+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Role-Playing (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Forum: Unofficial Factions and Groups (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=67)
+--- Thread: "New faction creation process and representation" discussion thread. (/showthread.php?tid=21052)
"New faction creation process and representation" discussion thread. - hack - 05-27-2009
One more thing that needs to be addressed here:
There are only 198 slots on this server. When and how are we going to accommodate all these new factions and players?
As it is on the weekends it is a challenge to get on, now do we want to do that all week long too?
Will we have to start scheduling play time?
Personally, that would do it for me and I think I would move on to something else......
"New faction creation process and representation" discussion thread. - tazuras - 05-27-2009
' Wrote:One more thing that needs to be addressed here:
There are only 198 slots on this server. When and how are we going to accommodate all these new factions and players?
What new factions and players? What has been said here about allowing more factions and seeking out and recruiting player? I am confused...
"New faction creation process and representation" discussion thread. - SigCorps - 05-27-2009
@ Hack
official Factions will still have to go through an approval process same as always. Can not help with new players...new characters do not really count towards slots.
Now we may get more Groups (Unofficial factions) but if they want a tag and a spot to post their description I say make them pony up 250 mil...that will hopefully stop the flood of proposals and we will more quality stuff. I do not think they need an approval process, but there hopefully will be a place for feedback from the community.
Official factions that duplicate current factions can still be asked to join existing factions. Or deigned outright since there is RP duplication..which is what happens now. And I do agree with.
We can not stop groups of played from banding together to play and making their own little faction Official, group (with tags) or just playing together. That would be a travesty to do.
@everyone...one thing if we require a cost for getting a "group" tag the name rules will have to be adjusted to let every one know they can not have a faction or group tags until they have paid. We may also want to define the terms Faction, and Group.
"New faction creation process and representation" discussion thread. - Magoo! - 05-27-2009
Le Wrote:The main flaw in Magoo's plan on the previous page (besides its compexity) is the issue of resolving disputes through Civil War - are we honestly saying that if some pirate groups comes up with a proposal that the other pirate groups reject for being stupid, then group A can simply beat the others in PvP and then they will be forced to follow his proposal or be sanctioned?
Well... Actually, I simplified Korrd's. His had (essentially) all the factions of one group, i.e. Liberty, voting on an issue or doing their councilly business. I simply gave the Lawful militaries authority over the trading factions because thats what they have, and I don't see Donald trump affecting Bills in Congress.
Besides that, no, one could not just PvP their opinions into the game. Just like we wont let [TehNaviez]L337_H4xx launch an attack on the LN and say, "We win Liberty, now!"
RP would be required, cooperation would be required. Just like everything here. There's also a lovely note saying, "Events determine outcome", implying everything I just covered.
Its not complex at all, I just have two brackets instead of one generalized outline, "Insert faction here" bracket. If you'd like, I can make an "Insert faction here" bracket instead of making two for various sides of the law. Its more realistic than all Lawful factions of X House having a say because McDonalds will never have an opinion in the (represented) Government, nor will FedEx, no matter how far they ship their goods.
Sigh...
"New faction creation process and representation" discussion thread. - Markus_Janus - 05-27-2009
Actually I think you will find in democracies that large corporations have just as much say in new policies as police/military do.
They do this by funding the the parties involved.
The military/police are the ones who usally just do as they are told.
I am not sure how they do things in Bretonia but in Kusari we have a council made up of members from the KNF, KSP, Samura, Kishiro, Hogosha and Farmers.
We debate topics in this council and work out what is best for everyone, we even have an Emporer and Shogun.
I'll be damned if you think Samura or Kishiro will just give up representation, shut up and do as it is told.
"New faction creation process and representation" discussion thread. - ophidian - 05-28-2009
Being a factionized member of the community, I have to say the current state of faction relations are ok.
What is needed is not to change the initial faction level dialogues but to find ways about how to implement the unofficial ones.
This require certain "adjustments" but if the adjustments move into open changes on key areas, this will lead to a chaos. As a fairly active member and really active faction member, I have to say I am DEAD CONFUSED of certain posts on this topic, I cannot even think of an average player's realization of the subject.
- Council stuff;
Ok, it is always cool to have people representing themselves but instead of having 12 seat kinda VERY COMPLEX stuff (due to the parties involved), I suggest having an indie representative in each faction command. Like the High Command of Order. Add 1 representative from each new player group to that command. Like, Order| has 2 representatives, 1 indy high council member (it was 2 indies and one factionized 'till the court martial thingy of Tena) for each player group.
These groups should be accepted and realized groups, not just some 2 people renaming their chars. Yes, playing indy should be free but you are also playing in a community game, so you have to blend in to your role as well. You cannot act as Casper Orillion on day one. This is not powermongering or something, it is simply "knowing the way of things".
- Faction money: Let it stay. Its not a big sum anyway. If you are forming a faction, lets say have 4 people in it, 3 hours of trading each will give you that sum. Power trading? Heh, as if it is not already being done...
- Council decisions... Well, if a player faction and another one decides on to go into war at each other, I believe all should blend to this RP. Because, even though factions are individualistic bodies, most faction decisions are taken by faction community approval. For example, Order has 30-40 members and when the faction leader tells something here, it is a thing that we agreed on, not some power play stuff.
