[Implemented]More team features

[VashTheNoob]

Like the title suggest, allow more than one person to be leader of a team.

[Heavenol]

Ah, you meant in game. Like Munya stated, we have already have officers. But I guess one more rank couldn't hurt.

[Munya]

Whats the point?  You can already set officers that can invite and i am assuming dismiss members, anything else just causes not needed drama.

[Rigamorty]

Whats the point?  You can already set officers that can invite and i am assuming dismiss members, anything else just causes not needed drama.

one problem i see with the current officer system is that officers can also kick other officers. so if something like this were to happen i'd say it would just be for the sake of not being able to kick someone of the same rank as you.

[Techidance]

It couldn't hurt to add this specific rank, or include a method of adding ranks and adjusting the roles/rules of each rank. 

 

The first option would be easier to implement, take less time...

 

But the final option would definitely give us, the players and even leaders of our own teams the tools we need to solve any problem we'd have with customizing our team and maximizing it's efficiency and the effectiveness of the 'Rank'.

 

Otherwise, with the current system the way it is, if your leader isn't active in the team and your Officers were not the most trustful little gang of players who ALWAYS get along, then why have anything more than member and Leader ranks at all? 

[Gaxeus]

I'm actually in favor of the addition of co-leader or a rank of the same equivalent. Good suggestion imo.

[Munya]

It couldn't hurt to add this specific rank, or include a method of adding ranks and adjusting the roles/rules of each rank. 

 

The first option would be easier to implement, take less time...

 

But the final option would definitely give us, the players and even leaders of our own teams the tools we need to solve any problem we'd have with customizing our team and maximizing it's efficiency and the effectiveness of the 'Rank'.

 

Otherwise, with the current system the way it is, if your leader isn't active in the team and your Officers were not the most trustful little gang of players who ALWAYS get along, then why have anything more than member and Leader ranks at all? 

 

And what if your co-leader ends up being not the most trustful person, you end up in the same, if not worse boat.

[YokoKurama]

Maybe the permission can be remodeled so that "co-leader" is allowed to kick officers and members, while officers are only allowed to kick members?

 

 

 

And what if your co-leader ends up being not the most trustful person, you end up in the same, if not worse boat.

 

 

Well, for someone to be elected co-lader, I would assume that the leader should have ultimate trust in that person? If a vice leader does indeed do such a thing, wouldn't that be the leader's fault?

[Techidance]

And what if your co-leader ends up being not the most trustful person, you end up in the same, if not worse boat.

Same boat. Not worse. It's the same situation. 

 

A more effective solution would be to implement a way for further control in a team roster. 

As it stands: The current rank of officer is just like the rank of Co-leader that is being suggested right now. Because the people in this position are just as powerful as the new rank would be. The only reason the new rank is being suggested is that it would nerf  the officer position and supply a more stable hierarchy.

 

More options = More solutions.

Ignoring the issue in favor of doing nothing, wouldn't be a very efficient solution.   

[Munya]

Same boat. Not worse. It's the same situation. 

 

A more effective solution would be to implement a way for further control in a team roster. 

As it stands: The current rank of officer is just like the rank of Co-leader that is being suggested right now. Because the people in this position are just as powerful as the new rank would be. The only reason the new rank is being suggested is that it would nerf  the officer position and supply a more stable hierarchy.

 

More options = More solutions.

Ignoring the issue in favor of doing nothing, wouldn't be a very efficient solution.   

 

An officer gos bad and starts kicking people, another officer and potentially put a stop to it.  A co leader does this and nobody is stopping him.  Worse boat.

[YokoKurama]

An officer gos bad and starts kicking people, another officer and potentially put a stop to it.  A co leader does this and nobody is stopping him.  Worse boat.

 

 

Well, for someone to be elected co-lader, I would assume that the leader should have ultimate trust in that person? If a vice leader does indeed do such a thing, wouldn't that be the leader's fault?

