Most Effective Melee Clan Ranks for Any Game
Rules for this thread are
*post the setup for ranks you think would work the best.
*comment/provide ideas
Ranks
Founder,Head Leader,Leader,Co-Leader,Commander,Co-Commander,Sub-Commander,General,Lieutenant General,Major General,Brigadier General,Colonel,Lieutenant Colonel,Major,Captain,First Lieutenant,Second Lieutenant, WO10, WO9, WO8, WO7, WO6, WO5, WO4, WO3, WO2, WO1,Sergeant Major,First Sergeant,Master Sergeant,Sergeant First Class,Staff Sergeant,Sergeant,Corporal,Private First Class,Private,Recruit Preacher,Recruit,Inactive Member, Past Members
I think the WOn's are kinda pointless though.
Manager, All-Star, Triple A, Double A, Single A, Rookie, Prospect
QUOTE
Manager, All-Star, Triple A, Double A, Single A, Rookie, Prospect
Are those Clan gGg sports ranks?
Sure are.
We're not a melee clan but whatever, maybe your clan likes sports ;\
None.
No matter what people say, or people use, that whole warrant officer or private bullcrap where you get promoted for being there for a few weeks, all garbage.
Clan aS had that. They gave me 2nd lieutenant in a day because I was just that 1337 ;P (no, i didnt know anyone there...)
Ranks just create some more fake military crap so people can say they're better than you for no reason, especially those kind.
Either do ranks based on skill, or none at all. Not even like, "leader, common, new recruit", just none.
Clans should have no ranks, everyone considered equal, perhaps a leader figure may emerge, and it may be the founder, but I think (especially for melee) it should just be based on skill and you just earn respect in the clan.
QUOTE
Clans should have no ranks, everyone considered equal, perhaps a leader figure may emerge, and it may be the founder, but I think (especially for melee) it should just be based on skill and you just earn respect in the clan.
That sounds like Communism, it's
ideal but it doesn't work.
QUOTE
Ranks just create some more fake military crap so people can say they're better than you for no reason, especially those kind.
I agree.
Considering that I run an all-around gaming network, I really have no need for ranks, not to mention that it would be inconsistant with the different games. Besides some people who are responsible that can 'represent' a branch of the network. Basically, here's my ranking system:
High Administrator
Administrative Office (Then you can fill this with an assorted amount of people. Think of it as a council)
Divisional Office (Basically the leader of a certain branch. This position is usually limited to one person per branch, but there may be co-leaders if the leader isn't an ideal one)
And that's all the positions. But if you want to rank people by their abilities in melee, or whatever, use a tier system.
1st Tier, 2nd Tier, 3rd Tier, and so on. My system goes up to 5 tiers, but it's rether flexible to the amount of tiers you want.
QUOTE
1st Tier, 2nd Tier, 3rd Tier, and so on. My system goes up to 5 tiers, but it's rether flexible to the amount of tiers you want.
That sounds like it might work effectively. It's similar to the 1st class, 2nd class system used in some UMS clans.
I find it very lame how many clans have a $hit load of ranks that are based on the USA military rankings. Honestly, you don't need all those ranks, they just confuse and are stupid in my opinion. It does not make you look any cooler. You should just have a Leader, Co-leader and memebers. If anything, no ranks at all.
I think most clans have those many ranks to look "pretty" and like they know what they are doing. It gives new people a reason to get better if their rank is based on time spent on StarCraft. I don't think it works.