Custom Ranks for Apolyton?

[SnowFire]

This is a feature that was fairly recently introduced at the other board I visit, and it would be nice to see Apolyton get custom ranks too while we’re upgrading the forums. Basically, you get to choose the style of your rank- for instance, at FFO (the other board I visit) there’s "Knight" (which is Squire for posts 1-20 and Knight after) or "Wizard" (Which is Mage for posts 1-20 and Wizard after) and other similarly styled ranks (Dragoon, Paladin, etc.). This being a Civ site, we could use Civ & related games for our style of ranks. For instance, based on the games currently covered here, and using the exact same “Number of posts” counter:

Civer (Standard)
Settler
Chieftain
... (you know the rest)

SMACer
Colonist
Citizen
Specialist
Talent
Librarian
Thinker
Transcend

Dinosaur
Egg
Archaeopteryx
Pteradon
Stegosaurus
Triceratops
Tyrannosaurus Rex
Brachiosaur

CTPer
Heretic
Goblin
Imp
Lesser Demon
Greater Demon
Devil
Archdevil

More ideas for rank systems could be proposed as well, if it’s your pleasure, and some hammering out on which ranks to use for some of the systems other than Civ or SMAC (do enough people know what an Archaeopteryx, aka the chickenosaur, is? Is “Initiate of Fire” or “Forsaken Child” a better settler rank than “Heretic” for CTP?). You would select which ranking system to use in your profile from a drop down menu, like demonstrated in the lower announcement here.

Credit to Wraith for giving me the idea of proposing bringing Custom Ranks to Apolyton in this thread.

[Zkribbler]

Good idea, SnowFire. I know the women feel slighted because they have men's titles thrust upon them.

[MarkG]

beyond the fact that "heretic" has nothing to do with ctp and we dont ave a clue about dino's, the current ranks ARE civ based. smac based titles would only bring up confusion and create a "seperation"...

I will look into(when I get the time from the other stuff I have to look into ) if we can allow female titles(queen instead of king, etc) though...

[Nimrod.]

It would be kind of surreal then when Empress becomes an empress

And I wonder what the female version of a Deity is...

[The Brain]

Dietess? Dietette? I don't know!!!! *Explodes*

------------------
The Brain: Weirdo who takes modern culture and stabs it in the eye
-Founder of DoH!
-Please pull up to the second window
-I see dead people...give me my medication!
-What's your favorite scary mov--Please deposit 25 cents for the next 5 minutes.
-Visit DoH, or else!
-How much longer is my sig gonna get?
-This much.

[MarkG]

just diety I guess

[stodlám]

"Goddess"
But What Do Goblins and CTP have in common? Are you saying CTP is a demon?

[SnowFire]

Um, er, the CTP ranks were slightly sarcastic. I don't own the game and don't know how they scaled difficulty in it. But we all know what evil people those who claimed CTP was better than SMAC were... so...

smac based titles would only bring up confusion and create a "seperation"...

Why would there be confusion? You just go to your profile and choose what ranking system you want. It's pretty easy.

And yes, there would be a separation, but one that already exists, between the Civers and the SMACers. It's hardly a harmful one. I can assure you that at the other site I linked, nobody is harrassed for their rank system, if that's what you're worried about, and you have much better posters than they do. And if you allow there to be a female set of titles too, then that's a separation- but nobody's complaining about that kind of separation.

This site covers SMAC too. If the female posters get to have their ranking system, then SMACers should also get theirs. I don't think it would be harmful to the site.

[MarkG]

1) there's not just civers and smacers. there are also ctpers, and people who play both civ2 and smac, or civ2 and ctp or whatever.

2) therefore a smac ranking system would only promote a separation, something not wanted

3) females wont get their own ranking system, they will just get female versions of the one ranking system

4) we are all civers, end of story

[SnowFire]

1) there's not just civers and smacers. there are also ctpers, and people who play both civ2 and smac, or civ2 and ctp or whatever.

Which is why I would support a Dinosaurs and CTPer rating system too.

And if anything your argument is for custom ranks. If people are that different, then how can a one-size fits all rank work for them? Sure, the "choose your game" method won't be perfect all the time either for those who like two games equally, but it will help everybody else.

This is like saying "Why offer both bread and bananas at the supermarket? Some people eat both of them and they can only choose one. Let's only offer bread!" This does not compute- the fact that some will have trouble choosing does not mean you should deny the better choice, and hence better fitting rank, to everybody else. And the people on the line can still get their bread, if they want.

2) therefore a smac ranking system would only promote a separation, something not wanted

I don't get it. It would also make SMAC people happier, because they would get a more specific rank. The more choices people have, the more ways everybody can maximize their utility by choosing what THEY want, not what somebody else chose for them.

And if the separation issue was that bad, why do we have already have those different ranks (between, say, a Chieftain and an Emperor) which separate people on the basis of post count? Those are even more separative than a different ranking system, and yet they proved to be pretty neat additions, and certianly didn't hurt Apolyton.

4) we are all civers, end of story

True. But at the other site (FFO), it was also true that we were all "Members" before: it just allowed us a little bit more breadth in being creative and unique to tag what kind of ranking system we wanted.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by SnowFire (edited July 23, 2000).]</font>

[Empress]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Nimrod. on 07-23-2000 01:21 PM</font>
And I wonder what the female version of a Deity is...
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Then I would be Goddess Empress
hey, I kinda like the sound of that...

[Bill3000]

great idea!

[Richard Cranium]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by MarkG on 07-23-2000 05:12 PM</font>
1) there's not just civers and smacers. there are also ctpers, and people who play both civ2 and smac, or civ2 and ctp or whatever.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

One word: Freeciv.

Freeciv doesn't have difficulty levels as such -- instead, you can choose whether each computer-controlled player will play at easy, normal, or hard.

[Comrade Dan]

bah - give people individual titles and get rid of location....

Official Markos-and-Dan approved titles should be underlined.

[tonic]

I don't want to be a wet blanket but I have to put my 2.2 cents into MarkG's box. Civ is the lowest common denominator if you like and the current system is virtually universal for all Apolytoners because it would have been their first gateway before migrating to the successors like CtP and SMAC. Precisely because we're are all members first and civ-factions second, the introduction of faction-specific titles would make for unnecessary confusion and would not have an instantly gaugable active Apolyton-age (which is after all what it is designed for) for those who have not moved on from the original game.

BTW besides the omnipotence and omnipresence of MarkG and DanQ are there any Dieties amongst us?