 

Officers, I can understand since there can be multiple of them. But co-leader...? If I were a leader I definitely wouldn't assign someone co-leader if I have not known him for a looooong time.

 

For the sake of new teams, the leader doesn't necessarily have to assign a co-leader until the team grows to become a moderate size.

[Munya]

 

 

Just pick your officers the same way.

[YokoKurama]

A co-leader will be able to keep officers in check knowing that a "bad" officer cannot potentially kick the co-leader out, who instead has the power to do otherwise.

 

In my suggestion I suggested that officers should no longer have the power to kick other officers. So if an officer does indeed "go bad", no only can the other officers notify the leader (who might not be on 24 7), they can also notify the co-leader who holds the power to kick the officer out.

 

 

But for a co-leader to start randomly kicking others out, I'd blame that on the leader.

[Techidance]

Just pick your officers the same way.

I'm sure that people who wind up in this position didn't assign their officers "Justcuz". 

 

Predicting how someone will act days from now isn't a science. And developing teams with many members can always use a few new officers to help maintain the team. Waiting several months and being this cautious every time you want to promote a new officer would never be as efficient as the suggested new rank. 

[VashTheNoob]

Well we can have a heiarchy like:

 

Leader: Has the Ultimate power, expel, promote, or demote members. Can rename the Team.

 

Co-Leader: Has some power. Can recommend to expel, promote, or demote members. 

[Dannnno]

Something that has been discussed in my own team is an expansion of the ranking system. There are two main points

1. The leader is able to designate X ranks, and set permissions for each rank.  Permissions to kick XXX level individual are assigned individually
2. Each rank can be named (ie the leader is the dictator, 2nd in command is commander, most recent officer is executive bitch, etc)

This allows for greater flexibility in the team and makes it more amusing.

[the420urchin]

Custom rank system is vital in mmos with guild system in my opinion.  I wish I could give more power to some of my officers, but as it stands I have to deal with all disciplinary actions on team members because I don't want them all to have power to boot people.  Another rank would make this much easier, though it's not much harder to just implement a custom rank system, where we can add ranks.  I also hate the fact that new members are full members, an initiate rank helps so much when trying to weed out players that don't belong in a team or are inactive.  May not seem important, but if a player has been an initiate for so long it means he has not been part of the team and therefor may just be taking up space in your roster.

[BanesCreed]

I think it would be cool to have more features added to Teams, like Ally List, Enemy List, Something that team members can invest in to make the team more powerful like the more money invested into the team by the members the higher the team's rank would be. Or investing can unlock new member rank's like Deputy Leader, or Manager, etc.

[ZombiWhale]

I like Dannnos post. +1 to that idea

Grecks idea gets a +1 too

[Greck]

And what about doing a custom colors for nicks on overworld, like social is green, then a team member can be blue, this way the people can find his team mates in places with a mount of people

[Greck]

In reference to this topic: https://forums.pokemmo.eu/index.php?/topic/34019-team-ranks/ (which Gaxeus lock like 5 seconds before i want reply it), i just said:

At the moment, is not the time to doing a customized rank mechanism, if there is a limit for 100 members on team, and only 3 diferent permissions to give, this is not like a very big social group like a forum . In first place, we need a well-developed team features, and more options.

 

(sorry for the double post, i just want continue the discussion)

[Purpleherpe]

In reference to this topic: https://forums.pokemmo.eu/index.php?/topic/34019-team-ranks/ (which Gaxeus lock like 5 seconds before i want reply it also)

 

 

 

In my eyes it isn't even about permissions at all it's called being appreciated when you've been a team as long and as actively as bong have some people really go the extra mile to being an important member of the team maybe these people might not be  people who want the responsibility of officer or perhaps it isn't needed but still they should be appreciated for what they've done! 

this is our officer list

 

Every single person there has been a valued member of our team for a seriously long time but yet still there are many members of our team whose value cannot be acknowledged.

[Zehkar]

Executive/Commander/Grunt ranks have been since added.