Core Principles: Ranks in games

[BlackDove]

I've brought this up in the Anarchy Online group, after my extensive experience with Neocron's system, where a set of ranks are imposed on the players that form an organisation/group/clan.

The ranks are usually similar in the games that use them, ten to fifteen different ranks that dictate what people in each of the positions have access to.

Example:

1 - nobody, n00bie, no power whatsoever
2 - almost no powers
3 - some power, but almost nothing

etc. etc.

13 - Almost all powers
14 - All powers aside from Termination
15 - Termination, as well as all powers which are usually:

a)Accessing the shared bank
b)Recruiting
c)Setting up different options for the properties owned by the organisation/clan/group
Etc. etc.

You get the idea.

That's pretty much the same in any games that use them, I guess usually MMO's (I've experienced it in Neocron and AO so far).

Now, usually the "Leader" position is taken by the person who does the founding of the group, and that's never a problem because usually you want that person to be in that position, if not, you'll object of course, but as I said, usually there's no problem with that.

Now the trouble as I've seen it, arises with the rest of the ranks, and how to distribute them between the members in the group. Here, we're faced with kind of a problem, seeing as we're "no-rank" type of a group.

I will tell you about my experiences with it, after which you may have your own experiences to measure up to, or just simply attain feedback from mine.

In Neocron, where I've first faced this issue, usually the people who were in longer standing with the "then-old" SSC would be holding the top spots, while the rest were distributed among the lower ranks - and in the begining, nobody basically cared how the distribution happend.

After awhile, as SSC Neocron harnessed various members due to some people's recruiting skills and habits (or by coincidence, doesn't matter really), it turned out that some of the newer unknown members weren't ideal for the group, and they decided to rip off the clan's money that was worked hard for, and put in the bank. After they ripped it off, they just dissapeared from the clan list (they dissapeared).

After that happened, an obvious division occurred between the long standing members mentioned before, and the new people that were added.


The older (including me) positioned themselves in the 15-14-13 places, while everyone else was 3-2 or 1.

This was viewed as a safety net for the newer people who joined, so we could be sure we were safe if they had malicious intent, and couldn't do damage to the organisation. After all, the game gives us the ranks and we need to utilise them to our advantage to protect ourselves.

That's... one way to look at it.

The way I always viewed it was as a permanent separation from the "Old skool", where the new people knew their place: having to ask for everything they ever needed from the organisation, waiting for the "higher ups" to get online, as well as bolstering the "rank" system which should never be a focal point of any place in which we congregate.

We modified mIRC to OP everyone for that reason as well, ne?

Question is: What does everyone want the main rule of thumb to be?

Separate the members so that there would be a safety net if new people to the place were evil and malicious or make everyone equal with the same amount of power from the start?

So please, discuss and offer opinions (and please try not to vote for the third option if you can help it)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My view and my vote:

Make everyone of the same rank (except the leader where it can't be changed). No ranks, no crap, all equal and enjoying fun without envy or the new people having feelings of being a "burden" to the "higher" folk when they are asking for things that should be rightfully theirs.

Agreed, we're at a disadvantage if we put everyone in the same rank, which offers advanced options that directly affect the group.

However, I am of the belief, that if we went as far as to introduce the "two-member vouch system" we really ought to know the people we're grouping anyway. If we don't, and we get the bad people in, don't we deserve for it to reflect practically on our organisation?

The people who vouch for the new members should really be careful of who they group anyway, so this sort of an added pressure should work just fine for all of us.

I know I personally would be much more mindful of who I ask to play with me, with the potential guilt I might face if I recruited the wrong people.

You reap what you sow. Welcome to practical responsibility.

[Inquisitor]

Trust and respect are earned. I'll give someone a bit of trust, what I can afford to lose if it's abused at first, the rest gets earned.

Do I want a bunch of "commanders" ? No. Are leaders necessary? Yes.

Should the n00b you just recruited be given total authority? No.

Everything else is grey.