Therefore, that decision actually, (the war example lets say), is being taken by 2 factions with a certain playerbase (like 50-60 players total) who are aware of this idea if not being in support. So it is basicly not a 1 man decision, therefore, an indy following that is rather fitting into community RP from such perspective.
I don't like to boss people around much but I saw one thing, if someone doesn't take control of things even a bit, in RP way or OORP way, the situation gets out of control very rapidly, like it happened in Minor back in March.
Whether we like it or not, factionized play comes with its own rules and so you have to keep an eye on certain things, which makes you more responsible if not more effective or intelligent or RPer or better or whatever. However, with that "awareness" at hand, a factionized player can "show the path" to indie players who feel indy from the RP as well.
Some of the indy players are against this view but then, those indy players are experienced players in general and know the way around. Simply by that "showing the way" behaviour, we saved many new guys from getting a sanction or ban in Order space after we decided to take a better look at indy stuff going on. If that happened at 1/4th of all faction space and their indies, it is a serious amount of new players being accomodated to the server ways.
People may hate me for saying this but "not everything should be that free"
If people are too afraid of things getting out of control, put one admin into each directive board.
"New faction creation process and representation" discussion thread. - pieguy259 - 05-28-2009
I still think mine is the best way. No complicated "split up the proposal payments", no new forums and most importantly no POWERTRADING.
If you're on the server, unofficial, for four months, you can make an official status request.
"New faction creation process and representation" discussion thread. - pbrione - 05-28-2009
Alright, I'll describe how the Bretonian government currently works. We have the faction leaders of all lawful Bretonian factions; BAF, BPA, BMM, Bowex, Gateway and Planetform (PFI and BMM currently unnofficial, but still representative of the npc factions), + a group of experienced and senior Bretonian players (not exactly indies as they have faction characters, but if there were really experienced and responsible indies they could be included). Together these players are given, by consensus, inRP roles as Government Ministers (with BAF running the Defence Ministry, BPA running the Home Office etc. plus Thacker as Prime Minister and Unselie as Queen). These players therefore have their inRP roles as government members representing the House as a whole, inRP, and can conduct inRP actions as such. Our policy is that if any decision affects any of the other factions in game or in forum RP, then those factions should be consulted about it. If the faction leaders approve then it is assumed, as they are all responsible experienced players, that it is an acceptable decision. For things that affect many Bretonian factions such as changing the laws, all members of the group are consulted, plus other members of the BPA. If things were to affect unlawful groups, we would consult the leaders of the gaians and mollies OORP as well. I point out that Bretonian lawful bodies lack many long-standing indies with the same degree of experience and respect as the faction leaders, but were there to be any they would be included, such as HMS-Rodney which has the title of Chief Marshall of the Reserve Fleet.
This system works well for us; it ensures that relevent groups are consulted in decision making as much as possible (we have occasionally slipped up but we strive to keep people informed), it gives a functioning government that can be RPed in-game (instead of just an OORP council of factions) and is democratic in the sense that the people in the group are faction leaders and other senior players who have representation due to their experience and responsibility. However, it is a deliberative democracy, not a voting democracy. We consult people by discussing things with them and coming to agreement where matters concern them, not bothering to consult everyone for decisions clearly within one person's area of interest, and sometimes consulting people outside the group for major decisions affecting gameplay. What we don't do is sit down and vote on things according to any regulations. Nor do we have strict rules about who or who doesn't have to be included. We simply recognise the fact that faction leaders are generally sensible, reasonable people, and things can be agreed by general consensus of said people. Things decided by the government are then implemented inRP as policy for Bretonia and acted upon in-game. This allows RP to be more dynamic and can create good ideas, whilst making sure nobody tries to do stupid things. Naturally all Bretonian faction players are expected to follow the decisions, as they have been agreed by their faction leaderships and they in turn try to make sure that indies become aware of and learn to follow the decisions as well. Its certainly not a well "designed" system, things just tend to happen rather than follow any official proceedure, but in my experience it has served Bretonia very well for the last few months.
"New faction creation process and representation" discussion thread. - bluntpencil2001 - 05-28-2009
I would like to point out that a respectable amount of Bretonian players disagree with LeMaitre here.
Personally, roleplaying as the Queen (or whatever) based on 'who gets there first' is, among other things, unfair, especially since the character (Carina) cannot be ousted, cannot die or whatever, since she is a part of the plot (however minor).
It allows one player to dictate the policy of multiple factions, even breaking NPC diplomacy, because they are head of state.
What is even worse here is the ignorant representation of British politics that is portrayed.
I would put forward the motion that people play captains of space-ships and not 'Chancellor of the Exchequer'. I would also suggest that the likes of Queen Carina remain NPCs and plot devices.
"New faction creation process and representation" discussion thread. - reavengitair - 05-28-2009
Quote:Personally, roleplaying as the Queen (or whatever) based on 'who gets there first' is, among other things, unfair, especially since the character (Carina) cannot be ousted, cannot die or whatever, since she is a part of the plot (however minor).
Well... Most days I traderun, I see the emperor waltzing about kusari. I don't see why you can't do this with the queen.
I also remember recalling the liberty president being roleplayed...