(07-31-2017, 10:59 PM)WPeregrine Wrote: I understand the first part of your reasoning, that one of the sides cannot claim sole ownership of the whole endeavour. However, that does not make the ships "not their own". They are also "theirs", but not solely theirs. Since APM currently produces for both BHG and Core, it means that there is one source and two providers of the ships.
Yes, and that source needs to be treated as a third party rather than being roleplayed by one of the factions. It would be like the Outcasts claiming the Borderworlds line as their own because they were the only ones (maybe the Hessians did too, my memory is hazy here), who used the Sabre in vanilla.
(07-31-2017, 10:59 PM)WPeregrine Wrote: I understand it could be seen as a conflict of interpretation of Faction Right 6, as it is the same ships, but overseen by two different IDs. Approval by one of the sides would nullify the refusal of the second party regarding the third party usage, which is odd if they're separate entities and not two sides of the same ID.
If the split will benefit the roleplay of both BHG and Core regarding their technology and third party usage, then by all means, help them work better in their lore.
We'd be happy to help them integrate it into their lore better if they would come talk to us.
(07-31-2017, 10:59 PM)WPeregrine Wrote: Back to a previous question: why would the split suddenly create a 90% incompatibility between BHG and Core series of ships?
It probably wouldn't, but that's up to the admin team to decide. I honestly just wanted to give the Core incentive to provide us with that tech list, which we've of course yet to receive.
(07-31-2017, 10:59 PM)WPeregrine Wrote: Question 2: what would prevent Core from issuing a bounty on deviant Core assets, and BHG picking it up? (assuming that is the main issue behind this change)
No, the main issue is the Core's distribution of BHG technology. They do not have the right to do so.
