyone's entitled to his or her own opinion, and I'm exercising that very right. Also I wish to clarify that in this post I have offered several opinions, and they are just that...opinions, nothing more. I don't want to come off as egotistical or anything. I know I have been out of the show a long time, but now that I'm back I want to help once again to make a difference. Thanks for your time and your patience.
-Kalan
|
|
|
Post by Drakkencor on Jul 23, 2006 3:14:48 GMT -5
Gentlemen, I feel we are reinventing the wheel again. We originally changed the ranking system due to the numbr of ranks vs. the number of players in the guild. However, web.mit.edu/afrotc/www/wing/ig/mk_database/af_know/rank_structure.html is not what I would xpect in a medieval society. YM isn't 19th century america, I would like to think that if we re invent the wheel we at least invent something that is more practical for the application. For example, historically, th rank of Warrant Officer was used for non comissioned members, having authority without having the king's direct approval. Also put a bit of thought into the guild tag and how it will look. Example "Sergeant= [Sgt, Yew Militia] or First sergeant= [First sergeant, Yew Militia] Colours sergeant= [ ?, Yew Militia] I have a hard time seeing it, please let's look at the different Sergeant ranks, let's look at real ancient ranks before looking at US military ranks. Before you I get the "It's not irectly from the rank structure but there are more similarities than there are diffreences. However, it is 4:00 AM and I may not be thinking clearly, and also I lack Tact so... take it as you will
|
|
|
Post by JC Adkins on Jul 31, 2006 1:06:02 GMT -5
for once i agree with drak... *looks around* wheew... ok safe..
i think we need to break away from all of these sergeants and find something original that doesn't deal with laner/melee stuff. so boys n girls get your library pass out and hit the books
SUNSHINE!!! HOOAHHH
|
|
|
Post by vadimhecate on Aug 1, 2006 15:27:33 GMT -5
I have a few suggestions, on ranks that would simplify things to a great extent.
In general there should be no distinction between classes of characters or skills. If you want to distinguish between the two its possible but I am unsure why its needed and feel it just adds to the confusion. What I propose are the following ranks that are completely in line with a medieval structure that UO is associated with for the most part. Here are the ranks I propose from bottom to top.
1. Soldier (everyone starts here- new recruits)
2. Sergeant (once proficient they go here)
3. Sergeant at Arms (well versed in all manners of fighting but still learning the political game and civilities needed to become a knight)
(above are all non-commisioned ranks- below start the officers)
4. Knight (for those that have mastered the arts of fighting and role play. How they play is a true reflection of the guilds skill in both, so this rank is extremely hard to get to and very important)
5. Knight Lieutenant (two only, suggested one fighter one mage)
6. Knight Captain (One only, right hand man)
7. Knight Marshal (One only, the leader)
So in short order we have a limited ranking system with no distinction between classes. There really is no need for it. Characters that are support characters would have no rank nor would they need to at. In battle it would be easy as well. No wondering who is in charge. I like it much better than a rank that looks very much like the US army no offence its just not historically a good fit for UO in my opinion.
Hope you all find this in good order.
Saipher/Vadim
|
|
|
Post by Drakkencor on Aug 1, 2006 21:26:42 GMT -5
Vadimhecate,
Hats off to you for finding the simplest rank structure.
Congrats.... I support the Medieval Rank Structure.
!!!!WOOT!!!WOOT!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Vadim Hecate on Aug 2, 2006 6:21:29 GMT -5
Why thank you sir! *salutes*
|
|
|
Post by Polynikes on Aug 17, 2006 11:09:40 GMT -5
I like the medieval structure..do some research ,,is there a good replacement for sergeant that would have more of a correct historical flavor? Just a thought.. I know with an old English spelling the rank has been around a long time...also currently Knight Commander is a moot point as long as we run the BAF ..but good to have should that change.
I want to hear either by voice communication or post here from every member as to their thoughts before we make this move. After-wards none of us should have a reason to complain about the rank system. Everyone has this chance to speak now or forever hold yer piece. hmmm that came out a bit wrong but I hope you get my meaning *grins*
|
|
Leon
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by Leon on Aug 17, 2006 11:49:27 GMT -5
I like it, simple and the medieval touch is nicer than the US military ranking structure, (no offense).
|
|
|
Post by Polynikes on Aug 17, 2006 12:34:30 GMT -5
Leon ran across a rank that I think is historically correct and might work...Yeoman instead of soldier...squire is in there but there are other guilds that I think really are well known for using that rank and I would like to avoid it. Man at arms is another category.
I recommend that we use Yeoman instead of soldier and proceed with the change.
|
|
Leon
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by Leon on Aug 17, 2006 16:30:19 GMT -5
Here Here! and the sooner the better.
|
|
|
Post by vadim hecate on Aug 17, 2006 19:28:46 GMT -5
ok lets do it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!and fast!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Saipher
|
|
|
Post by vadimhecate on Aug 22, 2006 12:31:29 GMT -5
|
|