We're not "necessarily" a no-rank group. Do what makes sense. Don;t be bound by past idealogy. If something seems to have merit, TRY it. Then condemn it if it fails. The only hard and fast rule is have fun and enjoy each others company. Everything else is fluid.

So, my vote was to allow ranks. Becuase I don;t see it quite so black and white. What I see from the example makes a certain amount of sense. So long as you have some sort of final arbitration (say, the guild leader) who can correct bad mistakes, and someone paying attention to how it's structured and how it matures, then you can avoid pitfalls of rank driven orgs. Don;t let the ranks drive it, but DO use them to make life easier.

Then again, we have as many "officers" as "members" in GW.

[QuantumDelta]

WoW's been running pretty much the same way NC did, so far only one member from ingame recruitment is an officer, but as the need grows people will join the position.

The guild only needs officers because they're the ones with recruitment.

Otherwise... no real need for 'commanders'

We've been doing fine just keeping a relaxed atmosphere, we'll see what happens when we start doing the higher end raid content, but for now 'grey' is good as relaxed is great...

[M.Steiner]

I don't see the need for putting everyone in a guild at the same rank, i think the system we've been using in WoW and NC is just fine. When a person has been with us for a while they'll eventually get the rank to recruit (and in NC's case, bank access too), we don't all need to give every single person in the guild a rank at which they can do all of that. It would just be silly to be able to let brand new recruits add whoever they wanted to the guild. I would hate for our guild in WoW to turn into a guild at which our new members would just add everyone and anybody...

Trust and respect are earned

My thoughts exactly.


The only differences with ranks in WoW is that if you have an officers rank you can recruit new members, nothing else. You don't get a name placed above your head displaying your rank or anything like with NC.

We once tried having most people of the same rank in Neocron, trusting everyone and giving everyone the same rank privilages, that was the time we got robbed of 10million credits...

[Blue Star]

My view is that I agree with BD in some part - The basis we've been running the clan is that everyone is equal, no-one above another.

Unfortunately, that's where the agreement ends.

Funcom, for lack of a stronger word, has an abysmal system for AO's orgs - The basis is that one of several organisation types can be chosen that affect the number & name of ranks (from a one-rank anarchy to a 10-rank department), but other than that there's no customisation. No adding/removing ranks, no changing the names of them.

Personally, I would have preferred an over-simplified ranking system of the NC group - Leader at top for management purposes, council which runs the org, members who are considered trusted and new rookies which have just joined. That would have made a four-rank Feudalism good, if it wasn't for one thing - Funcom again. Money from the org bank (which is earmarked for a city anyway) can only be withdrawn from the leader, while recruitment can only be done by someone three ranks about the start (i.e. if a Feudalism was formed, only the leader could recruit).

We've had a hierarchy on the forums since the start, with the Moderators and the Arbiter, but we haven't picked up on it in the same fashion. It's because these aren't a hierarchy of power, more of a hierarchy of having jobs to do.

No-one's in the AO org has gone around flashing their rank so it's evidently not as important as people think. I'd happily have everyone the same rank (but not necessarily org abilities for security's sake), but in this case it's trying to fit around AO's structure.

Bloody Funcom.

[NF]

From my point of view I dont think the rank structure is that important in AO as people think..and after 12 hours sleep and a healthy lie in I thought why dont we just make everyone Veterans (or equivilent) then if you want to recruit you find their second vouch and get them to post a membership request on the forums like everyother SSX member. Once agreed Adrian then finds em in game and recruits em. That way new people can do nothing negative to the org and it introduces them to the rest of the community.

As founder Adrian (and/or perhaps the recruitment officer) are the only people who can recruit, Adrian is the only one who can access bank and everything is secure.

When I meet potential recruits in game I always refer them to the forums, if they post a request to join then I will vouch and they can earn a second vouch from meeting up with other members and getting to know them.

