Gallic Borderworlds

[Alestone]

Since there seems to be a clean up on server functions in progress, I wanted to throw this back into the mix.

Some people already pointed it out, but I think we should create topic about it. Please do report the ID which still reads "Gallic Borderworld" as ZOI and we will push it to the admins.

In spirit of the recent changes and Gallia being shrunk, I think we can disband idea of such a place in a ZOI in order to not to make much more confusion and discrepancy between in-game system classification and actual ruleset system classification.

What's the reason behind it? There is no zone such as Gallic Borderworld according to the rules. As far as we know, the system infocards do not count inside the rules, as in case of the infamous example of Nagano System - which is still labeled as Tau Borderworlds in-game, not Kusari, and lead into sanctions (half of which were done by veteran players).



Listed ID for change:
- Unione Corse ID
- Bretonia Privateer ID
- Outcast ID

Sorry for grave-digging, but I would like to see this resolved.

My recommendation is that the verbiage be changed to Gallic House Controlled Space and Outer Regions.

This would preclude Sovereign space, and bring the ID's language in line with the Server Rules. Also, along that lines, the Gallic systems listed in the Rules need to be updated to reflect the last system consolidation/reduction.

Actually, I was thinking about doing something that is on NavMap, but I must say there's pretty convinient system classification in it.

http://nav.mrawr.net/

Just look at it Gallia. Lyonnais isn't "Gallic Borderworlds" anymore. However, it's funny that NavMap's Gallic Edgeworlds are... the original 4.85 (4.84?) Gallic Systems. Why not to make these systems (Lorraine, Dauphine, Burgundy, Champagne and Languedoc + Lyonnais - as the latter borders with Kusari) Gallic Borderworlds?

Funny fact: after some time of looking and reminding myself about stuff, it is pretty likely that Planet Tonnerre in Burgundy replaced the original blue supergiant (star) in that system. Can someone confirm it?

Personally, I would rather do away with the "Borderworlds" concept for the IDs.

My reasons are:
1. It makes less work for the Admins to align the territory with the Server Rules (so long as the SR are kept current)
2. For the raiders, limiting them using a logic that does not correspond to the House Zones makes no sense. Those Zones clearly define an escalating capability of response by the House or other polity that would correspond to making raids less viable. In effect, Sovereign space is sufficiently "guarded" that the raids do not happen, while "lesser" zones cannot automatically repel raids.

[Querious]

Nice job getting that back up! Also the so-called Gallic Borderworlds are just Gallia now. Ever since 4.85 coined the "Gallic Borderworlds" term with the original 5 Gallic systems that were introduced, there's been debate over them for years, and now it's pretty much pointless now. We don't consider Dresden a "Rheinland Borderworld" just because it's a bit more hostile than the rest of Rheinland now, do we? Nor do we call systems like Dublin, Nagano, or Alberta House Borderworlds because of their state. This is why I think that all of these "Gallic Borderworlds" should be just Gallic House Space. That's just my two cents, though.

[Error]

Actually, I was thinking about doing something that is on NavMap, but I must say there's pretty convinient system classification in it.

http://nav.mrawr.net/

Just look at it Gallia. Lyonnais isn't "Gallic Borderworlds" anymore. However, it's funny that NavMap's Gallic Edgeworlds are... the original 4.85 (4.84?) Gallic Systems. Why not to make these systems (Lorraine, Dauphine, Burgundy, Champagne and Languedoc + Lyonnais - as the latter borders with Kusari) Gallic Borderworlds?

Just a quick update regarding this post: The system classes used for these systems on that map were updated the day after that was posted (on 05.10, to be precise), as they were quite clearly wrong for v4.88.1. You may find the current classes shown for those systems to be a bit more reasonable.

---

[Alestone]

Nice job getting that back up! Also the so-called Gallic Borderworlds are just Gallia now. Ever since 4.85 coined the "Gallic Borderworlds" term with the original 5 Gallic systems that were introduced, there's been debate over them for years, and now it's pretty much pointless now. We don't consider Dresden a "Rheinland Borderworld" just because it's a bit more hostile than the rest of Rheinland now, do we? Nor do we call systems like Dublin, Nagano, or Alberta House Borderworlds because of their state. This is why I think that all of these "Gallic Borderworlds" should be just Gallic House Space. That's just my two cents, though.

I see where you are coming from, but the issue I was trying to address is that the 3 IDs from the original thread:

- Unione Corse ID
- Bretonia Privateer ID
- Outcast ID

They list the Gallic Borderworlds in their ZoI. Without that being defined in the Server Rules, it makes raiding with those IDs a legal grey area.

That is why I was suggesting that the IDs be modified:

My recommendation is that the verbiage be changed to Gallic House Controlled Space and Gallic House Outer Regions.

It would preclude needing to define the Gallic Borderworlds in the rules while definitively stating acceptable ZoI.