My community uses only 6 ranks, and while we don’t make a big deal of ranks (i.e., they don’t confer any privileges, permissions, or authority), we want them to mean something (i.e., there is some level of prestige from higher ranks). In keeping with the theme of our community (a wargame), our community ranks are based on titles (not ranks) within the game and there is a time/longevity component to them. Content and engagement are our main focus, naturally, and the more important element of all of this is the actual achievements that members earn; but we want the time/longevity implied by the ranks to be reflected to a degree. Under the current system, however, this is impossible. The only way to achieve more discrete control over ranks and to allow more flexibility is to create the option for achievement points to be assigned to different bins or tracks (I prefer “tracks”). While I could see how some communities might want to have any number of such tracks, more tracks means more complexity (especially for programmers) and a higher likelihood of things not working as envisioned. I’m only proposing the option for a second track. I’m not opposed to more being created, if it is feasible, but my community will only use a second track.
I’ll illustrate this using my community’s concept.
The default track is for all content and engagement while the optional track (in my community) would be used for longevity.
Things are simple for the first three ranks. Members are automatically in the first rank when they join the community, with 0 achievement points. Members advance to the second rank with 2 achievement points, and to the third rank with 4 achievement points. Note that each achievement is worth 1 point, and we have achievements for as many things as possible to encourage participation.
Our concept requires the second track only for the last ranks (and we are considering increasing the number of ranks by at least one).
Our concept is that members can earn the fourth rank (“Veteran”) in one of two ways. If a member has a higher amount of content/engagement achievements, they can earn the rank at a lower longevity point. Conversely, they can earn the same rank with fewer content/engagement achievements, but it will take them longer.
The fifth rank is similar (and any subsequent rank(s) would continue this progression).
Mathematically, this looks something like:
Content/Engagement Achievements = C
Longevity Achievements = L
Rank is subscripted number at either higher (↑) or lower (↓) value
Rank 4 criteria
IF C ≥ C4↑ AND L ≥ L4↓
OR
IF C ≥ C4↓ AND L ≥ L4↑
THEN (rank 4)
And each subsequent rank would be similar, with increasing values.
We have explored trying to achieve something like this using the current single track system, but it is not possible.
My community uses only 6 ranks, and while we don’t make a big deal of ranks (i.e., they don’t confer any privileges, permissions, or authority), we want them to mean something (i.e., there is some level of prestige from higher ranks). In keeping with the theme of our community (a wargame), our community ranks are based on titles (not ranks) within the game and there is a time/longevity component to them. Content and engagement are our main focus, naturally, and the more important element of all of this is the actual achievements that members earn; but we want the time/longevity implied by the ranks to be reflected to a degree. Under the current system, however, this is impossible. The only way to achieve more discrete control over ranks and to allow more flexibility is to create the option for achievement points to be assigned to different bins or tracks (I prefer “tracks”). While I could see how some communities might want to have any number of such tracks, more tracks means more complexity (especially for programmers) and a higher likelihood of things not working as envisioned. I’m only proposing the option for a second track. I’m not opposed to more being created, if it is feasible, but my community will only use a second track.
I’ll illustrate this using my community’s concept.
The default track is for all content and engagement while the optional track (in my community) would be used for longevity.
Things are simple for the first three ranks. Members are automatically in the first rank when they join the community, with 0 achievement points. Members advance to the second rank with 2 achievement points, and to the third rank with 4 achievement points. Note that each achievement is worth 1 point, and we have achievements for as many things as possible to encourage participation.
Our concept requires the second track only for the last ranks (and we are considering increasing the number of ranks by at least one).
Our concept is that members can earn the fourth rank (“Veteran”) in one of two ways. If a member has a higher amount of content/engagement achievements, they can earn the rank at a lower longevity point. Conversely, they can earn the same rank with fewer content/engagement achievements, but it will take them longer.
The fifth rank is similar (and any subsequent rank(s) would continue this progression).
Mathematically, this looks something like:
Content/Engagement Achievements = C
Longevity Achievements = L
Rank is subscripted number at either higher (↑) or lower (↓) value
Rank 4 criteria
IF C ≥ C4↑ AND L ≥ L4↓
OR
IF C ≥ C4↓ AND L ≥ L4↑
THEN (rank 4)
And each subsequent rank would be similar, with increasing values.
We have explored trying to achieve something like this using the current single track system, but it is not possible.
Länk till full forum post