Rank structures in game are perhaps one of the biggest thorns SSC/SSX has ever had in its side but they are generally inescapable, people play games to be immersed in a world where more often than not rank is an integral part, the trick we need to do is work around it, if no-one has any perks beyond the founder, then so be it, rather that than anarchy and hard earned cash in the org bank being spent frivously or being stolen. All are equal except one (the games minimum requirement) that we have absolute trust in (i.e. Adrian) and of course they hold their position at the consensus of everyone else.

Not sure about NC or WOW but a similar approach should work with minimum hassle. Stick to the minimums, take a vote on the requirements and leave it at that. Everyone joins and is ranked immediately the same as all but one, who remains only as long as neccesary or at the will of the community.

[esd]

As founder Adrian (and/or perhaps the recruitment officer) are the only people who can recruit

Advisor rank can recruit.

I believe that "full blown members" should all be advisors, with the ability to recruit. You cannot promote someone to your level or above - only one rank below.

So, everyone that's been vouched should be an advisor. Recruitees can be any rank below that, as they then don't get the power to recruit new people into the group until they've been vouched. Get em in, see how they are, if they're trustworthy they get vouched and promoted.

Simple, I think.

[Inquisitor]

We've been doing fine just keeping a relaxed atmosphere

It's because these aren't a hierarchy of power, more of a hierarchy of having jobs to do.

Just a couple of gems from above, keep those in mind.

And interesting thing to note, if someone complains, threatens to leave, or whatever because they don't have a particular position or title, they probably aren't the type we want around anyway.

Even with 2 people vouching, unless you have an extended vouching period where that person is evaluated, can be broken. We could vouch someone in and later find they are complete asshats. I'd have a loose "let everyone get to know you" period, then make them able to recruit. Don;t define it, don't codify it, just after a couple weeks look at the roster and say "hey, so and so really fits in, let's let them recruit." Maybe tell them to recruit, let them find a couple people, and if those people work out, go ahead and let them recruit on their own. Maybe that elevation is equivalent for us vouching for them as full "members"? Dunno, thinking out loud. What you want to avoid is breaking the voucher system, and having some n00b suddenlt invite a bunch of his 12 year old antisocial buddies.

If your vouching works, and first impressions are accurate, soon enough everyone will be "equal." Just don't rush into it.

Equality isn't in the banner for a reason, don't force yourselves into a mold that isn't actually there. It's a great guideline, but, as we have learned (the hard way) sometimes someone does need to do particular jobs and be in charge.

From what I have seen of the AO proposal on "ranks" (which seems more about structure), it actually doesn't look broken.

My suggestion? Try it. If it's broken, stop doing it, but try it, and try to avoid the pitfalls you know about. See if it works.

[BlackDove]

Trust and respect are earned. I'll give someone a bit of trust, what I can afford to lose if it's abused at first, the rest gets earned.

Do I want a bunch of "commanders" ? No. Are leaders necessary? Yes.

Should the n00b you just recruited be given total authority? No.

Everything else is grey.

We're not "necessarily" a no-rank group. Do what makes sense.

You are talking the correct talk, but in my opinion, the walk doesn't work.

Trust and respect are earned, agreed. So practically how do you see that happening? Is someone you just recruited supposed to jump through hoops and play like a good dog in order to gain trust and respect? Because that is essentially what you're saying.

A newb that is given no power, and nothing substantial to work with will have kind of a hard time proving himself, without resorting to ass-kissing and glorifying the people above him/her. And I say the people above, because quite frankly, by holding the new recruits to a lower standard, you are promoting full ranking system, where it is known who is at the top, and who is at the bottom.

I am much more of a believer in proving oneself with concrete actions than words flying by. They're cheap.

Personally I don't want anyone jumping through hoops for me or being forcibly nice just so that they could "earn" my trust and respect, and mind you, I have seen this happen with my own eyes, and it never ended well.

We've been doing fine just keeping a relaxed atmosphere, we'll see what happens when we start doing the higher end raid content, but for now 'grey' is good as relaxed is great...

Relaxed is great until the moment of truth comes, and then when *you know* hits the fan, relaxed turns into something very, very ugly, and those who don't run for the hills get to face the full extent of the music. You've been there, so I don't really even have to explain this to you.

