So i've made a redstone rank suggestion before, however, I have been doing some thinking and came up with some ideas for a working system which may be feasible for a fair redstone rank system So i'll address several problems in the explanation of the rank system. First the major issue of people stealing designs off of youtube or the internet. For this, we should have the person going for the rank explain how the build works and the mechanics used in it in great detail. then they must explain random redstone mechanics chosen by the person checking the submission. This way, we focus less on the build itself, and more on the knowledge of redstone. So even if they "stole" the design, so long as they show adequate knowledge and understanding of redstone, they can receive the lowest rank. Now is the issue of staff. Not all staff are qualified for redstone rank checking so what i propose is an advisory system where redstoners of a certain rank or above can help advise staff in verifying whether or not someone is worth the redstone rank they are going for. Of course there's the initial issue of who would help advise in early stages of the system, but there are established redstoners on the server who have exhibited great understanding of redstone mechanics and builds. (Dodal, Spidercraft53, and Myself) These advisors would not rank the person up, but would help the staff check if the person is worth ranking up or not for the rank. For this system to work, I suggest that there are at least 3 ranks, 1 for the lowest level of redstone, 2 for general redstoners, 3 for the most advanced. I suggest this so that we have a fodder rank for people in general, for the people who understand redstone and probably take designs from youtube (this rank is essentially worthless and only is useful in name, sort of like the novice/builder equivalent for redstone). The next rank would actually be for good redstoners who design their own builds and exhibit good understanding of redstone above what is required for the lowest rank. The most advanced rank would be for people who make crazy redstone things such as 6x6 doors, CPUs, multifunction calculators, complicated games, etc. For the highest rank I believe there must be at least 3 other people of the highest rank to agree that the person can receive it. Of course there may be other problems that come up and I could think of ways to help resolve them, but these are the major issues I see and the general framework for how I envision a redstone rank system working on the server Amendments: As things come up regarding redstone ranks, I will amend this post here.
This seems like a terrible idea to me. We don't judge creative plots based off of a player's knowledge of building, we judge them based on the originality and quality of their actual project. The same should be done for redstone. Also worth noting that there's only one staff who's above architect rank on the creative server, and he can't review any plots other than builder attempts. All the other plots up to master even are judged by lower building rank staff. Case in point: staff don't need to be able to build to judge builds, so they honestly don't really need to know much about redstone to judge redstone plots. Redstone is a verrrrry difficult system to judge because of the complexity component. Like you said here a 6x6 piston door is hard to make, but if someone knows what they're doing, it would only take about an hour or so, maybe less. No rank worth anything should be given to anyone who only works an hour. This is a good idea that lots of players definitely would appreciate, but it's complicated and terribly hard to implement. I would imagine that if you could flesh out these ideas a little more using other servers and the creative rank system as guides then management might more seriously consider adding this feature to the server.
For the building ranks you can't steal something elses build by anther player on youtube or other places for a rank. This should be the same for redstone ranks. I feel if a redstone rank is done it should be all original designs and not done many times by other builders. What is the point to prove you can copy a build of somebody else and get a rank for it.
Redstone and building are two entirely separate fields of minecraft, you can't really parallel the two in terms of standards and how to evaluate them. Building have certain criteria which can't be placed on redstone due to the fundamental differences between the two. Redstone is ultimately more about how well someone knows the mechanics and how well they use that knowledge and explain it. Building doesn't really require that skill to some extent granted building has similar aspects such as understanding block palettes, etc but ultimately trying to impose build standards on redstone isn't really feasible in any way really. I've met builder ranks who've built things in less than an hour to get their rank, granted builder isn't meant to be difficult. Another thing is, I should have mentioned, the rank should also be dependant on both quality and quantity, so having some or more really good redsotne builds among some other builds which are good but may or may not be at the level of the next rank. Also the complexity component is mediated through the advisory system. Of course, I understand that you can't let architects judge builds, but it's not like the staff can be expected to learn and to understand redstone well enough to do rank ups. another alternative is to have staff who are designated to do this instead. I'm actually basing this on other servers that have working redstone ranks do. I'm a member of nearly every major redstone server and have redstone rank or the equivalent there of on every one of them. I can list these servers if you want, but i'd rather not advertise so i can tell you in private chat. Also most of them base their rankings on redstone knowledge quality, and quantity. Only one of the servers i've been on focuses on originality and quality, but that's cause the area of redstone explored in that server is one that is far easier to develop original designs of optimal quality. Other areas especially doors, are far more difficult to develop good original designs. Areas like computer engineering are also difficult to develop original components but the components can be used in unique ways to make it somewhat original. Anyway, point here is, I have based this on other servers, I have based this on the fundamental aspect of redstone, and you CAN'T equate redstone and normal building
There's a fundamental difference in building and redstoning. Redstone is based more on knowledge and understanding of the mechanics in it. Building is not. Building focuses on originality and on how well one can take their imaginative ideas of designs and put them into minecraft while redstone is far different where it's mostly about taking one's knowledge of the mechanics and using them in order to achieve a certain output. Building does that to some extent but it's very different.
ok just going to say, i know it's been done a ton of times, but it doesn't hurt to try again especially with a well detailed plan, i doubt you even took a look at the actual post itself. Also you really don't need to post that if it's not going to make any important points.
To me this is a good idea, many redstoners that aren't too good at building could finally have a chance to get a good rank, and they could keep making redstone contraptions!
I think that people with less knowledge of redstone seem to be making invalid comparisons between building and redstone itself. For one thing, it can't be judged in the same way a build can. You can't simply look at a redstone build and decide whether it's good or not. A great example of this is a server Lysus and I both coincidentally used to play on which had redstone ranks, but the staff didn't know much about redstone. They tended to think that bigger equals better, meaning that simple builds with a lot of bussing (a fancy term for a lot of wiring that doesn't have a function other than just carrying signals a long distance) would be considered better simply because they take up more space. However, a common thing people aim to do with redstone is to make their build as small or compact as possible. This is why unlike building, the people reviewing should have to be good at redstone themselves in order to judge. This also partially addresses SH0RKS' concern about judging general knowledge over a certain build, because there are a lot of different types of redstone, and just understanding one doesn't show complete knowledge in the same way that building a plot with one style gets you a build rank. As for the last thing SH0RKS said, I don't think that argument makes sense at all. Obviously if you're good at something it'll take less time. I can see how that change would be amplified with redstone, but it would take a Master less time to fill a plot with quality builds than it would take a Builder. That's literally the whole point of improving, and that's why higher ranks are more difficult. Also, yes, this has been suggested many times, and I doubt the developers/managers/owners would be willing to put in the work it would take to create these ranks, but it's still worth a shot
I would like a redstone rank even if I wouldn't be that great at it. If one day this is added, I think that these names would be nice: Expert: Wizard Advanced: Pro Beginner: Rookie
I forgot to add, maybe they should be in different worlds. Like how Survival has its own world in the lobby, and so does Creative, why not give Redstone its own world?
Even if this was to be added, they'd need an entirely new ranking system (in order to manage build ranks vs redstone ranks) + the chat would get in a mess having another set of ranks (if this did get set in the creative world), a possible donator rank and a build rank just for one player. Sure, I've seen staff with donator ranks, staff rank, build ranks, and etc (like patreon), but they're made to stand out so people know who they're talking to.
