Sub-Officers be add to the game

#21

Having configurable ranks or titles is nice in other games I’ve played. This gave teams a lot of leeway to manage people and express some personality.

Some ranks may just be informative or vanity labels. Others you could assign any of the powers currently given officers or other helpful privileges. You could, for example:

  • Separate your war officers from your atlas officers
  • Grant limited bank withdrawal privileges
  • Revoke atlas bookmark or wiki editing rights from probationary members
  • Label the team building or breeding guru or flight coach.
  • Use bilingual rank names for your foreign language liaisons.

With only fifty people per team I don’t think there’s any need for automated rank assignment beyond setting a default for new recruits.

I’m sure everything is hardcoded around the existing three ranks and we’re unlikely to get these niceties, but it would be useful and fun.

2 Likes

#22

I can think of several for my team already :eyes: Some of which are currently being used in TC…

1 Like

#23

No komment

0 Likes

#24

No warrant officers?

I’d rather have a Lance Corporal than a “Private 2”…

And I thought a spec4 and corporal where both E-4’s. Need a sergeant, staff and gunny too.

Thanks for your service - this seems like it would be a lot of management for an already over taxed leadership.

1 Like

#25

On Topic: I agree with @TheRedDelilah The current command structure should remain the same. I also concur that it might be nice to have the ability to appoint someone to update targeting during PVP events. Just another set of eyes to help stay on top of those.

Off Topic reply to @FLAKnIceHole : No one knows what to do with us Warrant Officers. :joy::joy:
Many years ago, back in my Army days, we had a Lieutenant (1LT) in the S2 shop that hated us Warrant Officers for some reason. He made a comment one day that “Warrant Officers are nothing more than Spec4’s with Club Cards”. (For those that don’t know, that’s the Officer’s Club or O-Club). We were furious!! We complained to the the old man and demanded an apology. He agreed! The next Squadron formation, the Squadron Commander made the LT formally apologize to all of the Spec4’s for comparing them to us! They work hard and did not deserve such slander!! :joy::joy::joy: True Story! The LT requested transfer and was gone not long after. :joy::+1:

3 Likes

#26

I could definitely see some value in adding the “2nd in command” position that @Saracydal suggested. The officer slots provide a good number of people for supervision and target selection, but I fairly regularly see players complaining in chat or on the forums about what to do when their leader is offline/inactive/etc.

Having a designated second that way could lay the groundwork for some simplification, especially when it comes to things like succession mechanisms.

1 Like

#27

What are actions that require leader input that an officer cannot do?

3 Likes

#28

Rather, 2nd in command can make things worse when (s)he has disagreement with the leader.

3 Likes

#29

Wiki ownership, if locked, and officer management? :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

#30

Really hope that Officer only will be included as an option…

1 Like

#31

So fairly useless stuff.
The only problem I see is if an officer needs to be demoted vs running rampart through the team kicking people. But very few incidents have happened like this in the past.

0 Likes

#32

Or making @SKADE a Notifications Gov so he can send quest notifications to the “real” officers and annoy them.

1 Like

#33

The only advantage I can see to having additional Officer slots would be to allow a greater (time) coverage of Atlas. Otherwise you need to think long and hard about who to put as Governer/Marshall and where…

0 Likes

#34

Best part of not being on the same team as you anymore. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

2 Likes

closed #35

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

0 Likes