Relaxed can very easily be mistaken for "not care" in which case you'll have a good pack of people instinctively trying to jump you when you're not looking. Werther it works for them or not is irrelevant, the fact that the sentiment exists is enough to question the term of "relaxed" heavily.

Guess who the people trying to jump you will be? That's right.

Quite frankly, I am appaled at the notion that someone needs to prove themselves after they've been recruited. Shouldn't that job be done during the recruiting phase? Or are we really going to promote picking people off the online street and dumping them into the low ranked places, because hey, "it's safe"?

Sorry, but it's a no-no for me. I'd expect the new recruits to be processed with care and close observation before they're added at all. Otherwise you're just keeping a nice caged zoo down at the bottom where it's safe (hence - cage).

That's not the main thing bugging me though. If you indeed have recruited someone of quality, you're keeping a capable individual caged for a - let's face it - an indefinite amount of time.

It would just be silly to be able to let brand new recruits add whoever they wanted to the guild. I would hate for our guild in WoW to turn into a guild at which our new members would just add everyone and anybody...

We once tried having most people of the same rank in Neocron, trusting everyone and giving everyone the same rank privilages, that was the time we got robbed of 10million credits...

Yes, it would be silly to let them add anyone they want. Why not try explaining it to them first, so that they can hold the power to recruit, yet willfully abstain from it, and use proper judgment?

I don't really view people I want in the SSX as morons that need to be physically restricted from being able to do something, in order to prevent them from doing it.

And yes, we've had trust in Neocron, and we got robbed of 10million credits.

By the way, do you remember the way recruiting was done? Doubt that, you weren't in while the horde of people who did it were invited (they were in for some time before you came along). The recruiting that was done in Neocron was a joke. Not a funny one either.

(*Note: I wasn't there when that kind of quality turned out to be the norm either, but I know how they got in, partly because I was somewhat involved with it, but mostly because I've recruited and worked a lot with the person who invited them in.)

Which is precisely the point I'm trying to make. Less attention to hierarchy within, which doesn't belong at all (and I think we all know that - we may be a somewhat leader-driven community, but I don't recall branding people), and more attention to the recruiting skills of the recruiters, how to invite proper quality.

MFuncom, for lack of a stronger word, has an abysmal system for AO's orgs

I completely agree. It could have been done so much better.

But isn't utilising the ranks in a way where they're rendered insignificant better for us, rather than praising them by conforming to the separation between the ranks - n00b down, old skool above? Rest assured, that is what it winds down to.

Just make sure the choice you make is proper. Hierarchy is a very bad mojo as far as I'm concerned, and there is always a choice to make it dissapear, hence the poll.

[JarodRah]

I am going to keep my post short, cause Ed has pretty much said everything I feel.

IN AO we all have positions, that we have volunteered to do. ITs a good group and with the current "rank" structure performs just fine.

I am unsure why people say something is broken with Funcoms system, fact of matter it works the way most people view a orgnanization. The trick is to get it to work the way we want it to.

We met last night assigned roles (all volunteer), everyone is pitching in, whats the issue?

enough said on my part.

[Inquisitor]

more attention to the recruiting skills of the recruiters, how to invite proper quality

And how do you do that?

Gotta draw a line and have faith in the people who are playing and working with not to be stupid.

Frankly, I am not sure I care what new people think, if they can't get over the fact that say, *I* trust you or Adrian more than I trust some new guy who I never met, then I point back to the "they probably shouldn't be here anyway."

This is about building relationships, once people *feel* ok about a person, there should be NO barrier to responsibility. Until then, tah, they have to "prove" themselves.

Plenty of ways to do that without power. Play. Have fun. Help others. Be congenial. Help build websites. Help answer game questions. Help answer tech questions. Generally don't be an asshole.

We're not talking about some magic entrance exam.

