+- 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. - Benjamin - 05-26-2009
' Wrote:Questions that arise from this idea:
- In order to differentiate Factions from Groups, what kind of rights should [Official] Factions have over Groups or Independent players?
- Should the 500m fee stay or go?
- Should we limit the amount of official factions for each NPC group depending on the group? And what about Corporations whose headquarters are under the flag of a house?
- Should Independent players have a representative on the council?
- Should Factions be able to lose those rights if they go the wrong way?
- Should Groups have to abide by the policies set by the Council too?
Okay, these all turned up after I posted, so I'll give my opinions on these too.
"What rights should official factions have" and "should independent factions have a representation"
If we go with the council idea, say there's like, 12 seats on a council. Obviously this wont work for all factions. The official LWB faction couldn't fill 12 seats I don't believe, and we don't have any indies. But I'll use it for my example. Say a faction has one official faction, and potentially indies. In this case, say the official faction 'gets' 8 seats on the council, and the other 4 are up for grabs from indies. For two official factions, 4 or 5 seats for each faction, 2 or 4 for indies, and so on.
And then, you'd give the 'rights' to the council? Officialdom would grant you guaranteed permanent seats on the council, whereas groups and independents would be voted in to their chairs by a group of their peers (either a vote from all members of the NPC faction, official, groups and indies, or a wider vote of everyone who knows? Both these haev popularity contest issues I suppose, but I think in a lot of cases people would think with their head).
500m fee: If you submit your request knowing that you will be an unofficial group and under scrutiny for some time, this will require you to put effort in and not submit a flippant proposal. Which is exactly what the 500m is for currently, so I don't think it's necessary.
"Should we limit the amount of NPC factions": Yeah I think so. Talking of the LWB again, it doesn't make sense for them to have two groups. They're small, and importantly, they're a single issue faction. All they care about is freeing Stuttgart. Makes no sense for two seperate groups that would need the same ideology. The only groups that really suit multiple factions, in my opinion, are the big, unorganised ones. Outcasts, corsairs, zoners, IMG. Council in Gallia maybe, possibly Hessians. The big house factions would be organised and have a single goal and motives. Potentially this could be done through the council system and several official factions, but it just doesn't sit right with me.
Losing rights: Factions should definitely lose rights if they cross the line.
Abiding by the council: Yes. But it would suck if they didn't get representation.
How about this for a council idea. It's a little different, but it's something to think about, and it would be more 'community' minded.
Say the BAF for example. Using 12 again, how about:
5 BAF official faction
2 BAF independents
1 BPA
1 representative of bretonian corps
1 KNF
1 Corsair
1 "Wildcard". IMG, Zoner, LN, RM. Whatever.
This would get the whole community involved in the decisions of each faction. If one official faction was trying to 'powerplay' or do something unfairly, if the entirety of the council voted against them, it would be 7-5 and they'd lose.
Problem with the council thing is it only works on some factions. Big factions like BAF sure. LWB, like I said, not so much. Or at least, it would be pointless.
This stuff makes me think it would be better to have fewer councils, but bigger. Instead of a BAF council, have a Bretonia council. Councils only seem necessary for factions that have a lot of independents, or more than one official faction.
"New faction creation process and representation" discussion thread. - Spear - 05-26-2009
' Wrote:Why only at the support of a faction?
Also, removal of power should be after refusal to correct behaviour.
Because a good role playing indie should have the support of the official faction, it's all very well for someone to create an indie and proclaim they are the President of Liberty, an Admiral etc, but without support, they are just meta-gaming.
For your second statement I don't disagree, although I think any official faction that failed to amend their behaviour after an admin warning would be utterly stupid.
"New faction creation process and representation" discussion thread. - Reverend Del - 05-26-2009
I suggest that we split the fee, if you want a tagged group you pay 250million and get to post in a seperate subforum, lucky you. If you choose not to go for official then after a month with no sanctions and no legitimate complaint threads you get the 250 million back.
If you go for offfical status you get moved to the proper section, pay the extra 250 million and dance , unless the community tears chunks out of you and leaves you bleeding to death on the floor.
But simply put if you don't pay a penny, you don't get a tag. This ensures that all groups unoffical and official are held to standards that they should be held to. That everyone is working toward making Discovery a better place.
Unoffical groups would therefore have no seat on any player council for an NPC faction. Although they could be elevated to a position through proper application.
"New faction creation process and representation" discussion thread. - MacAulay - 05-26-2009
' Wrote:Questions that arise from this idea:I would say that at the very least a group that represents an NPC faction would have to agree to work in conjunction with official factions to uphold RP standards and be seen to demonstrate that agreement.
- In order to differentiate Factions from Groups, what kind of rights should [Official] Factions have over Groups or Independent players?
Quote:- Should the 500m fee stay or go?I would say go, as I feel a group applying for official status should be judged soley on its merits as a group, not on is ability to pay credits. After all, most people use indie traders to get that sort of cash together anyway I believe. It's not the group that does the work, and I would rather see them spending time working on their group ideas and RP then making credits
Quote:- Should we limit the amount of official factions for each NPC group depending on the group? And what about Corporations whose headquarters are under the flag of a house?I think this is warranted in some situations. However I think it comes down to membership numbers. Several factions with few members or single ones with many are quite common in some areas. May create an unbalance if you limit numbers but there is some logic in it too.
