• Suggestion Format

    Please use the following format when making suggestions

    In-Game Name:
    Steam ID:
    Suggestion putting forward:
    Why should this Suggestion be accepted?:
    Do you have any screenshots/lore/etc to back up your suggestion and argument? If so, please post here:


  • General Ranks Format

    • Server: MilitaryRP Under Review

    Hey. Just as a disclaimer, I'll probably be spewing out a shitload of suggestions in the future, partially because I like to hear myself talk like the arrogant Philosophy student that I am, and they'll range anywhere from garbage to considerable. Also I didn't want to PM this because it'd just be these many paragraphs in the pms, and that'd be fucking annoying for both me and the person I'm suggesting it to. 

    This specific one's just giving my input and food for thought on how Generals will be organised, and address in more detail than what I posted in Robot's recent thread. 


    What I noticed in terms of the attitude with Generals and staff/responsibility is this; combining them will liken the probability of more qualified people filling in the position, but removing the two will flesh in more potential candidates that you can siphon through.


    For separating, as I mentioned in the last thread, it's mostly because older and more mature players have larger responsibilities (generally speaking) than younger players, which means the window of time they have to spend on server responsibility is less. That means they could burn out from their position quicker, do less of their full potential because of their division of labour server-side as well, etc. 


    To find a neat balance in between the two, how about this:

    • Each branch can theoretically have a CO as high as a General, and up to General, it's fully RP oriented, meaning you don't need to engage in staff matters. 
    •  CO applications, once accepted, offer the CO a one-month term where they'd be reviewed for performance in aspects such as playercount, officer quality, engagement with enlisted, skills hosting occupations and war coordination, etc. Once their term is over and they apply again and are deemed fit for another term, they get promoted to the lowest General position (Ex: BrigGen). If they do well again and re-apply and become accepted, then the cycle can repeat until they hit General.
    • The GA (General of Army/Field Marshal) for each side must be a high ranking staff member. This can be set to whatever Tre feels comfortable with, and they're directly appointed by Tre if not it being him himself. The GA's role is to monitor branches through RP matters, and accept/deny Commander apps and monitor progress, etc. 
    • The second highest rank (XO) is always capped at LtCol, so that the O-6+ ranks are there to strictly reflect the Commanding Officer. 
    • If a Commander is denied a second term, they'd be capped at LtCol. There'd be two LtCol positions, one for the new blood and one for the old, although to make sure there's a decent pool of candidates that may apply, applying should stay at CPT+. 


    What this does is address a few things I noticed in my previous experience in MRP. One, and most importantly, it constantly keeps the leaders of branches engaged with the people in it. Not only are they held under review with the current CO application system, but their progression isn't halted there. They have the General ranks to look forward to. What this means is that their ranking as a CO directly reflects their abilities to lead and work as being the role model for those under them. What I've noticed during my time as being GEN of another server is that there's a difference of being an officer and a leader, and there's much to learn when you're "at the top". You have to work on everything, boiling all the way down to the confidence and articulation of how you speak in game, and what you say in specifics, and those rankings will reflect that. 


    The ranks also symbolise a badge of honour. In between faction relations, it instils a level of competition with those leading factions to work well for their enlisted. For example, a newly appointed USMC Commander is now on the same playing field in terms of practical leadership as, for example, a Navy LtGeneral who leads their faction, but that rank shows a gap in skill in regards to leadership that can actually be measured, envied, and worked towards. 


    *****Sorry I write so much, I just put as much as I thought needed to be said to articulate the idea clearly, and I've also got into the habit of having to write this much for suggestions because if I didn't, the higher-up staff and owner of the previous community would outright deny it without delving into the actual problem at hand. And yes, these will be how my suggestions will usually look, if not longer lmao*****



    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    There are no comments to display.

    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 3 Guests (See full list)

  • Status Definitions

    Pending = We have not yet reviewed the suggestion.

    Under Review = We are currently reviewing the suggestion. Check the suggestion's comments for updates from the team.

    Accepted = We've approved the suggestion and it has either been implemented already or will be at a later date.

    Rejected = The suggestion has been rejected. Check the comments section for more information.


    Please do not post duplicate suggestions or make other requests. This area is for suggestions for ShadowICT.