[2/07/2015 1:44:12 PM] Echo / Star 7: If a faction has its own NPCs, the foundational lore stops being player-controlled.
[2/07/2015 1:44:30 PM] Echo / Star 7: Player factions are welcome to their own interpretations of that foundation, to build upon it or tangentially from it, but the base can't change.
[2/07/2015 1:45:05 PM] Echo / Star 7: In this situation, the Core's base is extremely simplistic (let's be honest), as are many non-vanilla factions to a certain extent.
[2/07/2015 1:46:34 PM] Echo / Star 7: That foundation is essentially what I've said before: BHG Core started as an elite subdivision for super-dangerous missions, grew big enough to require separate command structure, and eventually broke away almost entirely from the BHG (bringing us to present day and dropping BHG from the name).
[2/07/2015 1:47:34 PM] Echo / Star 7: The name adjustment is much like the way a RL corporation might re-brand itself to appeal to a new market.
So, in essence, a player faction is welcome to write whatever they like in their own faction lore description, provided it doesn't violate the server rules or established Discovery canon. However, no one outside of that faction is bound to abide by that lore unless it is canonical. In most cases, official player faction lore is often accurate enough to be canonical, as it is a direct expansion of vanilla lore. In this case, however, there is no vanilla lore from which to draw references, resulting in a vast majority of the faction's lore being player-written. I'm sure that this particular freedom is what gives Lyth the opinion that he's free to adapt the Core's lore as he sees fit.
However, do not take that to be a defense of Core's current writeup - it still has many issues, mainly concerning the relationship between Core and APM. If it's going to be an entity that exists in-game (through infocard references), Core won't be allowed to control it; or if it's controlled by Core, it can't exist in-game (because we do not permit non-canonical references in infocards, and APM was player-created). The reason for that denial of control is because the Core player faction may not have absolute jurisdiction over the BHG tech line, as that would implicitly make BHG subservient to Core in terms of tech supply. Core are welcome to tag their own vessels as Core|APM as an internal subfaction, but that won't make it any more or less canonical. Either way, the writeup should not be focussing on APM so heavily - the faction the Admins approved was called "Core", not "APM", so it's Core who should be the main character in this story.
(07-02-2015, 05:23 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: [ -> ]...
(07-02-2015, 05:11 PM)SpaceTime Wrote: [ -> ]Developing the faction into a new direction is not the same with changing its background and history. But I am the last person who would not appreciate the effort you have thrown into this, even if I think a more dev-oriented approach would have been better, imo.
Thank you for the recognition. Learning from discussions with them, given how the Devs (aside from Yuri) knew worryingly little about Omicron politics and the Core as a whole, I don't think a dev-orientated approach would have been a good idea.
Had there been a proper dev-orientated approach in the first place, you wouldn't have had the awkward experience of having your infocard submission reverted. Not knowing your personal goals/ideas for Core| does not equate to knowing "worryingly little" about Omicronian politics or the Core.