[Thalastian]

The intent of this game is to be fun, or at least I see it that way. I think too much is being put into this topic. Will some newb get his feelings hurt because someone that is trusted and been with the ORG longer has a higher rank than them, who cares. In my opinion anyone that demands to be at the same level as the vets of the ORG does not need to be associated with us. In 5 years of running leagues, units, guilds I have yet to see a worthy person think they are on the same level as the founders.

Because someone has a higher rank does not make them unequal as a person. It does however show who is more experienced in the game, and who is trusted by the leaders to carry on with the mission statement of the Org. The rank system Adrian chose for AO in my opinion works well. For example, the rank of Advisor seems to me that that rank is the one a newb goes to for advice.

In all the units I have ran in the past I have used rank to reward those that are dedicated, point newbs to someone who knows and for an incentive.

[Fenavian]

As many people know, I have only had one requirement...

"Don't act like an asshat"

Ed has a perfectly valid statment, and I, for one, agree whole heartedly with his logic. I mean if I don't know someone, I sure as hell dont' want to have them running the show till I get to know them better.

I think this is all being made bigger than what it really is. It comes down to a matter of trust. new people have to earn trust.. it's that simple.

[Kon]

I think that admins and other veterans should start with the most power, and new people who have been vouched for can start slightly lower in power, until we can be sure they don't try to pull anything stupid such as stealing money or anything. So really, there would only be two ranks: members who have proven that they are mature, and people who just joined the group.

P.S. BD does have a point about the vouching thing. If we let in a bad egg, it is our fault and we deserve the consequences. If we were more careful with our selections, we wouldn't need ranks, because everyone would be proven mature. But eventually people may start slacking, so I vote for the first choice, even though I wish I could vote for the second choice.

[Scikar]

We've always pointed out that while people can hold positions of responsibility, e.g. moderator, this does not necessarily mean they hold more power than other members.

There is a trust issue in games with new recruits. As far as I'm concerned within the clan itself everyone is equal regardless of how long they've been members, and the MMO ranking system is completely separate.

Basically:
A member does not need access to clan/guild funds/resources directly in order to be an equal member. What makes them equal is that they have equal rights to said funds/resources, equal rights within clan decisions, and equal rights to be given responsibility for the funds/resources.

The ideal system that would support this is one which allows complete interchanging of rights on a per-character basis, and has just a single rank. So a new recruit begins with limited rights and generally has to ask those with responsibilities for resources and equipment etc., but is the same rank as every other member. The rights to direct access could be given by democratic vote or whichever system necessary. Most of the systems in MMOs can be made to work this way - we have a few or many members (depending on the best way to approach it in the particular game) who are responsible for managing certain systems, but don't necessarily have the power to change them by themselves, i.e. only they can make changes but changes are only permitted after a democratic vote.

EDIT: Also, I don't think any recruitment process is ever going to be watertight against thieves. You just have to have a knack to be able to spot them, and get lucky, else you lose everything. What our recruitment system does have going for it in general is that we recruit members who respect the others - i.e. though they do have the technical right to request a large amount of equipment from clan stock in a game, they will instead just take what they need and leave what they don't. This kind of personality aspect is the kind of thing that our recruitment process does work well on.

[Thalastian]

Not sure why this keeps getting mentioned as it has been explained in earlier posts, but in AO only the Leader has access to ORG funds. The only power lower ranks have is in recruiting and promoting and you can only promote to one rank lower than yourselves.

[BlueFlames]

I'm not sure it's necessary to have a squad-sweeping rule regarding ranks. Mayhap it would be appropriate to let this be decided on a per-game basis. That way, if the MMORPG crowd wants to subordinate new members until they've built a degree of trust, they can, while the D&D group (as an example) can grab a new guy and let him DM his own campaign on day one.

Anyway, I think Quiz has expanded our list of ideals...

1) Friendship
1a) Don't be an asshat.

After that, how many core principles do you really need to apply to the whole squad?

[Inquisitor]

Heh

Not sure why this keeps getting mentioned

It's something core to who we are, so it should be discussed. I can explain why on IRC sometime.