Quote:- Should Independent players have a representative on the council?Absolutely, provided you are able to find a player who is well enough respected by indie and faction alike.
Quote:- Should Factions be able to lose those rights if they go the wrong way?Without a shadow of a doubt
Quote:- Should Groups have to abide by the policies set by the Council too?I would say that should be a pre-requisite to being made official.
"New faction creation process and representation" discussion thread. - SigCorps - 05-26-2009
Del I could kiss you.
That would work beautifully.
Now on to the main questions of this post
Questions that arise from this idea:
- In order to differentiate Factions from Groups, what kind of rights should [Official] Factions have over Groups or Independent players?
Factions can own systems, ect..ect...ect. Most of this is covered by the other thread
Groups- get a tag and a place to post their descriptions for feed back.
- Should the 500m fee stay or go?
Stay but I love Del's idea about 250 mil to get a tag and a place to post your description in a separate sub forum. And an other 250 to go official.
- Should we limit the amount of official factions for each NPC group depending on the group? And what about Corporations whose headquarters are under the flag of a house?
I think it would have to be taken on a case by case basis. The Zoners could have dozens of factions and it works in RP...while having 3 Rep-Ex factions make little sense.
- Should Independent players have a representative on the council?
Personally I think so yes. That's how we do it on the Council of Zoners.
- Should Factions be able to lose those rights if they go the wrong way?
Well they get warnings to clean up their act and then if they refuse then yes they get disbanded
- Should Groups have to abide by the policies set by the Council too?
Yes, then again if the groups are paying 250 mil for their tag then they should get a seat on the council. Maybe not a voting seat but a seat so they can work with the other factions to make their NPC factions better .They key is that all the groups and factions related to an NPC faction should try to be on the same page. Now some interesting RP can come out of some dissidents withing a faction, but I think most of the decree's and decisiosn should be adhered to by all
"New faction creation process and representation" discussion thread. - deaxy - 05-26-2009
A question :
What is going on with the npc, which dont have a player faction behind them.
A situation like this is going on right now, with the Ageira.
As I understand, we first should form a so called "group", a bunch of people playing together just like an unofficial faction. If we become official, we get the seat on the council of factions <--- this is the problem right here. If we create an official Ageira faction, and get the seat on the council, we will be the only ones there. So, the same problem stays. We have the right to control the diplomacy of the whole npc faction, as we see it, because theres no other faction, who would suggest anything else.
I hope that you understand what I was saying. I am just tired, because I have been learning for my exams all day!
Dex.
"New faction creation process and representation" discussion thread. - Ironwatsas - 05-26-2009
Quote:Questions that arise from this idea:
- In order to differentiate Factions from Groups, what kind of rights should [Official] Factions have over Groups or Independent players?
- Should the 500m fee stay or go?
- Should we limit the amount of official factions for each NPC group depending on the group? And what about Corporations whose headquarters are under the flag of a house?
- Should Independent players have a representative on the council?
- Should Factions be able to lose those rights if they go the wrong way?
- Should Groups have to abide by the policies set by the Council too?
1- As has been stated, official factions should be recognized as in control of most of the territories and wide-scale actions of the subordinates
2- A 500m credit payout should stay to show that aspiring official factions have enough momentum to continue sucessfully. However, the money shouldn't just go away. The faction and it's members should be able to recoup the investment somehow. Either that, or lower the amount by a degree. But I agree with the general concept.
3- Yes and No. Strictly limiting the number of official factions under an NPC group is going to cause more problems then it's going to fix. If diffrent factions do arise within the same NPC group, they should at least be mutually inclusive, yet not clones of one another. (E.G. A corsair strike group operating against the hessians as a faction, versus one operating exclusively in Bretonia).
4- I would say yes, but that actually depends on the faction at hand. For example, factions like Samura or The RM are less likely to listen to low ranking meat then more democratic factions like the Zoners or IMG. It may be best to let factions decide in RP how to handle it based on their parent faction's disposition.
5- Generally speaking, if unofficial factions of groups are a part of a faction, they should abide by said faction's policies and rules. Same goes for indies. However, they should be given a bit more freedom of operation and ability to enforce their own members to some degree.*
*An exception to that being Unofficial groups which use an NPC faction's ID and/or IFF, but in Roleplay are not technically affiliated with said faction. A few examples being the Harvesters (Who used a Junker ID), Consortium (Who use Outcast), Colonial Remnant (IMG) and any other faction who, for legitimate reasons is using a faction ID, but is distinctly seperated from it's parent faction.
The Consortium as an example, uses an Outcast Identification and IFF, but isn't technically part of the Nation of Malta, nor does it fall under the control of any other organisation. It has it's own command structure, zone of influance (within Outcast territory, but with diffrent exclusion zones), slightly diffrent diplomacy, etc. The main reasons it uses Outcast Identification and IFFs are that it has a few capital ships (which it has possessed since before 4.85's release, when it used a GC ID) which are important RP platforms. The Outcast ID was chosen over a few alternatives (Junker ID, Blood Dragon ID) as it was more conducive to the faction's diplomcy, ZoI, and ship usage as it was prior to the switch.
