Originally Posted by Karrade
This. Well put sir, few people can see it. No to herd mentality rule please, no popularity over practicality contests here.
Make it stat based if anything, but that will only work if these stats are intelligently taken from the game. If the commanders/generals are successful in their role (whatever that is) they move up a rank, if they fail then they move down a rank.
|
I think it will be incredibly hard coming up with algorithm to count a commanders "success rate" or "effectiveness". Way too many variables to leave it in the hands of some formula. Ideally the community itself should decide who are the effective commanders, and it all starts looking like a vote. Nothing stops posting the commanders stats for players to see (even if it doesn't necessarily prove anything).
This is not directed solely at you Karrade, but this line of "tyranny of the majority" just sounds like elitism and sour grapes about the possibility that one might find themselves in the minority. I think any commanders with "privileged" abilities such global chat, continent chat or mission creation has to have some legitimacy. PS1 grind to CR5 wasn't a good way to do it, and they usually garnered a good amount of contempt from players... since nobody approved of them being there (not too mention trolls). And stop...you can't dismiss outfit members voting or approving their own outfit leader. Of course they are biased, thats why they joined that outfit. The player pretty much made their vote by joining the outfit.
However, I think we need to first get a hint at the direction SOE is going with mission creation and command rank systems.
2012-07-04, 01:47 AM
Threaded Mode