Suggestion Town Co-Owners

[Broquu]

Hi me here

I Think there should be a new hierarchy regarding towns

-Owner
-Co-Owner
-Sub-owner
-Lord
-lvl 3
-lvl 2
-lvl 1

Co-owner would have some more perms then Sub-owner
Co-Owners can add/remove sub-owners.
Co-owners like the full owner can report for town betrayle.
CO-owners like the full owner are immune to town betrayle.
Co-owners should be able to /town a leave (subowners shouldn't
Co-owners should be able to invite/remove towns to the alliance (subowners shouldn't)
Co-Owners should be able to change vuln (subowners shouldn't)


Ofcourse the last sounds silly, but its so full owners wont add everyone as co-owner instead of subowner, and only trusted people become co-owner.
Having co-owners makes it easier for people that own a town together, like me and obuth for example we bought a town and we decided that obuth should own it, but i feel like to make it easier to do this. co-owner would be a great addition!

And with this should come a town a perm (invite/remove towns)


Broquu out

 

[Kippehz]

huge +1 this would be very useful

 

[Blissterz]

+1 dont feel like they should be immune to town betrayal but still good suggestion

 

[Reiwa1]

I totally agree I've seen this problem happen in many cases, alliance merges, etc. And this rank will be given to very reliable people in the town so I don't think there will be a problem with CO-owner rank

( co-owner room please!)

 

[olpx]

+1 if olpx gets co owner -1 if no

 

[Cryptite]

I'd rather just allow town owners to change the permissions of what subowners could do rather than add some explicit new rank that only one extra player can have. That way you can have as many or as little subowners as you want with some granularity over what they can do.

Also, history proves that people are not guaranteed to be smart about who they add as co-owner. Just as towns screw themselves over with having loads of subowners, they'll also do it with co-owners. We have to consider features like this in the grand scheme of the whole server and not just consider a few towns that are better with perms than others.

Also don't see us extending town betrayal immunity beyond the town owner though, that's just gonna cause more trouble. If Town Owner A says Town Owner B "stole their stuff", who gets to be right?

 

[koi0001]

add some explicit new rank that only one extra player can have

Would it ever be worthwhile to add the ability for town owners to give specific players permissions instead of it being all rank orientated?

 

[Kippehz]

I'd rather just allow town owners to change the permissions of what subowners could do rather than add some explicit new rank that only one extra player can have. That way you can have as many or as little subowners as you want with some granularity over what they can do.

Also, history proves that people are not guaranteed to be smart about who they add as co-owner. Just as towns screw themselves over with having loads of subowners, they'll also do it with co-owners. We have to consider features like this in the grand scheme of the whole server and not just consider a few towns that are better with perms than others.

Also don't see us extending town betrayal immunity beyond the town owner though, that's just gonna cause more trouble. If Town Owner A says Town Owner B "stole their stuff", who gets to be right?

yes like make it so owner can choose if subowners can do stuff like full owner stuff

 

[Cryptite]

Would it ever be worthwhile to add the ability for town owners to give specific players permissions instead of it being all rank orientated?

At some point things become so specific they become a pain to manage. This sounds like another "just stop adding everybody as a subowner" problem; but I could potentially defer to popular demand. Worth more discussion I suppose.

 

[koi0001]

At some point things become so specific they become a pain to manage. This sounds like another "just stop adding everybody as a subowner" problem;

I think the utility of the suggestion is if you wanted a singular player to do a specific role without necessarily making them owner it has some usefulness.

It does become quite specific and hard to manage but I suppose it's just another tool in town owners belt and an extra level of management at their disposal if they wanted to use it.

 

[Reiwa1]

Maybe i should be 26 town level perm

 

[Magpieman]

Co-owners like the full owner can report for town betrayle.
CO-owners like the full owner are immune to town betrayle.

This can never be a thing for obvious reasons. If they disagree with one another or fall out it causes huge issues, so there has to be one full owner who pulls rank over all when it comes to betrayal etc.

 

[FoxyBearGames]

I think from what I have gathered over the past watching suggestions like this is that people want to give out subowner status (brackets in chat), but without the permissions that come with being a subowner. It is perfectly possible to have a greatly zoned and setup town, however people compromise this when they add people who want the status of being a subowner. I present two solutions: make anyone who can add people to their town have those brackets in chat (the intended purpose) or make Lords have a special status in /find and give them brackets like owners.

To summarize, you guys don't want another owner rank because you need it, you want another owner rank because you want to be able to give people the chat brackets and status without the permissions and responsibility that comes with it.

 

[FoxyBearGames]

As a second point; you do not need a Co-Owner to facilitate putting someone else on the same level of power as yourself in your town. As an owner, you can make your town a democracy if you'd really like, but only you can make and enforce that decision.

 

[Zachary_N_Kaleno]

Invite everyone to join a new town.
Everyone gets co-owner.
Drama is created
???
Profit

 

[bat3415]

I think from what I have gathered over the past watching suggestions like this is that people want to give out subowner status (brackets in chat), but without the permissions that come with being a subowner. It is perfectly possible to have a greatly zoned and setup town, however people compromise this when they add people who want the status of being a subowner. I present two solutions: make anyone who can add people to their town have those brackets in chat (the intended purpose) or make Lords have a special status in /find and give them brackets like owners.

To summarize, you guys don't want another owner rank because you need it, you want another owner rank because you want to be able to give people the chat brackets and status without the permissions and responsibility that comes with it.

Just make brackets in chat exist for everybody who can invite people to the town. This is what it is most clearly supposed to represent because it lets new people see right away who has a high enough rank to recruit. Easy solution, nobody gets to be jealous about brackets anymore, nobody’s happy, let’s do it bois

 

[Tqmen]

I’d say this isn’t really necessary just add subowners you can just make all the perms in ur town make sense with every level.

 

[bl8_]

+ 1 great idea

 

[36s]

Hi me here

I Think there should be a new hierarchy regarding towns

-Owner
-Co-Owner
-Sub-owner
-Lord
-lvl 3
-lvl 2
-lvl 1

Co-owner would have some more perms then Sub-owner
Co-Owners can add/remove sub-owners.
Co-owners like the full owner can report for town betrayle.
CO-owners like the full owner are immune to town betrayle.
Co-owners should be able to /town a leave (subowners shouldn't
Co-owners should be able to invite/remove towns to the alliance (subowners shouldn't)
Co-Owners should be able to change vuln (subowners shouldn't)


Ofcourse the last sounds silly, but its so full owners wont add everyone as co-owner instead of subowner, and only trusted people become co-owner.
Having co-owners makes it easier for people that own a town together, like me and obuth for example we bought a town and we decided that obuth should own it, but i feel like to make it easier to do this. co-owner would be a great addition!

And with this should come a town a perm (invite/remove towns)


Broquu out

i agree fully. I need full owner so jake can have co owner with evbery permission

 

[Broquu]

As a second point; you do not need a Co-Owner to facilitate putting someone else on the same level of power as yourself in your town. As an owner, you can make your town a democracy if you'd really like, but only you can make and enforce that decision.

this suggestion rlly wasnt about all that its more of like if the full owner would be inactive for a bit the co-owner can take over for a little while
I understand what mag said about the town betrayle thingy I just put it in there because that would make people not add an untrusthworthy co-owner