This kind of example should be taken into account when dealing with factions who have a unique Roleplay situation where they wouldn't nessescarily be considered a part of another NPC faction, but are forced to use an NPC faction's IDs to continue their storyline, in situations where switching to generic IDs proves untenable.
"New faction creation process and representation" discussion thread. - Athenian - 05-26-2009
I think the proposed system sounds over-complicated, may not entirely be suited to every faction's nature, might possibly be inspired by isolated cases which are not representative of faction functioning as whole and could in fact be prompted by a response to perceived problems in this game that may not actually exist except in the minds of a handful of people.
This exists already. Councils do already exist - the Zoners have one, the Corsairs have one. But no matter how many councils you create, allowing players to alter the established relations between the NPC factions will be a unworkable mess and will create a labyrinth for any new player to make sense of.
If a council of BAF factions agrees to go against the established canon and decalre Outcats to be their best new mates, doesn't that require drastically altering the reputation system in game? How can a new player be expected to respond when they are scolded in game for doing something that any person who ever played Freelancer would assume to be normal?
Having one official faction for a NPC faction can work efffectively, provided people understand that the faction is comprised of equals. It can work, it does work, provided people find a role for themselves, trust each other and share the workload. A hierarchical nature based on ship preference is the single biggest bone of contention for most players, and one of the reasons why people dislike factions. No way would I join an official faction again if I got told it was the light fighter for a month. I value my time too much to spend it proving myself to be a considerate player again to people who should trust their fellow players better by now. My advice, based on my own experience: drop the requirement that someone fly a LF for two months before they are allowed into a gunboat. It's a requirement that makes no sense when the mod has no longer a swiss-army knife ship that works in all situations. Of course people will want to fly large ships. With enough players in a faction, that becomes feasible. Not so much when there are only three of you online.
Faction leaders are not, nor should they imagine themselves to be, leaders per se. They are facilitators. They must not present themselves as power-hungry. Because realistically what power is there for you to have that is actually worth a bloody thing? Any faction, even one as small within the game as the Xenos, should be able to accomodate separate units within the group if people have a interesting aspect to that faction's role-play that they want to develop. The only reasonable objection someone might make to not joining a pre-existing faction would be that they want their own tag. Why? Because they think a different set of letters in front of a name establishes a unique identity? That unique identity could be the very reason your faction fails. And a unique presence is achieved by acting a particular way.
All of this however requires trust between players. In short supply, apparently.
Failing this, I like the suggestion of a 250 mil fee for a unofficial description post and some bonuses with that. And a bit more when you want to become official.
How many separate groups, or indeed numbers of players, could be permitted to exist within each faction? How could anything be decided upon? How can you guarantee that a decision won't be one that any reasonable new player to the server might contravene by doing nothing out of the ordinary?
"New faction creation process and representation" discussion thread. - Korrd - 05-26-2009
' Wrote:So you'd make a thread for your faction, saying what it's about, how it works and so on, and leave it open for a while, absorb feedback, make changes, and so on, and then after a month or whatever, you'd get a vote, and if you passed, you can submit yourself for admin review?The Factions forum would be split in two. A "Factions" subforum, containing a pinned topic describing what an official faction is and what it can('t) do and all the stuff related to official factions, and a "Groups" subforum containing another pinned thread describing what they are and what they can('t) do along the thread regarding the groups.
Works for me, anyway.
A group of people willing to form a Group would post his status thread on the groups subforum, and after some period of time will get the right to apply to become official. They can stay as a Group if they want to. there would be no hurry to go official, although the benefits would be obvious.
"New faction creation process and representation" discussion thread. - Dieter Schprokets - 05-26-2009
What Athenian said, especially:
Quote:I think the proposed system sounds over-complicated.
and
Quote:This exists already. Councils do already exist - the Zoners have one, the Corsairs have one
I'll summarize some points very briefly.
1) Military/Police/Corporation factions : There should be only one official faction for each NPC faction. There may be more unofficial ones.
2a) Unlawful and neutral factions : There can be (and in fact are) more than one official Corsair and Outcast faction, and that makes perfect sense. A big unlawful house with more than one rival gang. More zoner factions could even make some sense. It starts to make less sense when the NPC factions get smaller. More than one Molly or Bundshuh official faction is not reasonable.
In short, one official faction per NPC faction should be the rule, with some exceptions. This is currently the status quo, and it seems to be ok.
On the following I agree with the principle:
Quote:The Factions forum would be split in two. A "Factions" subforum, containing a pinned topic describing what an official faction is and what it can('t) do and all the stuff related to official factions, and a "Groups" subforum containing another pinned thread describing what they are and what they can('t) do along the thread regarding the groups
You are renaming "unofficial factions" to "groups" for simplicity. Good.
I am not sure about the council idea. I fear it could get complicated. What Athenian said.